Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned I was replying to the contribution made here by the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to point out that we could possibly be a little more precise in our formulations. But I think it is an accepted fact that the classical capitalistic system no longer exists anywhere. Consequently when we speak of an economic system of free enterprise, built on the initiative of the private sector, this naturally means that the economy must be as free as possible. Therefore it also means that, if we want to ensure the future of this system, we shall in the first place have to ensure that there are equal bargaining opportunities. When it so happens, as a result of the nature of the population structure, that there cannot always be equal bargaining, it remains the responsibility of the State to exercise a regulatory function in this respect.

In the second place it is a fact that, while on the one hand we want to ensure by means of this legislation that competition will, in fact, occur in full and that the impediments to competition will be removed, this is consequently one of the steps which we take in order to ensure that any inequality in the bargaining capacity is eliminated. After all, the concept of competition is fundamental to the system we adhere to in this country.

In the third place, I believe, the hon. member is aware that a whole series of laws have been passed by Parliament, laws which are geared, in view of the acceptance of the situation, to create even more mechanisms and methods which will enable us to take action against people who want to abuse the system or specific situations in it I believe that the hon. member will accept this when I say that, philosophically speaking, I endorse the fact that we adhere to this system, that it could and should be the best and most effective instrument to cause this country to grow, that it should be the instrument that has to enable us to increase the total national income and that as a result, an acceptable level of the division of such income could exist to a greater extent. Where we do this we are not excluding the other facets, viz. that we should also take corrective steps when abuses occur in the system, things which we regard as undesirable. In this respect I refer the hon. member to the legislation on trade practices, the legislation on price control, on the purchase and sale of land on instalments, the legislation on hire purchase or credit sales, etc. Consequently a wide spectrum of legislation exists which is in fact geared to preventing the continued existence of those malpractices. Of course, we must accept that inherent inequalities exist in our society. This is because we in South Africa have to deal with a population structure of which the constituent parts are situated on different levels of development. We are dealing with a population structure of which the constituent parts were introduced to an industrial environment and an industrialized society at different times. That is why I have no fault to find in our taking steps from time to time which will basically facilitate the elimination of the inequality. This can take two forms. On the one hand it may take a protective form, a form by which the specific groups are protected. On the other hand it can take another form. Fundamentally, however, it remains a fact that the State fulfils a regulatory function in our specific society. In the second place it is important for us to know that it is possible to decentralize political power in our country so that its separate subdivisions may control different instruments or institutions. On the other hand the economic system of this country is a unit and it functions as a unit. Nor does it function as a unit only within our country’s borders. To a large extent the economic system and the economic life of our own country are closely interwoven with the course of the economies of our neighbouring States and of Southern Africa as a whole. For that very reason I think South Africa faces a tremendously important task on the road ahead.

†Let me just conclude by saying, in the context of the Bill under discussion at the moment, that in order to achieve equal participation it is not sufficient only to promote competition, as we propose here. To achieve the wider objectives to which I have referred when discussing this Bill earlier, other measures, aimed at improving the ability of different communities to compete effectively, will continue to be necessary.

*If we want to achieve those objectives, other steps, apart from those contained in this legislation, will be necessary to enable us to do so. It could be said—in fact, it is being said—that this legislation represents State interference in the economy. The Government, on the one hand, maintains that this State interference in the economy will decrease to an absolute minimum. But I want to state at once that I do not believe that the Government’s declared policy in this regard is inconsistent with the legislation we are proposing, because I maintain that there are valid reasons for our having to take certain steps in given circumstances, and that they are, in fact, aimed at the elimination of the factors impeding the effective functioning of the economic system we adhere to, and to which we are attached. In this regard I just want to say that monopolistic conditions, restrictive business practices and the formation of economic power blocks frequently deprive us of many of the benefits which we should all like to see in the free market system. Consequently the legislation is fundamentally geared to the prevention of the hampering effects of such conditions and practices when they occur for the first time, or to eliminate them if they already exist. In my opinion this is a far less harmful way to counteract those consequences than a more direct form of intervention for which there would otherwise be a demand. By promoting effective competition and opposing the formation of economic power blocs, as far as this may be harmful, in the way which is stipulated in this legislation, this would, in fact, facilitate the prevention, elimination or reduction of State intervention in other fields.

I want to refer quickly to the hon. member for Von Brandis now. He referred to the question of listed companies which are no longer listed on the Stock Exchange. We are aware of the fact that there are approximately 530 listed companies on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. We are also aware of the fact that companies lose their listing for various reasons from time to time. I actually want to emphasize that I share the ideas of the hon. member, but it is essential for South Africa to be competitive, too, particularly in the export market and in the export trade. It can only be this if its cost structures are such that it enjoys an advantage in terms of prices and quality. This means that on the one hand we should derive the benefits of the economies of scale so that we can lower our unit costs and in that way be more competitive. On the other hand I am of the opinion that it is our responsibility to ensure that there is place in our economic life for the smaller businessman, too, and for specialized undertakings. That is why we spend many funds on this specific division of our responsibility. The Small Business Advisory Bureau at Potchefstroom is doing a great job of work. I do not think we are always aware of the number of small business enterprises in South Africa. It may be interesting to the hon. member to know—as well as other hon. members who discussed this—that there are 52 149 small business enterprises in South Africa. These small business enterprises represent 33 417 one-man business enterprises, 3 663 partnerships and 11 631 private companies. Therefore it is quite interesting that we, in spite of the fact that our problems relate to the formation of larger groups, still have a large number of enterprises which still comply with the definition of “small businessman” and that the total value of the retail turnover of these businessmen amounts to R3 715 million per annum. I want to say at once that this comprises a relatively large part of our total turnover. This demonstrates two things. Firstly, that there is still place for this in our economic life and secondly that the Government is taking positive steps to promote this.

Various hon. members made interesting contributions and in the course of my reply before the debate was adjourned, I referred to their meaningful contributions. Consequently I do not want to take these further today, except to mention two things. The first is the question of productivity. In this regard I refer specifically to the speech by the hon. member for Pinetown in which he advocated increased efficiency and increased productivity. He asked me whether it was not possible to establish a national body to deal with this particular facet. In the second place he asked, if this was not possible, whether we could not convert the existing National Productivity Institute into such a body.

Together with the hon. member I want to emphasize that this is one of the essential elements in our economic growth or prosperity in the local as well in the export markets of the world. Consequently I have no quarrel with the hon. member on this score.

Perhaps it would be interesting if I were to refer to the terms of reference of the National Productivity Board as it exists today and is responsible for the institute itself. They are to institute an investigation, within the framework of the economic and social policy of this Government itself, into any aspect influencing the productivity of the national structure and with that, the welfare of the entire population. A work unit, the National Productivity Institute to be specific, was established to carry out the work programme and the policy decisions of this board. It is interesting to note in this regard that most bodies and groups directly interested in increased productivity, are represented on this board. Three individuals have also been appointed owing to their special knowledge of productivity matters. The chairman of the board is Dr. Kleu who is at the same time chairman of the Board of Trade and Industry.

The advisory board is not a statutory body and may, therefore, not control funds or appoint staff. That is why the NPI initially functioned under the auspices of an existing statutory body, viz. the SABS. The institute is entirely responsible to the National Productivity Advisory Board and only has the capacity to be able to do administrative services as well as to be incorporated with the SABS. The institute is financed by the State and is dependent on Parliament for its budget. As a result of this Parliament has final control over the institute.

On 1 April 1976, however, the institute became an incorporated association not for gain in terms of section 21 of the Companies Act, 1973, with its own board of directors. The board of directors is chosen from members of the Productivity Advisory Board. It is still partially financed by the State and reports to Parliament, as in the past. Similar organizations are managed and organized quite successfully in this way throughout the world. It is interesting to note that the professional staff already numbers 37, which ensures excellent progress. The work being done by the institute is valued highly throughout the world, to such an extent in fact that a similar institute in the USA asked one of our professional officers to work for them for a few years, in the field of publicity in particular.

I conclude by saying that rationalization has taken place, inter alia, with regard to transport and delivery. I can point out to the hon. member that the five enterprises in the baking industry in the Cape have made deliveries every day in Greater Cape Town. Of their own accord, however, they agreed to divide the area into areas with the result that the products of no more than two enterprises are being delivered in any one area at any one time. Newspaper industries also reached an agreement with each other concerning the joint delivery of newspapers. Occasionally I consider this to be an unholy alliance but I shall leave it at that for the moment.

I thank hon. members for their contributions as well as for the spirit in which this debate has taken place.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Sir, I fully realize the implications and the scope of the legislation, and I request hon. members’ understanding for the objectives we should like to achieve with this legislation. I also request the understanding of the institutions in our society which will have to be regulated as a result of this legislation. I should be neglecting my duty if I did not discuss the basic background and implementation of this legislation in greater detail than usual.

I think hon. members will agree with me that the amending Bill which we are now considering concerns a product which is of the greatest strategic value and importance to us in South Africa, a product in respect of which we are vulnerable if we do not take the necessary steps to reduce or eliminate our vulnerability. It is known that the restrictions presently imposed by many oil-producing countries on the free supply of crude oil and petroleum products to South Africa must be seen as an important component of the total onslaught on South Africa in the political, economic, military and psychological fields. In the light of the fact that it is a component of the total onslaught on us, I want to motivate the introduction of this amending Bill.

For a country to use its economy as a power base or as a lever for achieving its political, military or other strategic objectives is not only typical of the times in which we live. It is also a practice which can to a greater or lesser extent be found in the history of some decades ago. I do not want to bore hon. members with details in this particular connection, but I just want to mention briefly that as the competition between East and West, and what they represent, and the confrontation between rich and poor countries has become more subtle and assumed more sophisticated forms, especially since the Second World War, the use of economic power will play an increasingly important part in the methods used by countries in the future to achieve their international aims in the political sphere and elsewhere. Under these circumstances, I believe, we have a special responsibility.

South Africa is ineluctably involved in the struggle between East and West, in a very special sense, i.e. because South Africa possesses important raw materials, such as base metals and primary products, which the economies of the industrial countries of Western Europe need for their survival. In this respect, the fact that we are richly endowed with raw materials holds a definite advantage for us. On the other hand, it is also true that the East, and more specifically Soviet Russia and its satellites, see the acquisition of control over these raw materials as an important step in obtaining a stranglehold on the powerful economies of the world. This has begun to enjoy higher priority than warfare or conventional wars. We also know that the supposed grievances harboured by some African States against South Africa offer the Soviet Union the pretext to intervene in Southern Africa in order to achieve its objective, i.e. to obtain control over the raw materials of Southern Africa, which are an important prerequisite for the survival of Western Europe. Therefore our rich resources of raw materials, which arc a source of power to us on the one hand, arc at the same time the reason why we find ourselves at the centre of the power struggle between East and West, at the centre of the confrontation between the rich countries in the northern hemisphere and their former colonies in the southern hemisphere.

†While the international onslaught on South Africa has already been planned over many decades, it became more apparent during the past number of years that our enemies were actively planning to make use of coercive economic measures to force us to make certain changes in our internal political and social dispensation on the one hand and on the other hand to gain an advantage in the international struggle for power. Under the leadership of the United Nations and para political front organizations, for example the international trade union movements of both the East and the West, foreign church groups and many other organizations and individuals, unparalleled efforts are being made at present to undermine South Africa’s economy in various ways. Hitherto it has not been possible to implement mandatory economic sanctions on the strength of a formal resolution by the Security Council of the United Nations.

Accordingly, a new dimension has been given to this economic side of the onslaught on South Africa in that the aforementioned organizations are bringing heavy pressure to bear on the Governments of the countries which are our main trading partners, as well as on business undertakings in those countries, to apply certain punitive measures against South Africa.

In view of what I have said so far, it is obvious that, for the sake of its own survival, South Africa has to analyse this economic onslaught on the country very carefully and that the Republic has to prepare an effective counter-strategy to stave off the onslaught or, if this should prove impossible, to limit the impact thereof on the South African economy to a minimum.

*The measures contained in this amending Bill must be seen as an important component of the total strategy which South Africa has to apply to safeguard its position against the total onslaught to which it is now being subjected.

Clause 1:

As hon. members may know, it is intended to make regulations shortly in terms of the Petroleum Products Act, 1977, which will establish control over the utilization and rerefining of used lubricating oil, but the Government law advisers believe that the Minister of Economic Affairs should be more explicitly authorized to do so—this is being proposed in clause 1 of the amending Bill— otherwise the validity of such regulations could perhaps be questioned.

†Clauses 2 and 5:

Hon. members are aware of the fact that since the end of last year there has been a severe imbalance in the demand for and the supply of crude oil and petroleum products on the international markets and that this situation still prevails today. It is therefore difficult at present for all oil-importing countries to secure sufficient supplies at reasonable prices and especially to negotiate such supplies on a long-term basis.

In this regard I accordingly requested most of our newspaper editors to meet me during the first week of February 1979, on which occasion I informed them confidentially of the present situation and impressed upon them the necessity that newspaper reports regarding the procurement and supply of petroleum to South Africa should at all times be handled with the greatest circumspection. Although the editors present accepted my good intentions, I regret that despite their assurances of co-operation a number of reports, jeopardizing our position, has been published of alleged negotiations for supply contracts for South Africa. Editorials have also been published criticizing me for not informing the public in more detail, while I had already explained why it was not possible to inform the general public without at the same time informing the people who wanted to take economic measures against our country. In the light of my discussions I had no alternative but to inform the NPU that I shall have to seek legal powers to regulate in discretionary reporting on matters referred to in clause 2 of this Bill. I have also made a public statement in this regard. In the present circumstances it would obviously be irresponsible if the Government, and I in particular, were to allow newspaper reporting which would endanger our present and possible future lines of supply.

In the course of my consultations with the oil industry and the NPU I have given the assurance that, despite the prohibition, standing exemption in terms of the provisions of the proposed section 4A will be granted to enable the oil industry to operate efficiently and the news media to report on all matters which will not detrimentally affect matters such as the procurement, supply, shipping and stockpiling of petroleum products. Members will note that the provisions of the proposed section 4A are similar to those of section 118 of the Defence Act, 1957—Act 44 of 1957—and I assume that they will appreciate that the objectives of both these measures are of equal importance from a security point of view. For this reason also the proposed penalty in clause 5, viz. a maximum fine of R7 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years, or both, will place the penalties for offences in terms of these two measures on a par.

*Clauses 3 and 4:

Mr. Speaker, section 9 of the existing Act already contains a presumption that the accused has used fuel for the performance of an act which constitutes a contravention in terms of the Act. Because of a technicality, many offenders have nevertheless secured their acquittal by advancing that other factors, such as the slope of the road or the wind, played a part in a contravention of the prescribed speed limits.

The proposed amendment seeks to provide that in those cases where an accused advances this technical defence, he will in future be required to furnish proof, and not only to show the existence of reasonable doubt, in his attempt to convince the court that other factors also contributed to the performance of the contravention.

In terms of the State Oil Fund Amendment Act, which was piloted through Parliament earlier this year, the establishment of an Equalization Fund was approved, a fund which is to be used for financing the difference between Opec prices and those South Africa has to pay for the purchase of crude oil in the open market. The Government has now agreed that fines imposed for contraventions of the speed limit in terms of the fuel conservation measures taken under the Petroleum Products Act may be paid into the Equalization Fund—I do not say “must”, because this is a matter we have to negotiate with the respective administrators. The amendment of section 11 of the Act, as proposed in clause 4, confers the necessary powers upon the Minister to make such an arrangement in consultation with the Minister of Finance. I want to confirm that any arrangements in this connection which can be made in terms of these powers will be made by way of negotiation with the provincial administrations.

Clauses 6 and 7:

Clause 6 contains a consequential amendment to the existing long title of the Act and clause 7 contains the short title of the amending Bill.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that before introducing the Bill—and this also applies to the Bill concerning national supplies, which we shall debate at a later stage— I made a copy of the Bill available to the NPU, so that they could study it and comment upon it. After the introduction of the Bill, the NPU requested that the Bill be amended to exclude the member publications of the NPU from the provisions of the Bill, saying that an agreement could then be entered into in order to regulate reporting on this matter by members of the NPU. I seriously considered this proposal, but it was not possible to accept it. With the approval of the Government, however, I have agreed that the Bill be amended to provide for exemption from the provisions of the Bill by way of an agreement. This amendment, as printed on the Order Paper, has been formulated in consultation with the NPU.

Mr. Speaker, since the main provision of this Bill is to deal with the ability of the Press or other media of information to publish information about oil supplies in South Africa, we have obviously looked at this Bill with a good deal of anxiety from two points of view. The first is that quite clearly South Africa’s oil procurement situation is such that it requires the greatest vigilance, the greatest care, and is a matter of the deepest concern. That is one obvious conclusion that one has to draw from the legislation which is before us. The other issue is the freedom of the Press. There have been various suggestions of late that the freedom of the Press should in various respects be limited. This has created a wide area of sensitivity in regard to the Press, its ability to report, its relationships with the Government and vis-à-vis the public in regard to sensitive strategic matters.

It is therefore not difficult to come to an easy conclusion about this Bill. However, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that after a very close examination of the background, the motivation, the purposes and the construction of the Bill, we are satisfied that its object, whatever its by-products may be, is not to restrict the Press. The purpose of this Bill is essentially to safeguard South Africa’s supply of petroleum products. I do not need to repeat what I said at greater length during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. We are deeply aware of and deeply concerned about the difficulties in relation to the procurement of petroleum supplies for South Africa. I think there is no question that the situation which exists is in fact a critical one, that it demands the greatest care and the greatest caution in the publication of any statement or disclosure of any information which might jeopardize the continuation of the safe delivery of oil supplies. It is quite obvious, therefore that the purpose of this Bill has got to do with this latter object and is not in itself a Bill designed to restrict the freedom of the Press. But, unhappily and inevitably, a Bill of this nature, which depends for its effectiveness on imposing some restrictions on the transmission of information, will include in its prohibitions some limitation on the ability of the Press to publish information about these strategically sensitive matters. The inhibition, the limitation, falls not only on the Press, but upon everybody in the country. Therefore I believe that we have to consider whether prohibitions which are so wide, are fully justified. One would accept that it is very difficult to draw a line between one form of conduct and another form of conduct, both of which may disclose some or other kind of information about oil supplies to South Africa. If one looks at the proposed section 4A, which is intended to be an alleviation of file restrictions in the Bill, one can see that it also relates to “the source, manufacture, transportation, destination, storage, quantity or stock level”, etc., as well as to details of negotiation.

This is a very wide range of prohibitions. In this regard one thinks for example of the Atomic Energy Act, where a similar degree of sensitivity exists and where it was found possible, in order to meet the requirements of shareholders’ investments in the gold and uranium industry in South Africa to allow the publication of certain kinds of information in regard to production, grades, working costs, etc., while other kinds of information were being prohibited. No such attempt is being made in this Bill. Yet I believe it is something that requires careful investigation. Sir, it is obviously easier to prohibit everything in sight, to sweep everything under the carpet. In the case of the Atomic Energy Act, however, it was found productive and useful that certain classes of information relating to the sensitive strategic material uranium, should in fact be permitted in order that the industry could be strengthened and confidence and investment be maintained. Other elements of the equation were concealed, prohibited, so that an enemy of South Africa, hoping to do harm to South Africa through the acquisition of certain information, or by the exploitation of certain information, would in fact be unable to make up the whole of the equation on the limited information that was allowed for publication. In other words, by a careful examination one might find a way of allowing the greatest possible range of information which is not sensitive in itself and at the same time limiting the prohibition to those items that could in fact be truly harmful in the hands of an enemy. I believe that such a distinction may be possible. I was involved in trying to draw such a distinction in the case of uranium. I know less about the petroleum industry; so I cannot offer the hon. the Minister any ready-made guidance on this subject. However, I think the idea is worth pursuing. Why? I believe that we in this country have had lessons which, whatever our respective party political views might be, should not be forgotten. One of these lessons is that corruption, the misuse of public funds, always lurks behind the door. The price of good and honest administration is eternal vigilance. We cannot ever afford to relax our vigilance. The most important part of that vigilance is the role played by a free Press.

I therefore believe that we should as far as possible look very carefully at this legislation—we shall take the first opportunity to do so during the Committee Stage—to see whether there is any way in which we can assist the Press to do its duty and in which we might be able to assist the hon. the Minister to co-operate and to liaise more freely with the Press by creating an area of legitimate information as a safeguard against corruption, against the misuse of secrecy, while at the same time safeguarding those elements of the equation which could be of a real advantage to our enemies. It is indeed a difficult distinction to draw, but I believe the efforts will be well worthwhile because we are dealing with two important matters. The one, as I have said, is the protection of our oil supplies. The other is the protection of the system of free investigation in this country as a safeguard against corruption. I believe that if we can reconcile these two things, we shall have done well.

I think that the hon. the Minister, in drafting his amendment to the Bill, has improved the Bill. I believe that it may be possible to make even further improvements. By and large it seems to me that the purpose of the amendment is to allow the Press, or a section of the Press, or certain organs of information or certain media to be exempted from the very explicit prohibitions contained in the Bill, and to come to an understanding with them. We would have liked to see precisely what kind of agreement this would be, because then we could have agreed with a readier mind and a readier conscience to the passage of this Bill. However, having examined the problem at some length and with some anxiety, one is forced to realize that there are a number of unpredictable and a number of indefinable in the situation and that it is therefore not possible to lay down precisely in advance how best the sharing of information with the Press can be achieved. I have already dealt with this in an earlier part of my speech and I shall therefore not labour the point, except to emphasize once again— and I am sure the hon. the Minister will go a long way with me—that it is all very well to protect the security of the State by a total prohibition on the disclosure of information, but that brings corresponding dangers not just to individuals, but also to the State. The State must somehow maintain an even-handedness, a balance in these matters, which will allow it, as far as possible, to achieve both objectives.

If these were times of unqualified peace, we might be even less readily persuaded about the need to impose these restrictions. But we have to accept that there is already an active boycott of South Africa in respect of petroleum products. There are already, if you like, partial sanctions, partial in the sense that they are imposed by some people and not by others. However, they are imposed effectively by those who produce the most oil. Therefore we are dealing with a very real and strategically dangerous situation.

In the circumstances we cannot advance ordinary peace-time arguments. We believe that we have to be realistic and accept the special condition which exists. We are therefore going to support the Second Reading of the Bill, while reserving the-right to try to bring about such improvements as we may be able to bring about during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia adopted a very responsible attitude to this Bill. The hon. member said that this was a very sensitive matter. The fact that this is true, also means that one could affect other sensitive matters in the process, such as the Press, amongst other things. The hon. member also said that the Government and the hon. the Minister should adopt a balanced approach. I have the fullest confidence that the hon. the Minister indeed has such an approach.

The hon. member for Constantia compared the Bill to certain provisions contained in the legislation regarding the Atomic Energy Board, viz. that certain information should indeed be made available. That is extremely difficult, however, and I also think that the hon. member did not attempt to specify some of these sensitive or specific matters relating to this highly strategic product in respect of which information can indeed be made available to the information media.

Clause 2 of the amendment Bill is an enabling measure authorizing the Minister to determine it at his discretion. Therefore, the responsibility regarding balanced behaviour towards the Press in respect of these sensitive matters is in the hands of the hon. the Minister and other hon. members and I may from time to time judge the actions of the Minister.

I should like, however, to elaborate upon the aspect of the highly strategic position in which South Africa finds itself in respect of oil products. It is a well-known fact that the Opec countries have succeeded in turning oil into a powerful economic and political weapon in the Western world. The economic and political effects of this powerful weapon which is used by the Opec countries, are well known throughout the world. Therefore it is surely essential that we regard this product as a highly strategic one. When one is dealing with the source, manufacture, storage, etc., of a highly strategic product, one has to include certain measures relating to secrecy and confidentiality into that process. Exactly the same principle we find in the Defence Act, applies here, because we are dealing with a weapon on a different terrain. Therefore, there has to be a certain degree of secrecy and confidentiality.

I want to agree with the hon. member for Constantia. I do not think we should regard the Bill as being aimed against the Press, for in the nature of the matter the Press is not informed as to how this highly strategic product has to be handled. Nor do I think that one can always be sure, as far as the Press itself is concerned, that they will deal with this matter correctly. Therefore it is essential that the hon. the Minister must be given this kind of legal authorization.

Allow me to point out one aspect of the importance of petroleum products in South Africa. When one looks at the total dependence of people in South Africa on petroleum products as a source of energy, it is obvious that we are dependent on petroleum products for approximately 20% to 25% of our energy sources. When one regards the matter in general, it does not seem too serious. I want to refer to one important aspect, however, one particular facet of our economy, viz. agriculture. When we look at agriculture, the situation is totally different Agriculture depends on petroleum products for more than 80% of its energy, particularly on the terrain of agronomy. Therefore, if we in South Africa were to encounter the situation in which we would be compelled to introduce rationing measures to govern our oil supply, stringent and drastic rationing measures, it would definitely have to be at the expense of other sectors of our economy, for example, transport. After all, transport is a very important sector of our economy.

Diesel fuel is of the utmost importance in keeping agricultural production going in the country. After all, agricultural production is concerned with providing food to South Africa. We should not, therefore, underestimate our particular strategic position in South Africa, particularly in regard to the provision of food. We are indeed privileged to possess extensive strategic resources and mineral resources such as coal. However, we do not have the money or the ability to erect new Sasol installations quickly enough to be able to fulfil our needs timeously if certain sanctions or boycott measures were to be applied against South Africa.

I should therefore like to welcome this envisaged legislation wholeheartedly. I also assume that this legislation will give the hon. the Minister the necessary authority to enable him to exercise control over the circulation of certain information and over certain activities in regard to the development and manufacture of fuel out of coal. The development, and especially the extension, of Sasol 2 is receiving international attention at present. The interest of the public media is naturally very much concentrated upon the development of one of the biggest projects ever tackled in South Africa. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to use his powers in this respect with a great deal of care too, in order to see to it that information in respect of this matter is properly controlled, so that its distribution will not be to the detriment of South Africa. It gives me great pleasure to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will be supporting this Bill. We agree with the hon. the Minister when he says that petroleum has the most strategic value of any product that we require to operate our economy, our industry and our agriculture. I think that recent history shows us that this is also the case with most other nations in the world, even those that are not under the pressure South Africa is under from her enemies outside. There were recent Press reports to the effect that New Zealand now has serious problems as far as procuring oil supplies is concerned. I heard on the radio the other morning, direct from New Zealand, that rationing is being imposed in certain areas. We have also read about what is happening in the United States. In the State of California rationing is also being imposed upon the people. These are nations, as I have said, which are not under the pressure which South Africa is subject to today. I therefore think that it should be quite clear to all South Africans that South Africa has to be very careful indeed to ensure that there are sufficient supplies of oil and petroleum products available to us, especially to maintain our agricultural and industrial output.

We have been led to believe that unfortunate situations arise in negotiating oil supplies. It is said that in her negotiations South Africa’s position has possibly been undermined by Press reports, rumours and announcements which have caused people who want to trade with South Africa to withdraw from the negotiations because of their fear that this publicity will result in sanctions being imposed upon them, or that their ships will be embargoed or perhaps for other similar reasons. Therefore we in the NRP will accept that South Africa’s dealings with its oil suppliers do require secrecy, if I may call it that, to ensure that South Africa is protected in this particular regard. I agree with the hon. member for Constantia that this Bill has not been designed to restrict the Press as such. I think we should rather look upon it as a Bill which is designed to protect South Africa, and by that I mean all the peoples within South Africa.

Last year I had the opportunity of visiting the United Kingdom, and in London I attended a meeting organized to promote the oil boycott against Rhodesia and South Africa. I heard what was being said there by the enemies of South Africa to whom the hon. the Minister has referred. I think this is a very real problem we are facing, and I think South Africans should take note of it. Therefore, as I have said, we in the NRP are very sympathetic towards the hon. the Minister’s endeavours in this particular regard. I must add, however, that the principal Act, along with other Acts, contains many powers designed to secure South Africa’s supply of strategic commodities. These Acts give the hon. the Minister an awful lot of power. Yet looking at this, we find that there is no real Parliamentary control over it. I hope the hon. the Minister will accept what I am going to say now in the spirit in which I am saying it. We feel that because there is no real Parliamentary control and because we know—as the hon. member for Constantia has said— from recent events that we should all be forever vigilant, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not feel that the time has possibly come for a special Select Committee of Parliament to be set up to oversee the activities of certain agencies that are covered by the principal Act, amongst others. We in the NRP are most grateful for the opportunity which he and his department have given us, in recent times, to visit various strategically important installations in South Africa. I am referring to places like Sasolburg, various Escom projects, etc.

And others.

Yes, among others. Let me repeat that we do appreciate this opportunity, and I do believe that this is indicative of the hon. the Minister’s good intentions in this regard. We certainly welcome it. However, in the light of past history and the growth of this type of legislation, it is not possible that the time has come for a special Select Committee to look into these matters? Perhaps the Minister will give me an answer to this when he replies to the debate.

A very reasonable request.

I think the hon. member for Durban North is correct. This is not an unreasonable request. It is made in the best interests of parliamentary control and in the best interests of the public of South Africa as a whole.

As far as the Bill itself is concerned, there are one or two points to which I should like to refer. In terms of clause 1 the Minister will have the power to impose certain duties upon certain users of petroleum products and in the light thereof I should like to ask him whether he has considered the effect this may have on the agricultural industry. Does he intend imposing certain of the envisaged duties upon the agricultural sector? Has he already discussed this with the S.A. Agricultural Union? I sincerely hope that he will answer in this particular regard.

Relating to the use of oil.

Yes, relating to the use of oil, because that is the whole point. Clause 1 refers to the use of oil by various users and it confers upon the Minister the power to impose certain duties upon those users, possibly for example the collecting of old used oil for further use and so on. I wondered whether this would also apply to the agricultural community.

There are one or two other points which I should like to raise, but I think I should rather do so during the Committee Stage. We take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasant for me to be able to participate in the debate after the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and to agree with him, by way of exception, as far as the legislation is concerned.

I listened attentively to the introductory speech by the hon. the Minister and to summarize, I may say that it seems to me as if South Africa has been placed in the position—we have pushed in that direction— where, if we regard the matter analytically, what it amounts to is that if we had this type of action against us in the past, or even if any country in the world had experienced this type of action against it, it could have been regarded on a conventional basis as an act tantamount to a declaration of war. I therefore want to state, like the hon. the Minister, that with the more subtle action taken against countries and the more sophisticated way in which a country is reacted against, which we are experiencing at present, we could arrive at the situation today that petroleum products will no longer be delivered on an official basis. As far as we are concerned, it has indeed happened, due to the actions of other countries, that there is no country, without exception, as far as I know, which is prepared to provide us with petroleum products on an official basis. One could therefore suggest that those countries have declared war against us in an unconventional way. If one accepts that, one also has to accept, as the hon. members for Amanzimtoti and Constantia said, that we should apply unconventional methods to combat such action against us and its effects.

In this regard, one can delve into the past to ascertain the situation in which our country found itself during the Second World War. In those days, it was necessary to issue certain emergency war measures in order to control reporting and publication so that the country would not suffer harm. I should like to refer to a few of those measures. I quote from War Measures, Volume III, page 23, subparagraph (4)—

Such films or film advertisements were prohibited in order to afford the Government sufficient security.

Furthermore, I may refer to Volume I, page 163, where the distribution of subversive statements is dealt with—

There was a tremendous number of measures to safeguard the country against harmful reporting. As the hon. the Minister told us, he met the editors of various newspapers during the first week in February of this year, told them that the situation was critical and pointed out to them that it was essential that newspapers be extremely careful in regard to information on the procurement and supply position of petroleum products in South Africa. Although the editors of the various newspapers accepted this and expressed their good intentions, it occurred that, in spite of file assurance given to the hon. the Minister, a number of reports were in fact published which harmed the position of South Africa in respect of petroleum products. As far as I am concerned, that is the essence of this legislation and the reason why it is necessary that the hon. the Minister should have the power and that the various newspapers should not simply be allowed to report freely about this subject. The hon. member for Constantia also specifically pointed out that the amendment which the hon. the Minister is going to move, will satisfy him. I think it should satisfy all of us because, if that amendment is accepted, an agreement can be reached with newspapers that are regarded as being sufficiently responsible, an agreement in terms of which they will be allowed to write reports freely in this regard. I believe, however, that the authority to decide on that, should remain with the Minister, because he is the only person who is able to assess the situation as a whole.

I just want to point out that in spite of all the good intentions the Press may have, they themselves could experience two problems. In the first place, it may happen that an injudicious section of the Press, in spite of all the good intentions, could publish facts which could have a detrimental effect on the total position. What is even more important—in fact, to me that is where the danger lies—is that, because the Press does not have the total picture and does not have all the facts at its disposal, it may publish isolated individual aspects or facts they get to know of, facts which, although they do not seem dangerous as such, could perhaps have a very serious negative effect in regard to the whole, in spite of all good intentions. Therefore I believe that it is necessary that the Minister who has all the facts at his disposal, is the person who should have that authority in his hands.

Clause 4 of the Bill, which amends section 11 of the principal Act, opens a door in so far as it makes provision for enabling the Minister to direct from time to time that moneys recovered by way of fines under this legislation, can be paid into either a provincial fund or the Equalization Fund, in terms of an agreement with the administrator of the province in which the offence took place. I want to welcome that principle. In fact, I want to state that that is a principle we should perhaps long ago have considered introducing into our legislation. Since the situation of 1973 arose, there has been a revival of patriotism such as the people have not experienced for a long time. However, man is weak; he has feet of clay. Consequently, everyone of us unobtrusively attempted to evade these regulations and not to save petrol as we should. If the fines are paid over to the Equalization Fund, however, and not to the local authorities, I believe this will make a major contribution towards removing the stigma which at present attaches to traffic fines. It is known and it is often alleged that certain local authorities in fact use traffic fines to balance their annual budget to a certain extent I think that basically we should accept that that forms a part of the budgeting pattern, but it is wrong when they enter a figure into the budget over and above the normal amounts earned by traffic fines, which the traffic officials have to try to achieve. This practice has become familiar in South Africa and it has become an accepted approach.

In consequence of this, there is nowadays a stigma attached to payment of a fine for a traffic violation, and this has in fact had a damaging effect on the revival of patriotism which was originally experienced as a result of the appeal to save petrol, due to this negative factor which has entered the picture. I believe that it will be of great help if that can be corrected now. I think that, even if the hon. the Minister has of necessity to replace the amount which is paid over to local authorities by another fund or amount, this could still make a big contribution towards promoting our saving campaign. Therefore I want to make a strong plea for this and I accept the principle with great pleasure. I am pleased that all hon. members accept this Bill in principle and I trust that the hon. the Minister will find it expedient to give attention to my final request.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vasco discussed certain matters on which we do not differ, and I shall also refer to some of these matters in passing. The hon. member spoke about the importance of oil products and in that regard there is no disagreement among hon. members either.

†The hon. the Minister stressed the strategic importance of South Africa and the total onslaught against this country. It is obvious that we have to have measures to safeguard our position. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti has suggested, as I understood him, that a special Select Committee should be appointed to deal with these matters. I personally would prefer it if the Auditor-General would report in full on any malpractices, dishonesty or irregularities in the handling of the petroleum funds. The Select Committee on Public Accounts could then deal with those irregularities and related matters by a method whereby those aspects will not become public. I would think that the Select Committee on Public Accounts would be able to receive such a report from the Auditor-General and deal with it in such a discreet manner that it would do no harm to any of the parties. The irregularity could be dealt with in this way and the hon. the Minister’s own position would be safeguarded from that point of view. That is why I suggest to the hon. the Minister that the Auditor-General should report on this basis to the Select Committee on Public Accounts any irregularities in the use of the funds.

Petroleum products are the life blood of any country. There is the example of California where there is a shortage despite the fact that the USA is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, country in the world. Information relating to the source, manufacture, transportation, destination, storage and quantity and also negotiations with regard to petroleum products is highly sensitive information which affects the security of the State. If such information is published, countries hostile to South Africa can take steps detrimental to the interests of South Africa. If, for example, information is published on whom South Africa is negotiating with for oil, it is obvious that hostile countries will try to intercede and to disrupt those negotiations. Why present hostile countries with a golden opportunity of damaging South Africa’s position in the oil world? I should like to give an example of this. The USA has previously indicated that it will not hesitate to use oil as a stick with which to beat South Africa. I should like to quote an extract from the Sunday Times dated 22 May 1977. It concerns a statement by a leading American diplomat, Mr. Andy Young, who is also a close friend and colleague of Mr. McHenry.

He has got 17 friends in this House!

He is John Wiley’s uncle.

No, the hon. member cannot get away from the fact that Mr. Andy Young and Mr. McHenry are very close associates. [Interjections.] I am afraid the hon. member for Yeoville is wrong, as they are not related to Mr. Wiley.

They are. He is his uncle.

That is quite wrong. The hon. member for Yeoville is trying to draw the attention away from the fact that Mr. Andy Young and Mr. Don McHenry are very close associates. This is what Mr. Young had to say—

That was said as late as 22 May 1977. The choice is simple: Either one believes that national security in this matter is priority number one or our most confidential information must be publicized. How does publication promote the interests of South Africa? When the information is in any event public knowledge, then that is a different matter; some matters may be public knowledge all over the world. The public would obviously like to know where and from whom we obtain our petroleum products. The same public would rather forgo that information than have publication at the expense of South Africa’s security. Petroleum products, their procurement and publication in respect of them relate to the security of South Africa and one would think that this could not possibly be a matter on which there could be any difference between any of the hon. members in this House. If the choice lies between security and publication, we choose security and for that reason we shall not oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is such a large degree of unanimity in this House as regards this Bill that one has to be very careful not to repeat arguments which have already been advanced, but perhaps it will be a good thing to take a brief look, for the sake of the record, at the historical background of this fuel crisis which not only South Africa, but the whole of the Western World is experiencing.

In the publication The South African International of July 1978, Dr. Rossouw, the father of Sasol, wrote a very interesting article in which he made certain important statements. In that article, he says, inter alia, that oil is one of the most valuable and amazing raw materials with which man has been blessed, but that man’s handling of this raw material over the past 30 years has been heading for nothing less than a disaster for the Western world. He points out, inter alia, that the price of crude oil remained virtually constant between 1950 and 1973 and consequently had become a cheaper raw material in real terms during that period of 23 years. Dr. Rossouw says quite correctly that this raw material, which is such a convenient raw material, which emerges from the earth in such a pure form, which can be transported so easily, which can be used so easily and which yields such a tremendous number of by-products, became progressively cheaper in the West and virtually caused a kind of oil trance. As a result a whole oil culture developed. The whole Western mentality of the past 30 years was coloured by the fact that oil was constantly becoming cheaper. We entered the era of consumer spending, of waste and of the cult of disposability. In other words, even without the diminishing oil reserves and even without the situation that it is estimated that the physical availability of crude oil will gradually begin to disappear from the mideighties, the crisis of 1973 and thereafter would eventually have overtaken the West. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is also quite correct when he points out that South Africa certainly is not the only country in the world which has to contend with this crisis.

In fact, South Africa is perhaps one of the more fortunate countries in that its crisis is not so much a wider energy crisis, but largely a limited liquid fuel crisis. In fact, if one looks at the export situation of South African coal and at the position in respect of South African uranium, South Africa is probably, as far as energy as such is concerned, well on its way to becoming a net energy export country.

The fact remains, however, that the limited availability of oil and the tremendous growth in the relative use of oil in the West has aggravated the acute fuel shortage in South Africa, quite irrespective of the political considerations they are bringing to bear against South Africa. The effect of that on the utilization of coal, of which there are 25 times as many reserves in the world as of oil, was that the development of liquid fuel from coal had been sadly neglected in the rest of the Western World. South Africa is one of the few countries which started as long ago as 1920 to do something positive about the idea of manufacturing liquid fuel from coal. Therefore, in spite of the fact that this country has only between 4% and 5% of the total coal reserves of the world, in spite of the fact that the large coal reserves in the West are situated mainly in the Americas and in the communistic part of the world in China and Russia, and in spite of the fact that we are a small holder of coal, this country has found itself occupying a leading position in respect of the research into and the use of coal for the purposes of manufacturing liquid fuel.

Since the crisis has arisen for those reasons, it is obvious that fuel resources will have to be sought at a much faster rate in the rest of the Western World in any event, than in South Africa. The West has obviously become even more dependent on oil than South Africa has ever been. If we have to look at the way in which we are dealing with this crisis in South Africa, I think the fact that South Africa started Sasol as many as 40 or 50 years ago, also reflects the fact that the Government foresaw the crisis and took steps to overcome it in every sphere in good time.

The hon. the Minister said the legislation should simply be seen as part of our total strategy. There is probably no need to refer to all the other facets. We are searching for our own natural oil, we are doing research with regard to alternative fuel, and we are extending our own real manufacturing industry in respect of liquid fuel. These are only three of the means we are employing to deal with this crisis. We are dealing with the fourth one in this legislation, which literally means purely and simply that we have to keep quiet about the way in which we obtain our fuel supply. I do not want to deal with that in more detail; the hon. member for Vasco has already referred to it. The fifth aspect—and in this regard I want to make a small plea to the hon. the Minister—is the question of saving the fuel we do have.

In a study which was undertaken by an auxiliary committee of the Energy Policy Committee, under the heading “Beginsels van Energiebesparing”, about which I happened to read in Volkshandel and of which I obtained a copy subsequently, extremely enlightening particular are to be found which are of vital importance to every South African. I think it comes as a shock to any reader of that study when he discovers that 66% of all energy inputs goes to waste. It is unavoidable that some inputs go to waste, while it can be avoided that others go to waste. This study is, to my mind, a valuable piece of work and is of the utmost importance to every South African who has anything to do with liquid fuel at all, whether he is involved in the transport sector, in the industrial sector, or in every-day domestic activities. Therefore I found it rather amazing that it was possible for me to obtain only a single copy of this study. I think that a great deal of the research work which was done by this subcommittee, ought to be brought pointedly to the attention of all South Africans, on all levels of society. As the hon. the Minister correctly said, it is only when we face our total preparedness strategy, when we consider all the aspects, of which I have mentioned only five, that we shall really be able to deal effectively with this sort of crisis, which is facing the leaders of the Western World to a larger and more serious extent.

Mr. Speaker, I have very little fault to find with what the hon. member for Umlazi said. A lot of what he has had to say needs to be attended to by the public, particularly the aspects raised in the latter part of his speech. Before I speak on the main factors, the main principle of this matter, may I draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to one technical aspect, i.e. the amendment which he seeks in clause 4 of the Bill by introducing the words: “Any other person; or any fund established by any law …”. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister indicated …

What clause is that?

It is clause. 4 on page 4 of the Bill. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that the reason for this was—

I understand that completely in regard to the amendment that suggests that the payment may be made to any fund established by any law, but I have grave difficulty with the words “any other person”, because why should any person be paid that money? If the hon. the Minister would like that to pass through the House, it would need a little more explanation, because at the moment our inclination is that we support the second part of it, i.e. that it should be paid to any fund established by any law, as the hon. the Minister motivated it, but we have some difficulty in regard to the other aspect thereof. I hope the hon. the Minister will remove that difficulty for us when he replies to the Second Reading debate on the Bill.

To deal with the broad issue of the matter, I think it is important that the Minister should be given powers of a very wide nature, powers that are not normally given to a Minister in a democratic society in normal circumstances. The House is, I think, unanimous in this respect. The first point that I want to make to the hon. the Minister is that it actually places a far greater onus on him to exercise the powers with a far greater degree of responsibility than he would have to in other circumstances. Therefore he must see to it that he has a greater degree of accountability.

Secondly, by not opposing this measure the official Opposition are to some extent accepting joint responsibility for giving these powers to the hon. the Minister. Therefore the hon. the Minister should be aware of the fact that it demonstrates that we are showing a high degree of trust in him. In other words, the official Opposition is prepared to trust him with something which is in fact very precious to people who sit in these benches. So here again, he has a high degree of responsibility.

What one has to bear in mind, is how one then deals with a situation and account to people who want to share joint responsibility for giving him this power and show that degree of trust in him that he will exercise these powers correctly. How will one keep them informed?

I think that this becomes a very important issue. I am pleased that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti suggested it should be in the form of a Select Committee. Some mechanism has to be created so that that responsibility on the part of the hon. the Minister can be discharged to this House. We should like to hear what his suggestions are in relation to the matter. That degree of responsibility already exists in regard to defence matters and foreign affairs matters and it is now clearly also the case in regard to economic affairs. There is no question about that. Therefore, we need to deal with that issue. We cannot escape that.

The next point I would like to raise is that it is fairly clear that whereas the economy is now on the move and can be made to improve and whereas the natural resources of South Africa are there in order to achieve great things in the economy, the one question-mark that hangs over us is the question of politics, e.g. the question of South West Africa and of increasing pressures and sanctions. As other hon. members have pointed out already, we already have sanctions against South Africa. We have an arms boycott against South Africa; certain nations do not trade with us, and there are all sorts of actions which affect us adversely. I believe it would only be a fool who does not anticipate that this pressure is going to increase and that we have far more serious problems ahead. Similarly, it can only be someone who closes his eyes to reality who does not see the threat that exists in respect of oil as far as South Africa is concerned.

It is a tragedy that oil has become a weapon, and it is even more serious—not only for us, but for the West—that history has placed that weapon in the hands of a particular group of people, of nations. This should cause concern to the West and the world as a whole. However, that is the reality of the situation and we have to face that reality.

The point that worries me more than anything else is that I am not sure that the public is fully conscious of the threat that is posed. I am not sure that the man in the street is aware of the seriousness of this situation or is conscious of it. I think one of the most important requirements is that the public has got to understand what the problem is. They have to understand the seriousness of the situation and have to know that it is because of the seriousness of that situation that hon. members in the Opposition benches are prepared to give this kind of power to the hon. the Minister in these particular circumstances. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he is actually going to have to discharge two duties in relation to the publication of material. The first is to get the public to understand, as I have indicated, the nature of the problem that confronts the country and the way in which it has to be dealt with. Secondly, he will have to strike a delicate balance between what is necessary for a motivated public on the one hand and for the protection of the security of the country on the other. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that the public of South Africa will react better when they are taken into the Government’s confidence. Information is necessary for the public to make a judgment so that they can deal with the problem and have that degree of motivation which is necessary for it I believe that an uninformed community cannot be a motivated community. The South African public has to be informed and has to have a degree of knowledge. Even though it may not be a complete solution, and even though, as the hon. member for Von Brandis has pointed out, we will try to suggest other measures within the spirit of what we are trying to do here, we welcome the proposal that it may be possible to come to an agreement with the NPU in order to get the kind of information published which on the one hand can do no harm to the country and on the other hand can act as a motivating feature. Therefore, whereas in normal circumstances we in these benches are more than conscious of the right of the people to know, more than conscious of the rights of the Press, and more than concerned that there should be no inroads into the ordinary democratic liberty of the individual, we view this as a situation in which the national interest requires this delicate balance to be struck. On the one hand we cannot afford to publish information which will assist those who seek to harm our country. But on the other hand we do need an informed community. That is why we, on this side of the House have agreed to support the Bill at Second Reading. It is not merely non-opposition, but in fact also co-operation in order to bring about a measure which we believe will be in the national interest.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their contributions to the debate. They all showed an awareness of the reasons for the introduction of this legislation. I thank hon. members of all parties for having approached this subject, which is of enormous strategic importance to South Africa, in such a responsible way. If the pattern which unfolded here this afternoon with regard to the specific subject of this legislation could also be maintained in our discussion in other fields, we should be much better able to motivate the public outside to a new and total strategy, something which we urgently need in this country. In thanking hon. members, therefore, I really mean that I greatly appreciate their support of the Bill.

Where certain hon. members did have reservations about the formulation of legislation of this nature, I share those reservations. The fact is that under normal circumstances, one would not like to introduce legislation of this nature. I think that one continuous line of thought could be followed through the speeches of all hon. members. That was the emphasis that was laid on the fact that we are not living under normal circumstances, and because our circumstances are not normal, we cannot always handle the situation with normal or conventional methods.

The hon. member for Constantia, who is the chief spokesman of the official Opposition on energy matters, quite rightly approached the legislation in an analytical way. I think it is his duty to do so. Naturally, very different interpretations will be given by different people to the objectives of legislation of this nature. Some would describe this legislation as just another piece of legislation aimed at eroding the freedom of reporting. In fact, some people have already done so. I want to try to get away from the Press in this particular connection, because this legislation will not only affect the Press, but all media. It is therefore affects our radio services and SATV as well.

And the individual.

Yes, individuals as well. In the first place, as regards the regulating function of this legislation in respect of the publication of information, it is not a Press measure. In the second place, it is not a measure which is intended to inhibit freedom of publication. The basic aim of this legislation is to ensure, under abnormal circumstances, the supply of a strategic commodity to South Africa. The hon. member for Yeoville is quite right, of course, in saying that one can only expect a community to be motivated if it is informed. The fundamental dilemma with which we are faced here is how to carry out the responsibility we have to inform the community and to motivate the population without detracting from our other objective, i.e. not to inform our enemies as well and to prevent them from using these aspects as a bargaining lever to achieve political and other objectives. In this respect, the media have a special responsibility, in my opinion, and I think they can carry out that responsibility if we realize our responsibility as well, and by this I mean more specifically my own responsibility, and that is to keep the Press and other media continually informed. Even if information is disclosed to them on a confidential basis, they will be able—even if they cannot publish the information—nevertheless to encourage the public to co-operate because they can give the public the assurance that they at least have been informed and know that the Government has valid reasons for acting as it does. I think this represents an important component in our planning for the future.

There is a second statement which I feel I must make about the attitude of this side of the House. This side of the House has never tried to inhibit freedom, neither the freedom of the Press nor the freedom of the other media. [Interjections.] Please give me a chance. I have not finished my argument. What we basically want to inhibit is the abuse of privilege. My freedom as an individual can never outweigh my responsibility towards the community and the country in which I live. I concede at once that this is a delicate and sensitive field, and I concede that it is a field which cannot easily be defined with any exactitude. Because it cannot be exactly defined, I also concede that we shall not necessarily agree with one another at all times about the implementation or the meaning of specific steps and that we may disagree about where the line should be drawn. What I consider important, however—this really makes me feel grateful—is that we have been prepared in our debating this afternoon to adopt certain standpoints of principle, in spite of the sensitivity of the subject, or perhaps precisely because of it.

There is a second point which the hon. member raised in this connection, and here, too, I want to concede at once that he is right. The fields which can be controlled in terms of the legislation which is before the House are very wide.

†The hon. member referred to the restrictions that are imposed by the legislation we are discussing. I should like to use other terminology, if I may, because I do not wish to interpret the intent or objective of the legislation before us as restrictive. Let me rather suggest that the purpose of the legislation we are discussing is to find ways and means of having the media fulfil their function while I, for my part, meet my responsibilities in the position I hold as Minister of Economic Affairs. Therefore it is most important to understand that this is the first legislation ever introduced in this House—I may be wrong; I do not know—empowering a Minister to sign an agreement with groups of people or association exempting them from the provisions of the legislation. I think the bona fides of the Government in this regard is proved by the very fact that the Bill we are discussing now makes it possible for a Minister to enter into such an agreement I submit that this also serves as evidence of the attitude of this side of the House and of the Government. I personally believe that through a process of consultation we will be able to arrive at the situation where the Bill and its provisions will not be restrictive in the sense that that is the express purpose of the Bill, but in the sense that it offers a basis for cooperation between my departments and the media who wrote about this subject.

The hon. member also referred to the legislation relating to atomic energy and uranium. He is of course perfectly right in what he said. In terms of that legislation certain classes of information have been exempted from the terms of the legislation. I would submit that in this particular case, in the case of this Bill, it is more difficult to define such areas. What will happen in fact is that those areas will be defined by way of agreement. In this particular regard I want to submit again that that will be an on-going process rather than a single decision. That is, seriously, the spirit in which I personally have approached this matter and also the spirit in which I have discussed this matter with the Press. I suggest we should go on along those lines.

I concede the point that, when things are done confidentially, the chances are there that there could be abuses. For that reason I have, without reference to this legislation, already taken steps to ensure that the members of the House, members of all parties, will be informed of the energy situation. Let me say immediately that for that I do not require a Select Committee. Hon. members will remember that I have extended an invitation to them—which I wish to renew now—to discuss the energy position with me. I have no hesitation in divulging information in this connection to hon. members. I have already done so. I hope the hon. member will accept this assurance at this stage. Let me review the position again after the Bill has come into force. If there is then any reason for criticism, I will surely come back to the House with regard to this matter. Let me say quite categorically that I should like to share my responsibility in this matter with hon. members. The only limitation is that I do not wish to share it with the enemies of my country.

*The hon. member for Bethal apologized for not being able to be present. He has other obligations he has to meet He specifically referred to the strategic position of oil and also asked whether we would be able, by means of the power which this legislation would confer upon us, to control the expertise and technology of Sasol. I think the provisions are wide enough to enable us to control anything. However, I want to emphasize in general that I do not want to exercise any unnecessary control. I just want to identify a specific sensitive area here.

The hon. member also referred to agriculture. In this connection he raised a very important matter, and we shall have to give attention to it. He pointed out that although it was true that we were much more fortunate in respect of our total energy requirements than most other countries, it remained a fact that certain sectors and industries in our economy were more dependent in this connection than others. It is true that the transport system in agriculture is much more sensitive to the availability or not of this particular product. He said quite rightly that 80% of all agricultural implements were dependent on petroleum as their source of energy.

I want to say in this connection that I have constantly warned the motor vehicle industry and consumers, firstly, that diesel fuel in our country should be used mainly for productive purposes. In this connection I have referred specifically to agriculture. Secondly, I have asked the motor vehicle industry to accept that we were not going to be faced with a short-term problem as far as fluid sources of energy were concerned, but that it was a structural problem which was going to affect us just as it affects the Western World. In spite of this, manufacturers switched over increasingly to the manufacture of diesel-powered passenger cars. There must be no illusions about what the results have been. The fact is that where we have succeeded in keeping petrol consumption at a reasonable level, compared with 1973, the consumption of diesel fuel has increased by 25% since 1973. I shall not hesitate for a moment to close diesel pumps to private owners if I have to. There must be no doubt about that. If it has to be done, we shall do it. We find ourselves in a situation where our need of imported crude oil is determined by the consumption of diesel. I hope that hon. members will support me in this connection. If there is one thing which is important, it is that we should at least reserve these scarce products for the sectors and consumers that make a contribution to the country’s economic development. We must not waste diesel fuel.

What do you say now, George?

I do not think the hon. member differs from me. I think he agrees with me. In saying that, I am not trying to score any points against anyone.

The wisdom of having built Sasol is being proved today. So is the wisdom of having embarked upon a stockpiling programme in the ’sixties as a component of a total strategy to counter effectively the economic warfare against South Africa. The mighty America, which is itself an energy-producing country, still does not find itself in the same favourable circumstances as South Africa. We embarked upon a programme of stockpiling strategic supplies at a high cost, but it was a good investment, because today that supply is worth four to five times what we paid for it, and it is becoming ever more valuable.

†I have replied to the suggestion of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti with regard to a Select Committee, and he has given an indication that he is satisfied with my suggestion that we will review the situation again.

I do not want to create the impression that the information which has been published by the Press after I had discussions with the editors has been published maliciously. I do not believe the Press has acted maliciously. I want to state categorically that I think there has been a communication problem immediately after we had our discussions. I am quite prepared to give the Press the benefit of the doubt in this particular regard. I would, however, like to ask the Press that until such time as this legislation has been promulgated and until such time as we have entered into an agreement, they liaise with my department so that there can be the closest scrutiny of what can be published, although it may not be legally prohibited. That is the only basis on which we will be able to establish our bona fides in terms of what we have to do for the future.

The hon. member has referred to clause 1. I should like to suggest that we discuss this during the Committee Stage. I think he has misinterpreted the clause. The duty mentioned in this clause is not a physical duty, but a responsibility.

I can see that.

I am glad the hon. member understands. In the regulations provision will be made to deal with the agricultural sector.

*The hon. member for Vasco emphasized—and I want to thank him for doing so—that we are concerned here with a specific set of circumstances, which cannot be described as conventional or normal, and that the situation differs from that in the Second World War in that we are no longer faced with declared wars, but the world is in a constant state of war. We do not always grasp that subtle difference. From his speech I infer that the criterion we should therefore use to assess what we should do and what we should not do is not the one we would use in normal times. The criterion has to be adjusted to the times in which we live.

The hon. member also spoke about the fines imposed by courts in terms of the petroleum products conservation measures. I want to make it quite clear that I endorse his sentiments in this connection, also with regard to the psychological reaction to this on the part of the public. If I remember correctly, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environmental Planning made a very striking speech about a year ago—when he was still an ordinary member—about the very question of traffic fines. He did not envisage at that time that legislation would be introduced to implement what he was asking for.

Having said this, I want to say—I do not want any misunderstanding about this—that clause 4A is an enabling clause. It does not provide that the transfer of these fines will take place automatically. I want to emphasize this, because I do not want my friends in the provincial administrations and in the local authorities to draw the wrong conclusions from this debate. I am still negotiating with the provincial administrations. We are still ascertaining specific facts. It is obviously true—in this respect the hon. member is right—that if the local authorities and the provincial administrations are deprived of this source of revenue, they will have to receive alternative funds in terms of subsidy formulas. Secondly, we must bear in mind that the local authorities and the provincial administrations undertake the patrolling of our roads at very great expense, often much greater than what they recover from the fines. Therefore I want to advocate that we should try to maintain a balance in this connection. However, I agree with the hon. member that we shall be much better able to motivate people if we can exercise the authority conferred upon us by this Bill, knowing that everyone accepts it.

The hon. member for Walmer placed himself before very interesting choices. He said that if he had to make a choice between the security of the country and the disclosure of information, he would choose the security of our country. I believe that we shall achieve both objectives if we only co-operate with one another. The intention of the Bill is not to oppose security to the disclosure of information, but to ensure that the disclosure of information will not affect our security.

The hon. member for Umlazi is quite right. The fact is that people have been wasting a scarce commodity over the past decades. In fact I do not think they are intent even now on putting a stop to that wastage. Few countries have succeeded in adapting their own transport and manufacturing industry to the new situation in respect of the availability or otherwise of this particular product. I want to congratulate the hon. member on a very interesting study which he has made. We must discuss these problems and emphasize the gravity of the circumstances, even when, looking at South Africa’s energy problems, we see the more favourable and rosier picture that we have fewer problems than many other countries. Our problems are fewer precisely because of the steps which have been taken. I want to allege—and I think the hon. member was right in that respect—that when we look at South Africa’s energy imports and we also look at South Africa’s exports and at the energy required to produce these, I am not so sure that South Africa is not already a net exporter of energy. This is to the credit of our country. It is something which one should actually mention with approval, as the hon. member did.

Apart from the stockpiling of supplies, apart from the establishment and expansion of Sasol, we have created mechanisms to facilitate decision-making. After all, the most important element in our energy planning and policy is the very fact that we were able, because the mechanisms had already been created, to take decisions rapidly. The decision to build Sasol 3—and that decision implies that we shall take R3 276 million from the capital pool to finance this project— was taken within a matter of weeks, precisely because we had created the mechanisms which enabled us to make rapid analyses and studies to guide us in deciding what we should do.

The hon. member referred to the article published in Volkshandel, if I remember correctly. I agree with the hon. member that this was an article which contained a very great deal of information, and I think we should try to dissect the information and make it available on a wider basis. I shall talk to my department to see whether it is possible. But I just want to say one thing—and this also confirms what the hon. member for Yeoville said—and that is that if we are to succeed, we shall have to keep the public informed on an on-going basis. At the moment, we are seeing what methods we can use to do the educational work which is necessary, in the first place, and, in the second place, to initiate the publicity campaign which is required for achieving these objectives, i.e. to convey to the consumers information which we can divulge without endangering our sources.

The hon. member also referred to the new section 4A and said that he could understand that we could transfer it to another fund, but not that we want to transfer it to another person. We can discuss this matter further in the Committee Stage, but I just want to explain to the hon. member now that we are dealing here with a legal person and not with a natural person. The SOF (Pty.) Ltd controls the State Oil Fund. The SFF Association controls the Equalization Fund. The SOF and the SFF are incorporated companies, i.e. they are legal persons. They are then the “any other person” to which the section refers. If we have to define it more closely to clarify the meaning, I am quite prepared to do so. I hope the hon. member now understands why there is a reference to “other persons”.

Then the hon. member made an important statement which I greatly appreciate.

†I accept his point His point is that because the House has decided to trust the Minister of Economic Affairs with the power that will be conferred upon him once this Bill has been accepted by Parliament, that represents an added responsibility, a greater responsibility, on the Minister of Economic Affairs. Whilst I thank hon. members for their trust in this particular regard, I, for my part, say that I shall try—and that does not mean that I shall always succeed, but I shall have at least have tried—to deal with these things as circumspectly as possible.

We shall let you know if you do not.

I again invite hon. members, if they think I ought to do it differently, to feel free to come and tell me that. I shall surely not take exception, because I know that in this particular regard we are not trying to attain conflicting objectives; we are all at one and want to promote the same thing.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill which is now before the House is actually consequential upon similar amendments considered in respect of the Petroleum Products Act, 1977, the Second Reading stage of which has just been disposed of. Therefore I do not intend to conduct a lengthy discussion on the occasion of this Second Reading.

As hon. members know, the Republic’s programme for the stockpiling of strategic supplies is dealt with in terms of the National Supplies Procurement Act.

I believe that the existence and content of any arrangements with regard to this programme should be confidential, so it is proposed that a new section 8A be inserted into the Act to prohibit the disclosure of any information by any person involved in any arrangement or order in terms of the Act.

Furthermore, clause 2 provides that when it is deemed necessary for the security of the Republic, the Minister may by notice prohibit the disclosure of any information relating to goods or services mentioned in the notice.

Hon. members will realize that this measure constitutes an attempt to prevent information which would endanger the security of the Republic from falling into the hands of hostile parties, and I trust that I shall be able to reply on the support of hon. members, as they have supported me with regard to the previous piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in this case, just as in the case of the Petroleum Products Amendment Bill, I agreed, after lengthy negotiations with the Newspaper Press Union, that provision be made in the Bill for an exemption from the provisions of the Bill to be arranged by way of agreement, as is in fact envisaged in the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the swift dispatch of his Second Reading speech. I am not going to make a long speech either, but first of all, I do want to point out to the hon. the Minister that these two Bills are not quite comparable. In the first instance, we were dealing with a piece of legislation which related to petroleum products. In other words it was a specific and known product of which we were at least well informed as regards the circumstances and the particular problems which are being experienced in connection with it. In this case, however, we are dealing with a much more general and less defined product or service. If hon. members should take a look at the original Act of 1970, they would notice that in sections 1 and 2 reference is made to certain broader classes of services all of which fall under the strategic aspects of this Bill. Section 3 of the principal Act, also refers to certain products that also fall under these provisions. Although it can be readily accepted that a product like petroleum should be subject to special regulations or laws, we are dealing here with another piece of legislation which is much more vaguely conceived.

†The point about the National Supplies Procurement Act is that it is up to the hon. the Minister to identify from time to time which services he requires to be dealt with in terms of strategic supplies and what commodities should be treated as such. We have been asked to agree to a prohibition on the publication of information or, if the hon. the Minister prefers it this way, the publication of information subject to certain conditions or agreements in respect of commodities which remain unidentified.

The hon. the Minister is obviously asking for a much broader mandate when he asks for these powers in respect of an unidentified range of services and products, than was the case with the Petroleum Products Amendment Bill. We are all aware, of course, that South Africa faces equivalent dangers and equivalent difficulties in respect of other strategic commodities, even though they may as yet be undefined.

We are aware, for example, of chapter 7-sanctions hanging over our heads in New York. If the negotiations in regard to the future of South West Africa/Namibia break down, these chapter 7-sanctions may fall upon us without further delay, because already they are cut and dried. This might even happen during a parliamentary recess. We are aware that urgent action in this regard might be necessary. We are nevertheless troubled by the fact that we are being asked to give a blanket authority, unlike in the case of the Petroleum Products Amendment Bill, to the hon. the Minister to prohibit the publication of information in respect of these matters. The hon. the Minister argues that to make an agreement with the Press permitting the Press to publish information is a different matter to taking away their freedom. I am not sure that the hon. the Minister would see it in the same light if I were in a position to take away his innate, original freedom and say to him: “Do not worry. I am going to make an agreement and a contract with you in terms of which I shall restore some of your freedom.”

[Inaudible.]

Nevertheless, the hon. the Minister will agree that it is not quite the same thing as total freedom.

I believe that it is in fact necessary to effect some kind of accommodation, subject to all the reservations we expressed in respect of the previous Bill and subject to such contributions as will be made in the Committee Stage. We believe that it is necessary to work out a modus vivendi in respect of that.

I should like to leave a thought or two with the hon. the Minister while he goes away for a few days to think about other matters. Very briefly, so as not to detain him, I should like to point out that the word “security”, as it appears in the phrase “when he judges it necessary for the security of the country”, occurs both in the original Act of 1970 and here. The word “security” has, if you like, become corrupted, it has degenerated because “security” is very often used as being synonymous with “secrecy”. A breach of security in many people’s minds means a breach of secrecy. Is it intended that we are going to protect the security of the country, meaning “secrecy”, by imposing secrets? If so, one is faced with a self-perpetuating set of laws to protect secrecy by imposing further secrecy on it. I think it is necessary to have a new concept of what is really meant by “security” when we talk about laws like these. We are not talking about the maintenance of secrecy for the sake of secrecy, because in that direction lies the road to ruin and corruption.

What about a word like “stability”?

I think a term like “strategic security” makes it perfectly clear what we are talking about. We are trying to defend the strategic security of South Africa and not its security in the sense of just maintaining secrets for the sake of comfort.

Not only in the physical sense of the word either.

I believe that we are again faced with the dilemma of defending the Press, even in the context of a very necessary protective measure such as the one that we are now discussing. The Press has had the experience, for example, in relation to prisons and other matters, that, because the prohibitions are there and the penalties are high, they ex abundante cautela tend to steer well clear of these subjects. They feel compelled to do a disservice to the community and themselves by not probing where they might well be entitled to probe, because they give these dangerous areas a wide berth. I believe this is detrimental to the good public. The Government, and the hon. the Minister in particular, stand committed publicly to the free enterprise system—we discussed this at some length last week and we heard of the hon. the Minister’s commitment to this system—and I believe that a very important part of the competitive free enterprise system is the contribution of free investigation and free discussion. It is a vital part of the whole system. To damage that instrument of the free enterprise system is to do ourselves harm where none is intended and none could possibly be desired.

I think, therefore, that when we come to the Committee Stage of this Bill, we will be grateful to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance that he will go along with us in trying to seek methods of achieving the results which we agree are essential, while yet defending the basic principle of the freedom of the Press to investigate, probe, throw light on dark comers and illuminate those matters which need to be illuminated in the public interest. If we can achieve that, we shall achieve a great deal, and we shall certainly offer the hon. the Minister our support at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, when discussing matters of this nature, the hon. member for Constantia always makes a very interesting speech and sometimes gives us something to think about However, I want to take the hon. member up with regard to one particular statement that he made. He said that this Bill will give a blanket authority in regard to a whole range of unidentified products. I think that is rather a exaggeration. The hon. member referred to the original Act, but if he looks at section 8A, he will see that it is specifically states that, where an order is made in terms of the original Act, it is in terms of an arrangement or order made or issued. That must satisfy some to a certain degree. I think the hon. member is incorrect in saying that the measure is so blanket in its authority that it will cover a whole range of vague and unidentified objects.

Have you read clause 2?

Yes, I have. However, I think the hon. member went rather far in passing criticism of that nature.

I think we should also look at this Bill in the light of the original Act. We should bear in mind that the original Act arose from an old war measure of 1942. That measure remained in existence for something like 26 years, and it seems that the original Act was largely based on that old war measure. If my memory serves me correctly, there were certain provisions in the war measures of 1942 which were very similar to the measures contained in the Bill we have before us today.

As the hon. member for Constantia has made several suggestions to the hon. the Minister, and as the hon. the Minister needs an adequate opportunity of considering those suggestions, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill has, in substance, two objectives, namely the payment to judges or their widows of gratuities calculated at 6,72% of the salaries and allowances of, and a calculation of the pensions and gratuities of judges on the basis of their salaries and allowances.

In this regard, the position of judges is now being brought more or less into line with that of members of this House. There is hardly any need for argument with regard to the necessity for this adjustment, but it is nevertheless important for record purposes to point out that judges, like hon. members of this House, on accession to office often have to make a considerable sacrifice in being appointed to the South African judiciary.

Often a flourishing practice that has been built up with care and efficiency over a long period, has to bid farewell and in the case of Judges of Appeal in particular, it also entails a transfer or unavoidable travelling between two centres.

Judges normally only retire at the age of 70 and they surely have a claim to being placed in a position that will ensure them a carefree old age.

On the quality of our judiciary and on the respect which our judges enjoy here and abroad, I need hardly repeat what is already general knowledge. It is therefore with much satisfaction that we are able to announce these improved benefits for our judges and I have no doubt that we shall have the support of the entire House for these steps.

The other provisions of the Bill hardly require any further explanation, but I do wish to mention for the information of hon. members that the envisaged amendments contained in clause 4(a) have been necessitated by the fact that as it reads at present, the law does not provide for the payment of a pension to the widow of a judge who retired after 1 April 1972 but before 1 January 1978 and who has died after that date. This shortcoming is now being rectified, because it was never the intention to exclude such widows from a pension.

In conclusion I just wish to mention for the information of hon. members that after reconsideration it has been decided not to require contributions from judges. During the Committee Stage, I shall therefore introduce an amendment aimed at deleting the proposed section 4(b) in clause 5 of the Bill. The reason for this is that judges did not previously make contributions in respect of their pension benefits. We also think it is better to maintain the status quo in this regard.

The Bill enjoys the support of the hon. the Minister of Justice as well as of the judiciary, and I think any further questions in this regard can profitably be dealt with in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the PFP takes pleasure in supporting this Bill. It makes provision for extensive improvements in the pension benefits of judges, benefits to which they are entitled in my view. The hon. the Minister has also explained why it is felt that judges are entitled to these improved pension benefits. We support the point of view he has raised in this regard too.

However, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity of registering an objection with the hon. the Minister. The objection concerns the widowers of female judges. We feel that there is no reason why the pension benefits of the widows of male judges should not be exactly the same as the pension benefits of the widowers of female judges. I think this is a matter which should receive the attention of the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Justice, since I believe that an injustice is being done in this regard. In actual fact, there can be no justification for this. Although we gladly support this legislation, we wish to bring it very clearly and pertinently to the notice of the two hon. Ministers that we object most strongly to the anomaly with regard to the pension benefits of the widower of a woman judge and the widow of a male judge.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome the measure before the House. We have a high regard for the work being done by judges, and since judges also have a high status and esteem it is, in my view, no more than right and fair that the pensions of judges should be improved.

There are two factors involved in pension benefits, factors that influence pensions. One factor is the question of the salary that such a person earns during his term of office, and the second is the period for which such a person serves in a particular office. As the hon. the Minister has stated, judges are normally appointed as judges at a reasonably advanced age. They first have to be senior advocates— that is the practice—before being appointed as judges. In general, these people do not therefore devote their entire lifetime to their profession. In general, they only retire at the advanced age of 70 years. It is therefore a great pleasure for us to be able to support this legislation so that better provision can be made, particularly for people such as judges who are rendering a major service to the country and who have to deal with very complicated questions of law. They are also people doing very responsible work. We are therefore pleased that over and above the improvement in the pension structure for judges, or rather the annuity of judges, another element is being added, namely the question of a gratuity to be paid out to judges.

Another very important aspect for which the measure makes provision, is the position of the widow of a judge. We are grateful for the fact that the definition has been amended to provide that even the second or third wife of a judge will be regarded as his actual widow in this regard. We trust that by means of this measure we shall be able to ensure to a great extent that judges, too, may enjoy a carefree old age.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches wish to give our support to the Second Reading of this Bill. We believe that it is a considerable improvement and we recollect that last year legislation was introduced by the hon. the Minister of Justice to improve the position as regards judges’ pensions. From time to time over the years we have seen together with improvements in the salaries and remuneration of judges, improvements as far as their pensions are concerned. We believe that this is only fair and just towards those persons who are appointed to the Bench, who assume this great responsibility and who also make financial sacrifices because in many instances they would have made far more money if they had stayed practising at the Bar.

We have studied this legislation to ensure that judges are adequately compensated for the services which they render. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has indicated that he intends deleting sections whereby judges were required to make a contribution towards the gratuity which is to be paid to them. The hon. the Minister indicated that the Judges’ Pension Act which was passed by Parliament last year makes provision for pensions on a non-contributory basis and this Bill now provides for the gratuity to be made available on a similar basis.

The only other matter I would like to comment on is the matter which was raised by the hon. member for Bryanston, and I am quite sure that the hon. member for Houghton intends raising it as well.

Right the first time, Geoff!

I would like to say in advance of the hon. member’s comments that we on these benches support her whole-heartedly in this regard. We believe that with the appointment of judges, who might be women, it is only fair and right that they be treated on the same basis as any other person who is appointed to the Bench.

Their poor old husbands.

I realize that the hon. member for Houghton is fighting a battle here for the men and I would like to join her in that battle, because I believe it is important to ensure that, where there is a scheme of this nature, parity should exist, irrespective of whether it happens to be a man or a woman who is appointed to the Bench. Consequently, the entitlement of a woman who is appointed to the Bench should be such that the widower should be entitled to receive some compensation for the sacrifices his wife has made in serving on the Bench of South Africa. The South African Bench has a very high reputation to maintain and I am quite sure that that reputation will continue to be maintained. It is therefore important to ensure that adequate compensation is available to all persons, irrespective of their sex, who have been appointed to the Bench of South Africa.

We believe that this Bill is a considerable improvement in that non-contributory gratuities are to be paid and pensions are to include allowances which are also provided for in terms of other legislation. Therefore, we on these benches, with that one reservation, wholeheartedly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when one thinks of the almost superhuman duties that often rest on the shoulders of the judges, and of the almost superhuman decisions they often have to take, it would be a pity if these people had to worry about their finances and particularly about their old age and their dependents.

It is perhaps the ambition of every hon. Minister, with the aid of his legal advisers and hon. members of this House, to place perfect legislation on the Statute Book. However, every Act goes through a test period, a period of practical implementation, and quite often several weaknesses and vague and indistinct spots in the Act become discernible after such a period, and loopholes are discovered in it. The Judges’ Pensions Act, No. 90 of 1978, became effective on 1 January 1978 and it is already necessary to amend this legislation. I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister has thought fit to introduce the amendment during this session.

What does South Africa think of our judiciary? Who are the people who are entitled to judge this legislation? It is my contention that it is the taxpayers and the voters of South Africa who are entitled to do this. If I may now speak on behalf of my constituency, the academics, the businessmen, and 85% of my voters who are workers, I should like to give the assurance and declare unequivocally that the people of South Africa have an unshakeable, indisputable confidence and faith in the unimpeachable fairness of our judges on the Bench, whether it be the Chief Justice of South Africa, a Judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, a Judge-President or a Judge of a Provincial or Local Division. Salaries and pensions make no impression on our people. The fact remains that we have the necessary respect for our judiciary.

It has now become necessary to effect these amendments to the principal Act. The definition of “salary” in section 1 of the Act is, in terms of clause 1(a), being substituted by the following definition—

This is now being very clearly defined. The proposed section 4B(1) refers to certain contributions. This falls away now after the announcement the hon. the Minister has made. Section 1 is further being amended by clause 1(b), in terms of which the definition of “widow” is being deleted.

Section 2 of the principal Act, which deals with the retirement of a judge, reads as follows—

1. (a) shall retire from office on attaining the age of 70 years;
2. (b) may retire from office if he has attained the age of 65 years and has completed at least eight years pensionable service;
3. (c) may at any time with the approval of the State President retire from office if he becomes afflicted with a permanent infirmity of mind or body which disables him from the proper discharge of his duties of office or if any other reason exists which is deemed sufficient by the State President.

In terms of clause 2, the proposed section 2A is being inserted after section 2 of the Act. The proposed section 2A(1) provides that a judge who retires from office in terms of section 2 or who is removed from office under section 10(7) of the Supreme Court Act, 1959 (Act No. 59 of 1959) on the ground of incapacity arising out of a permanent injury of mind or body disabling him from the proper discharge of the duties of his office shall, in addition to any pension payable to him, be paid a gratuity in respect of each office held by him during his pensionable service, calculated in accordance with a formula defined in the proposed section 2A(1).

Another important insertion is that of the proposed section 4A, which provides for a gratuity to be paid to the widow of a judge under certain circumstances.

I can find no fault with this Bill and I support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Springs is supporting this Bill, as are all hon. members of this House. He has referred to the fairness of the Bench and in this regard, too, all of us agree with him.

†This Bill improves the pensions and gratuities payable to judges and their widows. The widowers of women judges require serious consideration and I think that the hon. member for Houghton, who have made this point in the past, has a very valid point. In the past I have also thought her point to be a valid one. To my way of thinking there is no valid reason for the exclusion of a widower, and I think the hon. the Minister must give us an undertaking to investigate this as a matter of urgency, because it is only fair and right that a widower of a woman judge should be included in this particular scheme. These people see to it that the quality of our Bench is equalled by very few other countries throughout the world. Their standards are exceptionally high and they have earned the respect and admiration of all. On merit the improvements are very well deserved, and under the circumstances we shall not oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Bryanston has indicated, we are going to support this Bill, but I want to say at once that I do not support it unreservedly. On the contrary, I am furious. The hon. the Minister has introduced a Bill which parallels, in many ways, the Bill he introduced a few weeks ago regarding the pensions and gratuities to be granted to members of Parliament. In introducing the Second Reading today, he himself said that this Bill is very similar to the Bill which was introduced then. On that occasion I pointed out to the hon. the Minister that the Interpretation Act does not apply as far as the salaries and pensions of members of Parliament are concerned and that the widowers of female members of Parliament are excluded from the benefits of pensions and gratuities when their wives have died. Exactly tile same thing applies to female judges as far as the pensions, and now the added gratuities, are concerned. At the moment there is only one female judge in South Africa, Judge Van den Heever, but there is no need to assume that this situation is going to obtain for ever. I have no doubt there will be other female judges on our Benches and, in any case, it is the principle that concerns me. In this regard I am very glad to have had the backing of some of the male members of this House, and I have no doubt that many members on the opposite side of this House also agree that there can be no possible justification for discrimination, on the grounds of sex, as far as the pensions and gratuities of female judges, MPs and Senators are concerned.

When we discussed the earlier Bill, that is the Bill relating to members of Parliament, the hon. the Minister told us that he had been ignorant that this was the case. In other words, he pleaded ignorance of the law in that regard, but he certainly cannot make that plea this afternoon because he was informed, at the time, that the situation was exactly the same as far as judges were concerned, and he said that he would look into the matter at some future time. Well—within a month, is it?—the hon. the Minister comes back to this House and has the impertinence, the “vermetelheid”, to present a Bill which is exactly the same as far as judges are concerned. I wonder what possible explanation he is going to give us this time. He cannot tell us, I presume, that the arguments that apply as far as judges’ widowers are concerned, i.e. that they are the breadwinners and that they have not contributed to their wives’ career, still apply, because I think I disposed of those arguments fairly effectively the last time. In other words, if the hon. the Minister is going to start talking about who is the breadwinner in the family, he must apply a means test to the widows of male MPs and to the widows of male judges. That is what he must do if that is to be the criterion.

He will not be that mean.

Then, as I said earlier on, any woman who takes on a full-time job, be it in public life, be it on the Bench or be it in commerce or industry, requires at least the supportive attitude, if not the financial support, of her husband. Otherwise life at home would be hell and she would not be able to continue with her job. Those arguments do not hold water, certainly not in the last quarter of the twentieth century. I therefore wait anxiously to hear what the hon. the Minister’s explanation for this is. I should like to point out that there are two differences between this Bill and the Bill the hon. the Minister introduced in this House some weeks ago, they are not both improvements in the situation, as far as I am concerned anyway. The one change is that the definition of “widow” has now been removed. For my part that is certainly an improvement as far as judges’ widows are concerned, but it makes no difference, of course, as far as MPs are concerned. In other words, the removal of the definition of “widow” in this Bill means that the widow of a judge, whom she married after he had retired as a judge, will be able to obtain his pension after his death. In the case of an MP, however, if a woman marries a male ex-MP, after his death, she is not considered to be his widow in terms of the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act If a woman marries a man after he ceases to be a judge, however, she is still the widow in terms of the pension and gratuities that are granted to her. That is an improvement. It does not, of course, improve the position as far as the widows of MPs and Senators are concerned, but it does improve the position in so far as judges’ widows are concerned.

There is also another change that I can refer to, but I do not know whether it is going to apply. I doubt if it will, but the hon. the Minister must tell me since he is going to move an amendment in regard to the proposed new section 4B, during the Committee Stage.

He is going to delete the contributions altogether.

So he is to delete the contributions. Well, since the proposed new section 4B(4) states—

I presume that those contributions are paid, in both cases, to the estate of the judge, be it a male or a female. In this case the principles of the Interpretation Act apply. I presume that that is also going to fall away, because there are not going to be any contributions. Since the whole of the proposed new section 4B is to be deleted, all those provisions will fall away. I was going to say that there is an improvement in that, at least in this particular Bill, it is recognized that there is such an animal as a judge who is a female, which is more than I can say for any Bill that applies to MPs and their pensions or gratuities.

I want to conclude by saying that I am bitterly disappointed in the hon. the Minister, because I would have thought that he would have taken advantage of the fact that he was informed of the absolutely unjustifiable situation in so far as female MPs and Senators are concerned. I should have thought that when he introduced a Bill to improve the pensions of, and provide gratuities for, judges and their widows, he would have seen to it that exactly the same principle applies in regard to female judges. I am bitterly disappointed in him. I should like to call him a male chauvinist person, but there is no point in doing that, as it is really the male who suffers in this regard. There is, however, a slight as far as I am concerned. The slight is that the female judge is being underrated, is being valued at less than the male judge, and equally so in the case of female MPs and Senators. I think it is a disgrace, and I do not know why some hon. members sit there grinning foolishly, others looking perhaps ashamed, but none of them, except hon. members on this side of the House, is prepared to do anything whatsoever about the situation. There are two women Senators at the moment, and exactly the same applies to them. I have no doubt that the attitude that they will adopt will be exactly the same as mine. I think the hon. the Minister, who is slinking down in his seat, ought to get right under it He really should not have the courage to face me after the information he was given about female MPs and their pensions and gratuities.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place, I wish to thank the hon. members who support this Bill. I do not think much more remains to be said about the legislation. It is easy to understand and is cast in the same mould as legislation we passed approximately three weeks ago. There is therefore no reason why there should be major differences of principle.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Bryanston for his contribution. The same applies to the hon. members for Hercules, Umbilo, Springs and Walmer.

What about me?

I also wish to thank the hon. member for Houghton for putting some life into the debate. We have to differ sometimes. I wish to tell her, however, that she has merely repeated her arguments of three weeks ago.

It is the same provision.

Let me state clearly that there was no question of a lack of knowledge of the Act in question. Let me tell her a great truth. Pensions, pension benefits and pension contributions have been a matter between the employer and his employee ever since pensions came into being in the remote past. It is no concern of other people. Traditionally— and this is a word which does not go down easily with the hon. member—a pension is an extra, a privilege, to the widow. It is a privilege that was embodied in legislation years ago. We have embodied the privileges for widows and children in the legislation on account of their practical circumstances. In the case of widowers, there is practically never any question of that.

With this legislation we have reached the stage where one begins to question certain matters, since women are making progress. There is already one woman who is a judge, one who is a member of the House of Assembly, and two who are Senators. Naturally they would try to bargain for benefits as far as their next of kin are concerned. [Interjections.] After all one is concerned about one’s next of kin. These are not demands one can make on one’s employer, but privileges one can try and obtain for one’s next of kin. [Interjections.]

I do not wish to differ with the hon. member for Houghton on the matter she has stated. It is already making things so difficult for me. If she had talked politics or something else, I might still have been able to differ with her. I think that in exceptional cases there is justification for what she is asking for. However, this Bill and the other Bill were based on certain principles and customs accepted by the Government I cannot change these principles now. The consequences that could flow from this, that if the Government says A it also has to say B, are such that at this stage I cannot act on the hon. member’s request I have already stated that quite clearly to her. No argument would make me change my mind. I cannot change the law in this respect. The question of discrimination against a woman or against a man is a matter which, in my view, requires a more profound study in the light of the new circumstances. The problem is that when one says A, one should be protected against also having to say B. When one therefore considers the position of one of the most highly paid professions—that of a member of Parliament or a judge, one also has to say B and consider the thousands of women in the Public Service who are receiving civil pensions. Furthermore, there is a possibility that this might also spread to the private sector, something that would entail that women employed there would also have to start making provision for their husbands. Therefore it cannot simply be argued that it is fair. Of course, I agree with part of the logic of the hon. member’s argument But the exception does not prove the rule. The rule is the rule of the past up to the present.

I have made it clear that I am sympathetically disposed towards this matter. However, I am not going to allow myself to be steamrollered into making a decision that could give rise to ridiculous claims and cost us enormous sums. It would simply not be to our benefit further to …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that is correct. I am not going to create an opening. I cannot start such a thing before all implications have been thoroughly investigated. I therefore regret that this cannot be the case here either.

There is an amendment I intend moving during the Committee Stage. However, it concerns only the deletion of the provision that it is expected of judges to contribute to their pension fund.

I trust that this brief explanation will satisfy hon. members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 40, to omit “sections” and to substitute “section”;
2. (2) on page 4, in lines 52 to 62, and on page 6, in lines 1 to 27, to omit the proposed section 4B.

It has been decided not to recover any contributions from judges by deducting it from their monthly salaries. I have nothing more to add to this motivation, because I believe I have already explained it in sufficient detail before.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the hon. the Minister moving these amendments. However, I wonder if he would not be prepared to consider doing something about the contributions which are paid in equal amounts by hon. members of Parliament I suggest he considers at least repaying those contributions, as he was going to do in the case of judges before moving his amendments to this clause. It could either be repaid to the estate of the deceased judge or to the estate of a deceased female judge. Of course, in the event of a judge resigning from office such contributions could be repaid to him personally. I see no reason at all why such contributions should be used to support the family of the deceased male MPs in this regard. I want to take this opportunity of putting this thought into the hon. the Minister’s head.

Mr. Chairman, the point raised by the hon. member for Houghton about parliamentarians’ pensions is not really under discussion here. We welcome the deletion of the proposed new section 4B by the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. I hope, however, that the hon. the Minister will give further consideration to the question of the gratuity which is to be paid in terms of the clause as amended. After the deletion of the proposed new section 4B, all that will remain is the proposed new section 4A which deals with the payment of a gratuity to the widow of a judge. On this aspect the point put forward by the hon. member for Houghton does have a bearing, because I think it would be right for the hon. the Minister to give consideration to amending the clause further, in such a way that if a judge is not survived by a widow, the amount to be paid as a gratuity be paid into the estate. There are no contributions being paid now, but the position is that a judge will be entitled to a gratuity in terms of the formula mentioned in clause 2 which has already been accepted. As I have said, there will be a gratuity due to a judge, and if he is survived by a widow, the gratuity will be paid to the widow. A judge could, of course, have dependent children, but no provision is made for them. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could give consideration to an amendment in terms of which the amount owing to a judge, who is not survived by a widow, can be paid into his estate. Unfortunately I am not able to move such an amendment because it would entail additional expenditure and would therefore be ruled out of order. The hon. the Minister is the only person who is able to move such an amendment. I mention the fact that such an amendment would entail additional expenditure because if a judge is not survived by a widow the gratuity, which he would have received if he had not died, must then be paid into his estate. The amendment could be such that whether the judge is a man or a woman would be of no consequence. Then at least the estate would receive the gratuity. Obviously the annuity paid to a widow is another matter. What we are dealing with here is the question of the gratuity. As I mentioned earlier, a judge could have dependent children. There, too, the question of the gratuity would fall away if he did not also have a widow. He could, however, be survived by dependent children and not a widow. So these situations could arise, and I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will give consideration to such an amendment and, if necessary, move such an amendment in the Other Place, because perhaps he first wishes to report back to the Government. He indicated earlier, when he was replying to the Second Reading debate, that he did not wish to change anything in this regard, but I believe that the fact I have mentioned is an important factor, one which should receive additional consideration by the Cabinet. One would like to ensure that the persons involved are at least protected as far as the gratuity is concerned. This could, of course, amount to a considerable sum of money in the case of judges who have been on the Bench for a number of years. So I do hope that the hon. the Minister can see his way clear to at least giving consideration to moving such an amendment in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members have, it is true, raised a very interesting point here. By adopting the standpoint that we do not usually pay gratuities to the estates of widows or widowers, one can argue that one should not pay this in this case either. The hon. member said that notwithstanding the fact that judges and others do not contribute to their pensions and that this benefit was therefore merely a privilege arranged between employer and employee, we did in fact accept the principle of compensating next-of-kin who are in trouble, out of the estate, and this is now acknowledged as a type of right these persons have. However, I think hon. members should be fair. I grant that they do have a point which we will have to consider carefully, and we shall consider it carefully. If it is not possible to clear up the matter before I go to the Other Place, I shall take cognizance of the arguments advanced here, arguments which in my opinion are worthy of consideration—although there might be people who are against this—and have the matter investigated. If I cannot do something about this in the Other Place, I shall nevertheless give further attention to it.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. the Minister is going to consider the suggestion made by the hon. member for Umbilo about the gratuities being paid either to the estate or to the dependants of judges. I wonder if the question of the pension falls within the same category? In other words, if the judge’s widow dies, does the pension fall away entirely? I am not certain, as I have not looked it up, but if that is not the case, will the hon. the Minister also give consideration to allowing the pension of the judges’ widow, on her death, to be payable to any dependants on the same basis on which the pension of the widow of a member of Parliament is, on her death, payable to his dependent children? I think that two-ninths of the amount is payable to the dependent children.

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is getting at is actually that, if we decide to do this, the same provision should be made in the other Act. If we decide on this, I think it follows naturally that we should be fair and, at least as far as the parliamentarians and the administrators are concerned, go back to that Act and also rectify it, if it is something to be rectified.

Mr. Speaker, I was not really discussing that, but I am very glad that I have inadvertently extracted that promise from the hon. the Minister. I was talking about the pension, while the hon. member for Umbilo was talking about the gratuity. I am talking about the pension as far as judges’ widows are concerned. If the judge’s widow dies, does the pension that would have been payable to her become payable to the dependants?

Mr. Speaker, we will at least look into that, because I think it is part and parcel of the whole bigger argument.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Government Employees Provident Fund was established in 1936 to make provision for temporary White employees in the Government’s employ. The Government non-White Employees Pension Fund was established considerably later, viz. in 1966, in the mould of the aforementioned Fund, to make provision for pensions for temporary non-White employees in Government employ.

Since then conditions have changed considerably, with the result that the provision made initially, has been inadequate for a long time now. Consequently representations have been received over the years from various quarters for the improvement of the benefits of the people involved, and various efforts have been made to establish a better dispensation for these officials, but up to now the financial position of the two funds and the relatively large contributions required in order, for example, to absorb members of the funds into other pension funds, have made meaningful change impossible.

The inclusion of the members of the Funds in question in the Government Service Pension Fund will, for example, according to latest estimates, require an additional amount of over R91 million per annum in Government contributions alone and in some cases members’ contributions will have to be increased from 4% to 7%. And this increased expenditure does not even make provision for the recognition of the previous service of the officials in question, and consequently does not fully reflect the financial implications such a transfer would entail.

An improvement of the two schemes is nevertheless deemed appropriate and consequently it has been decided to consolidate the two Funds and to create a new Fund, in which all the existing and dormant members of the two Funds can be absorbed. All members will contribute to the new Fund at the rate of 5% of their salary while the Government will contribute to the Fund in the proportion which will be stipulated from time to time.

An annuity will be payable after 10 years’ service and after attainment of the age of 60 years in accordance with the following formula:

in which formula—

Briefly, what this amounts to is that a member can expect an annuity equalling more or less 75% of his salary after approximately 30 years’ service, as all hon. members who have done the arithmetic, will now know.

The new dispensation will mean that gratuities at present payable to members, will lapse. Widows of members who have completed at least 10 years pensionable service, will on the death of their husbands be able to depend on an annuity equivalent to 50% of the pensions which their husbands received or would have received if they had not died, but would have been entitled to an annuity on their death. A widow of a member with less than 10 years pensionable service will, on the death of her husband, receive an amount equalling the amount of the annual salary to which her husband was entitled upon his death.

Existing pensions, allowances and bonuses are being consolidated and will be paid out as consolidated pensions. In this regard it should be noted that pensions have been increased from time to time over the years and have just been increased by 10% with effect from 1 April 1979. In the process of consolidation, all these increases are now being combined, with the result that the consolidated pensions are for the most part considerably higher than the amounts for which those concerned initially qualified.

The new formula to be applied in future in paying annuities, will result in considerably improved benefits according to the period of service involved. For example, in the case of a person with 40 years service it could amount to as much as 100%, in the case of a person of 30 years service, as much as 94,16% and in the case of a person with 20 years service, as much as 77,34%, even if it is taken into account that they had previously qualified for a gratuity.

†Widows who formerly qualified for only 40% of their husband’s pensions will now qualify for 50% of those pensions, which will, of course, in view of the new formula be appreciably higher than they ever were. This must naturally mean a better pension for widows generally.

In addition, it has been possible to effect parity between the benefits payable to members of the several population groups whilst they will also be required to contribute to the new fund at the same rate. The new deal is, generally speaking, an appreciable improvement on the existing one and should bring considerable relief to most temporary employees. It will naturally involve additional expenditure by employers as well as by those members who have up till now contributed at a rate of less than 5% of their salaries.

Particulars of the new scheme are, as hon. members will observe, not set out in the Bill now before the House. The Bill now before the House deals briefly with:

1. (a) The termination of the existing two funds;
2. (b) the establishment of a new fund and the transfer of the assets of the existing funds to the new fund;
3. (c) the consolidation of existing benefits as earlier explained by me;
4. (d) the regulation of the membership of the new fund; and
5. (e) the regulation of benefits payable to dormant members of the existing funds.

In addition, it seeks to clothe the Minister with the requisite authority to regulate the new scheme by way of regulation, as has now become the practice in matters of this nature. Full details of the new scheme will accordingly be set out in the regulations which will be promulgated under clause 8 of the Bill. Section 17 of the Interpretation Act, 1957, requiring the tabling of a list of proclamations and Government notices promulgated by the Minister, will naturally also apply to regulations promulgated under the aforementioned clause, with the result that the promulgation of such regulations will, of course, be brought to the attention of this House.

Mr. Speaker, we of the official Opposition welcome the Bill and will give it our full support. Obviously, the principle behind the Bill is that the employees concerned will receive a better deal. We understand, and I think everybody appreciates, particularly employers, how important it is for one to retain one’s employees. We know what training employees require and we know what experience they obtain, and to obtain stability in employment and stability in everything undertaken, it is in the interests of both the employers and the employees that employees be retained as long as possible. Obviously, to succeed in this, the employers must make their employees as happy as possible and, to make them as happy as possible, the employers must look after their pockets, because the employees have to live and they have to support other people who are dependent upon them.

We see that, in terms of the Bill, there is to be a merger, if I may use that term, between the Government Employees Provident Fund, which operated for Whites, and the non-Whites’ Pension Fund. With the merger of these two funds, we are creating a new pension scheme in terms of the Bill, a pension scheme in terms of which better conditions, as mentioned by the hon. the Minister, will be obtained for all those concerned. Initially when one thinks and reads about a temporary employees’ pension fund, one thinks of temporary employees who come and go. But that is not the case here.

We are not dealing with employees of that nature and certainly not with employees of a casual nature. As we understand the Bill, we are dealing with several categories of people who will be looked after in terms of this Bill. For example, this applies to married women, who did not qualify before as permanent staff. They are a very important work force in South Africa today and it is therefore important that we look after the married women. Secondly, it caters for those who were previously unable to qualify because of ill-health, people who perhaps did not pass the necessary health standards laid down for the job, but whose know-how and experience were required. It also caters for those who, generally, did not enjoy the good health needed for the job. There is another category of persons catered for under this heading, namely those persons who do not qualify because in terms of the Aliens Act they are not South African citizens. This category involves a vast number of people. The fact that these people who are providing their labour, will be involved is something which we would obviously encourage because it is to be encouraged that employment be found for all the people. This provision will encourage people to come forward and take up employment as well.

With the amalgamation of these two Funds, we will therefore be creating a better deal for the people. As the hon. the Minister has said in his speech today, the widows will now receive a far better contribution. They will now qualify to receive 50% instead of 40% of their husbands’ pensions. The most important aspect, however, an aspect about which we in these benches cannot keep silent, is the fact that apartheid is being abolished; the discrimination between the non-Whites and the Whites is being abolished in that a non-White Pension Fund and a White Provident Fund are being brought together. There will be no discrimination in the contributions that they will have to make, nor will there be any discrimination in the benefits and the pensions that they will receive. This is a very significant step and I hope the Government will seek to follow this principle in regard to many other matters as well.

Obviously, the two Funds must now be terminated and the establishment of the new Fund and the transfer of the assets must take place. The consolidation of existing benefits, as explained by the hon. the Minister earlier on, must be undertaken, but, most important of all, everything will depend on the regulations, because it is obvious that all the details involved will not be available at this stage. I am quite sure that the regulations to be made in terms of clause 8 of die Bill will embody all the conditions in regard to the contributions, the benefits and the domestic arrangements within the Fund itself. Accordingly, we give the measure our blessing, and we wish the fund well. We will support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the hon. member for Hillbrow in the course of my speech and refer to certain matters he referred to.

Last year, during the discussion of the Social Welfare and Pensions Vote, I pointed out the anomalies between the Employees Provident Fund—the GEP Fund as it is known—and the Government Service Pension Fund and advocated that the position of the temporary employee or the temporary official should be improved with regard to their pension benefits. There are more than 23 000 contributors to this GEP Fund, i.e. temporary officials in Government employment who contribute to this fund. The contributions made by these temporary workers to effective Government administration, certainly cannot be overlooked and ignored. On the contrary, I think that they play an important and a key role. In particular they are people who, owing to various circumstances, have been excluded as permanent workers, as the hon. member for Hillbrow also pointed out.

A man contributes 516% and a woman 4% of his or her salary to the existing GP Fund. With regard to the new Fund, a contribution of 5% by all employees is being envisaged. But what is more important, is that the present Bill provides for the inclusion of all temporary employees, in other words, for the consolidation of the two pension funds, as defined in clause 5(2).

Up to now there have been separate funds for Whites and non-Whites. Up to now Blacks have contributed 4% to their fund. It is now obvious that they will also have to contribute 5% to this new fund in order to adjust in this way to the requirements introduced by the new fund.

The principle and the most oppressive anomalies were certainly the calculation of the annuity of the GEP Fund. The annuity is calculated on the annual average of the employee’s pensionable earnings during his last three years of contributory service by multiplying 1/96 this average by the number of years and by the fraction of a year, while the gratuity is then calculated at 4% of the aforementioned formula.

The annuity of the Government Service Pension Fund is determined by means of the same formula, but the fraction in this case is 1/55 instead of 1/96. For gratuity purposes the factor in the latter fund is 6,72%. In simple language this means that a member of the GEP Fund would theoretically have to render 96 years’ service to be able to qualify for pension benefits equalling his salary, while the employee who is a member of the Government Service Pension Fund has to render service over 55 years. Consequently this means that the latter has an advantage of approximately 100% over the temporary employees of the Government.

It was this problem which compelled various persons and bodies to react over the years. In this regard I just want to refer to a speech which the late ex-Senator Jan de Klerk, the Minister of the Interior at that stage, made in 1956. He stated, inter alia—

He concluded by saying the following—

This was the problem in this respect, as spelled out at that stage by ex-Senator Jan de Klerk.

This decision has a long history and I just want to dwell briefly on a few historical aspects in respect of this Fund. The predecessor of this GEP Fund was the so-called gratuity system established in 1921. It was introduced to grant temporary employees benefits which were necessary owing to the depression of those years and also as a result of the return of permanent officials from military service, too. Various benefits were paid out. In the first place a cash amount was paid out instead of leave. Secondly, a further amount equal to 15 days’ salary for every year’s service up to a maximum of R200 was paid out in cases of more than 2½ years continuous service.

During 1923 the provisions were extended to permanent incumbents of non-classified posts.

This position continued unchanged till further provision was made for temporary White workers by way of the GEP Fund, which was established on 1 August 1936 on the recommendation of the 1935 departmental committee of inquiry into pensions. At that stage the Fund was purely a savings fund which received contributions and paid out cash amounts.

In 1935 there were already more than 4 000 temporary White employees in the Public Service. Over the years more temporary White employees have joined the service, and consequently they have virtually become a permanent and integral part of the Government Service. The result was that the idea of a provident fund, which had met with general approval in 1935, gradually began to become out-dated. The problem arose because a provident fund had to meet the requirements of short-term temporary employees. However, the relatively small retirement cash benefit proved to be completely inadequate for the person who had been employed for a long period. As a result of the rapid depreciation of money, the single cash amount is soon used up and the Government then has to come to the rescue of such a person with a social pension. On 26 April 1956 a new dispensation came into operation under which annuities and pensions were paid to widows. In spite of this the benefits payable were poor in comparison with those of other pension funds. Now the question may be asked what this new Bill envisages.

In the first place it can and must be accepted that the Government Employees Provident Fund resulted from the pressure of the depression years, and still bears the characteristics of that time, when money was scarce. The fund requires little from its members and its employers. Moreover, the fund also gives little. In the second place provision is made for the payment of an annuity of 75% of the final salary after 30 years. This means that an employee is entitled to a pension benefit of 100% after a service period of 40 years. In the third place the retirement age is not stipulated in the Bill and is, therefore, not applicable. Consequently employees, as members of the pension fund, are not compelled to retire at the age of 65 years.

In the fourth place the widow of such a member, receives 50% of the member’s annuity in terms of certain formulae. Under the old GEP Fund that widow lost her annuity as soon as she remarried. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this is the intention of this Bill too. I should then like to advocate that the widow retain her right to a pension in terms of the new legislation if she remarries. I should also like to accept that this will be the case in the new legislation.

The position in which members of the GEP Fund will now find themselves when the new legislation comes into operation, which will hopefully be soon, amounts to an almost incalculable advantage over that offered to them by the old fund. On behalf of all temporary employees I therefore want to thank the hon. the Minister and the Government most sincerely for this fine and positive accommodation. We on this side of the House gladly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gezina has given us a thorough résumé of the history of the whole system of providing for the welfare of temporary employees and of ensuring that they do belong to a pension fund from which they can derive proper benefits.

This is indeed an interesting piece of legislation. It comprises the combination of a pension fund and a provident fund into one pension fund. Of course, we know that there are certain basic differences between a provident fund and a pension fund. We also know that through the amalgamation of such provident fund and pension fund members will still be entitled to the same benefits they enjoyed before in terms of those respective funds. However, in debating this Bill we are at a disadvantage in that the whole basis of the Fund in terms of clause 8 of the Bill, is merely to be governed by regulations.

We are therefore grateful to the hon. the Minister for giving us some insight into what is actually proposed in terms of this new Fund which will be established. I hope that, when these regulations are finalized and promulgated, the hon. the Minister will also see fit to have some form of pamphlet issued by his department, a pamphlet stating exactly to what benefits members of the new Fund will be entitled. From time to time it appears that there are many people who are still unaware of the conditions and the benefits of the particular pension fund to which they belong. As a result of their ignorance it often happens that they make wrong decisions when they are called upon to exercise certain choices. This is merely a result of their not being fully aware of the provisions and the conditions of the pension fund to which they belong.

The idea of such a pamphlet is quite a good one.

Yes, it is. I think there are quite a lot of people who become confused and confounded when they try to read through long regulations covering a very wide variety of aspects concerning that Fund. Consequently, I think that, for the guidance of those people who are to be members of this Fund, an indication should be given to them at a later stage, in a simple form, of what their entitlement is.

The question of the dormant member is not quite clear to me. Clause 6 of the Bill deals with benefits to dormant members who cannot become members of the Fund. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us how many dormant members there are at the present time who will not be able to become members of the new Fund which is to be established, because obviously they will then not be covered by any Fund at all and their full benefits will have to be paid to them in terms of the clause, so that eventually there will be no dormant members at all. It is important to see that these members also have their rights protected in terms of any legislation passed by the House. I should be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give the House some further information with regard to the position of dormant members.

We should also like some more clarity from the hon. the Minister on the question of the position of members’ widows with regard to the continuation and consolidation of benefits in terms of clause 4. The hon. the Minister did indicate in his Second Reading speech that the 10% increase, effective from 1 April, which has been granted to civil pensioners, would also apply to this group of pensioners. These persons are receiving annuities, allowances and bonuses. In terms of this legislation consolidation is to be brought about, but the date when this legislation will come into operation has still to be decided on. It will be fixed by proclamation by the State President in the Gazette. Therefore I should be pleased to receive the assurance that these persons will benefit by the increase that is to be granted and that such increase will not be granted purely on the annuity but on the consolidated amount. This could make a considerable difference to a large number of members who at present are receiving annuities, allowances and bonuses.

As far as widows are concerned, the Bill does not stipulate what percentage the widow will enjoy as a widow’s pension. We know that in terms of a number of pension schemes, the widow’s provision can vary from 50% to 80% in some cases of what her late husband was receiving as a pension. There is no stipulation in clause 4 of this Bill as to what that percentage is to be. However, we obviously accept the hon. the Minister’s word that, in terms of this new scheme when it comes into operation, there will be a 50% widow’s benefit.

We on these benches wholeheartedly support this Bill. Indeed, we believe it is a necessary and desirable step to ensure that temporary employees also have a pension fund so that they, too, will be able to enjoy a degree of security when the time comes for them to receive a pension because they are unable to continue in employment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo raised, inter alia, the question of the dormant members as they are affected by this Bill. I think he is labouring under a misconception as far as the position of these people is concerned, but I assume that the hon. the Minister will certainly be able to clarify things for him in this regard. I do not think we need be concerned about their position.

This Bill is really a milestone on a very long road of efforts made by various individuals and bodies to make better provision for the members of the Government Employees’ Provident Fund. Last year the hon. member for Gezina dealt with the history of this most comprehensively during the discussion of the Vote of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Today, too, he discussed certain aspects of the matter. Since 1972 the Public Servants’ Association has also endeavoured to achieve improved privileges for these people. The hon. the Minister indicated last year that the fact that it was not possible to assimilate these people into the Government Service Pension Fund, was primarily owing to the big difference between the contributions which the two categories of members had made to their respective funds. The temporary workers had contributed 13,25% of their salaries, as opposed to the 25,9% contributed by permanent workers. However, the hon. the Minister confirmed on that occasion that his department and he were not happy at all about these people and that a better formula had to be sought. For that reason we are pleased to be able to discuss this Bill today. It is an effort to strike an equitable balance between the benefits of the two categories of workers. I think we should ask the workers involved in this, not to concentrate exclusively on the fact that the gratuity for which they qualify at present is going to fall away, for the benefits they are going to enjoy in terms of this Bill are of such a nature that the loss of the gratuity will very rapidly be neutralized by the bigger and better benefits they will derive from this fund. The object of this Bill is to ensure the best possible annuity for these workers, and this is, after all, a very important improvement. It is a vast improvement, which benefits these temporary workers greatly. I realize that the concession will probably cost the State many millions of rands—I do not know whether the hon. the Minister can or wants to give an indication in this regard—but I think this is money which will be well spent, for in the past there was a great deal of disillusionment and dissatisfaction among temporary workers who retired. They were worried about their old age because they knew that their pensions were very small. There were often reproaches that the Government had prejudiced them by deducting contributions from their salaries for this provident fund, which then in actual fact resulted in very small benefits.

A good friend of mine, who died last year, approximately a year after he had retired as a temporary worker, approached me on his situation and we made a calculation. I convinced myself that if he had taken his contribution to the Provident Fund and had rather made other provision with it, he would perhaps have been better off than he was as member of this Provident Fund. I have just received representations from a voter of mine, who is 63 years old and has been a temporary worker in the service of the Government for 27 years now. We made inquiries and found that, before these latest increases came into operation, his pension, calculated on his salary, would only be R120 per month if he were to retire now, but when this Bill comes into operation, it would mean in practice that his pension would be approximately 85% to 90% higher than this pension of R120 per month. In other words, the gratuity lost by these people, will be very rapidly neutralized by the improved benefits they will enjoy. The same applies to the widow. A widow receiving 40% of her late husband’s pension under the present dispensation, will, I think, receive three times more in practice after this Bill has come into operation.

I made inquiries at the department. All the possibilities were discussed, but it seems to me to be impossible that a temporary worker will be worse off in terms of this Bill than in terms of the present providential measures applicable to them.

In clause 8(2)(b) provision is made for the privilege of repurchasing the pension. I really want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister or the department, when this Bill comes into operation, will send circulars to all these people informing them of their benefits and emphasizing that they are in a position to repurchase their pensions so that they can continue to make better provision for the day when they retire.

In clause 10 a date is determined for the commencement of this Bill. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister wishes to give us an indication in this regard. I want to tell hon. members that the temporary workers are looking forward to the day when this Bill comes into operation. I want to conclude by telling the hon. the Minister that we support this Bill and by expressing the hope that its commencement will be accelerated so that the dawning of this new day will not be delayed for these people who are involved.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their participation in this debate. It was an interesting discussion despite the fact that we are largely in agreement as far as this Bill is concerned.

†I first want to thank the hon. member for Hillbrow. He usually takes part in debates on welfare matters and I appreciate the contributions that he makes.

*It is not the intention to deprive a widow of her rights if she remarries. If a widow remarries, she still receives the same benefits. She will retain her benefits.

†The hon. member for Umbilo need not be worried about the 10%. As soon as this legislation comes into operation the 10% will be consolidated with the consolidated pension. It will be added. As far as the hon. member’s suggestion about the pamphlet is concerned, I think it is a good suggestion. We shall certainly look into that matter. The hon. member also spoke about the dormant members. There are still about 300 dormant members, but I can assure the hon. member that the interests of these dormant members are really taken into account and they will receive what they are entitled to under the Act. For the information of hon. members I should like to add that we intend having the new scheme in operation by 1 October this year.

*I do not want to occupy the time of this House unnecessarily. I think I have already replied to all questions. The question of transferability, etc., is a matter which we may possibly discuss at a later stage. There is also the question of the cost of this to the State which will be in the region of R20 million per annum.

Finally, I want to say that I am pleased that we all agree on the principle of this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 22, the House adjourned at 18h00.