Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Actually this amendment merely envisages rectifying a certain matter. The present wording of clause 6(l)(a)(ii), creates the impression that the official economic objectives of the country should be coordinated with the official policy of competition. In the nature of things the opposite should, of course, be the case. The official policy of competition should be coordinated with the economic objectives of the country. That has always been the intention, but an error slipped in with the drafting of the Bill. If the amendment I have just moved were to be accepted, this would rectify the position.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I believe the amendment speaks for itself. It provides quite simply that while we acknowledge that the officials operating in terms of the Bill when it becomes law, will have the right to seize documents, to examine them and to hold them in custody, we believe that for the purpose of maintaining the business of the person from whom the books have been removed and for the purpose of conducting his bona fide affairs, he should be allowed access to the records which he may from time to time require for this purpose. It is with that object in mind that I have moved the amendment. If the amendment is accepted, he will have access to such documents at his own expense and under the supervision of the inspector so that he can make no alterations or in any other way damage the records. He will be allowed bona fide access to such documents for the conduct of his business. I do not believe that it is the intention, when documents are taken for examination by the inspectors, that the business concerned should thereby be penalized unnecessarily as the result of the unavailability of the documents. We believe that it would be a great improvement to the intent and the effectiveness of the Bill if this amendment were accepted by the hon. the Minister.

I should also like to move as an amendment—

I think it is commonly accepted that communications between an attorney and his client are confidential in nature. Obviously the inspectors entrusted with the implementation of the legislation must have access to all business documents relating to the conduct of the business and to the investigation of practices which might be contrary to the provisions of the legislation, but nevertheless communications between a client and his attorney do fall into a special category. In fact, in order to protect his own interests, the businessman concerned may find it essential to avail himself of the privilege of confidentiality inherent in our law. Unless we want to make a large-scale onslaught on the professional practice in this country, I think it would be wise to retain this provision in the proposed legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise only to say that I am prepared to accept the amendments moved by the hon. member got for Constantia.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move as an amendment—

This amendment has no purpose other than to be more specific about the nature of the action contemplated. It is merely a definitive addition which I believe improves the meaning of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I rise only to explain that the two amendments I accepted previously, and the amendment that has just been moved, were only given to me by the hon. member a few moments ago. I should just like to explain to him that in terms of the Act itself the inspector will have powers to investigate matters other than merely restrictive trade practices. For instance, he is also legally empowered—in fact, not only is he empowered to do so, but he will also be under instructions to do so—to investigate mergers or take-overs. If one therefore restricts the clause to such an extent, he might be hampered in the execution of his duties. What I should like to suggest is that the hon. member leaves this amendment with me for consideration, and if it is acceptable I shall move it in the Other Place. At the moment, however, I cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to say that that is fully acceptable to us and to add a word of apology to the hon. the Minister for the amendments having reached him rather late. That was my fault and not the fault of my hon. colleague.

No, that was not meant as a criticism. I was just explaining the situation.

Mr. Chairman, in the circumstances and with the leave of the Committee, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it was made clear during the Committee Stage that we on this side have no objections to the structure or content of the Bill which is before the House. We are grateful to the hon. the Minister for being prepared to accept two amendments which we have proposed and which we believe have improved the Bill. We are also grateful for his undertaking to consider a third amendment, the one which I have withdrawn.

There is just one other remark I wish to make now. During the Second Reading debate there was some reference made to the position of the Press as a possible monopolistic condition. It was suggested by the hon. the Minister that the Press might fall into a special category of business operation requiring special treatment. We agreed at that stage that if a matter to be considered, not just the Press or any other business enterprise, or the practices in connection with it, was of an urgent nature, that a special treatment might well be reflected in the form of priorities, in the priorities given for the examination of certain trade practices ahead of other trade practices—in other words, an alteration or shuffling of the places in the queue.

But it was also suggested that the principles that might apply might be different If one examines the Bill itself, the intent of the Bill, the policy which underlies the Bill, which relates to respective trade practices and the prevention of conditions of acquisition or monopoly which could be harmful to the economy of the Republic, then the kind of action which appears to be suggested, or to have been suggested by the hon. the Minister and hinted at by some other members, is not consistent with such an intent as is contained in the Bill. It is certainly not consistent with anything which appears in the report which led to the formulation of this Bill. I believe that the commission has directed its attention generally to the prevention of economic practices which are harmful to the Republic and that it generally, even-handedly and equitably wishes to eliminate such practices without fear or favour. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister at this stage will give us the assurance that it is not in fact the intention to use this Bill for purposes other than those indicated in the report and the Bill itself—in other words, not to use it as a kind of secret weapon against certain sections of the Press. I believe that if there was such an intent or such a practice, it would do a great deal to discredit the respect in which this Bill should be held within the economic community. I believe that the hon. the Minister will depend heavily on the co-operation, the goodwill and the confidence of the economic community in making this Bill work, and I believe further that to introduce into the administration of the Act any type of partisan or punitive practice or intent would do a great deal to discredit the Bill in the eyes of the very community whose co-operation the hon. the Minister wants. With this plea we will support the Bill, but I await the Minister’s assurance.

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasant to find that a Bill of this nature is so acceptable to both sides of the House. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will reply satisfactorily to the one problem which the hon. member for Constantia raised.

The Bill before the House is based on probing investigation and research. Consequently we can look forward with great expectations to its implementation and effect in practice. The concept of “free competition” is highly rated in the capitalist world. However, sometimes it is used as a rampart by people with hidden motives of unreasonable enrichment. The effect of clause 6(1)(b), which is one of the central provisions of the Bill, guards against that. In terms of that provision the board shall—

This Bill can have only one effect namely the enhanced efficiency of the country’s economy, and this can only be achieved if lower unit costs are effected in the production process. If this is done, it does not matter whether it is done under monopolistic conditions or conditions of competition, since the Bill prohibits nothing per se. An important condition is attached to this. The lower unit price has to be passed on to the public, since this is in the public interests, it effects lower prices and counteracts inflation. If lower unit costs were only used to enrich the entrepreneur, the gap between rich and poor would only become wider. Increased production and more extensive competition could even result in greater elasticity of supply and demand returning to the South African economy and particularly in the manufacturing sector again, and elasticity that is essential for realistic price formation.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to support the Third Reading of this very important Bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member for Constantia at once. This Bill is not a secret weapon against any institution; nor is it intended for that purpose. The hon. member will remember that when the Press was mooted, it was not I who had raised it. All that happened with regard to the Press during the Second Reading debate was that the point of view was adopted that for the purposes of this Act, certain commodities or institutions could be more sensitive than others. I do not think the hon. member would have any fault to find with that Nor do I believe we should conduct a debate today on which of them are more sensitive than others. I think we should leave it to the mechanisms of the Bill to sort that out. I think the hon. member will appreciate that if I were now to adopt a standpoint in this regard it would mean that I would in fact have to anticipate the implementation of this legislation, which I do not think is expected of me.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Namakwaland for his support for the Bill. He pointed out quite correctly that the Bill does not prohibit monopolistic conditions or the existence of a monopoly per se. The Bill is merely intended to restrict this when it operates to the detriment of the public interest. It is of course true that the base of the industries in our country is still fairly limited and that as a result of a limited market demand in a specific industrial sector, there is no need for more than one undertaking. For that very reason it is our intention in certain cases to prevent further undertakings from operating in a specific industrial sector, since this would have the disadvantage that an already limited market would have to be divided between two or more undertakings, which would make it more uneconomical for all of them and would consequently entail cost increases to the consumer. From that point of view, I agree with the hon. member.

I also agree with the second point the hon. member made, namely that when, in specific circumstances, a monopolistic condition is merely being used solely for the enrichment of the undertaking involved without the terminal point, that is to say the consumer, also sharing in the benefits of economies of scale, there would be reason for us to investigate such practices in terms of the provisions of the legislation. However, I do not wish to go into the matter any further now.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 2, in line 23, after “radio” to insert:
   , television
2. (2) on page 4, after line 10, to insert:
   (iv) in terms of an exemption under an agreement envisaged in section 4B and published as determined in that section.
3. (3) on page 4, in line 14, after “pamphlet” to insert:
   , or the broadcaster of any radio or television programme,
4. (4) on page 4, after line 31, to insert:

Minister may enter into certain agreement

I do not think it is necessary to explain the amendments. However, I just want to point out that I indicated during the Second Reading debate that I had had consultations with the Press Union and that as a result of these consultations I had decided to make certain amendments to clause 2. Very briefly, the amendments authorize the Minister of Economic Affairs to exempt certain categories of persons from the restriction on publication in terms of the legislation.

Did you not intend moving a further amendment?

It is included in the amendments I have moved.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would elucidate the proposed new paragraph (iv) and explain what he has in mind. One can envisage certain other persons who may be affected, but it would be helpful to an understanding of the Bill if the hon. the Minister would explain precisely what he has in mind.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member for Constantia was not present when in the course of my reply to the Second Reading debate I replied to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville. Clause 4 does not necessarily refer to a natural person, but to a legal person. It concerns the SOF and the SFF, the companies to which the payments are made.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, this amending Bill empowers the Minister of Economic Affairs to manufacture, produce, acquire, hire or import goods, to acquire, hire or supply services, to exercise control over goods and services and to manufacture, produce, process and treat goods. At the same time the 1970 Act provides for the establishment and the administration of a National Procurement Fund. As the Bill deals with the non-disclosure of information about services and strategic supplies and goods which are stockpiled in the interests of the country, we feel that in the circumstances this Bill is a reasonable one, and therefore we shall not oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that at this stage I am not certain whettier the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who is unfortunately not able to be here today, has spoken on this particular Bill or not. In the event that he has not spoken on it, I simply want to assure this House and the hon. the Minister that we in these benches support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their support of the Bill. The hon. member for Constantia raised one specific aspect of importance. He commented on the question of security. I want to refer the hon. member to the principal Act, because the amendments we are now making concern powers conferred upon the Minister of Economic Affairs which already exist in terms of the principal Act I want to explain this. Section 2 of the National Supplies Procurement Act reads as follows—

1. (a) notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained, without having recourse to the State Tender Board or the State Procurement Board and on such conditions and in such manner as he may determine—
   1. (i) manufacture or produce in the Republic any goods for the State or on behalf of any person (date of commencement 11 November 1977);
   2. (ii) acquire or hire in or outside the Republic any goods or services for the State or on behalf of any person or direct any person so to acquire or hire any goods or services.

Then such a person who has control over the supplies is served with a notice. That person is then prohibited from publishing that information in respect of which the notice was served upon him, and all we are doing here is to insert that provision into the Bill in order to prohibit, under given circumstances, the publication of information in respect of the goods or services which the Minister has already decided on in terms of the existing section. In other words, the definition—I hope the hon. member understands what I am trying to say—of security is irrelevant for purposes of the amendment Unfortunately I cannot explain it in greater detail. That is why I intend to move an amendment to this clause during the Committee Stage which is identical to that which we inserted into the previous Bill, to make it possible to exempt certain persons or groups of persons by way of an agreement from the restriction on publication.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. the Minister in relation to the question of the security of the Republic in his reply to the Second Reading debate. However, there may be a misunderstanding between us in that I agree with him entirely that the principal Act does make provision for him to take certain action, in terms of section 2 or 3(1), in regard to what may be required in respect of these strategic supplies, presumably in time of emergency. The hon. the Minister has now introduced a new section 8A, which further amplifies the matter and provides—

That is right.

I have no difficulty with that at all because the nondisclosure of information and to certain exemptions from the prohibition on nondisclosure relate to things which he may do in terms of section 2 or 3(1) of the principal Act So far we are agreed. However, my difficulty arises in relation to the proposed section 8B, still under clause 1. In terms of this proposed section very much wider powers are conferred on the Minister because section 8B does not refer to sections 2 or 3 of the principal Act, but refers instead to an unqualified range of acts which he may perform. The proposed section 8B(1) reads—

I think the hon. the Minister will concede that sections 2 and 3(1) of the principal Act do not govern the proposed new section 8B in the same way as they govern the new proposed section 8A. Therefore I believe the only qualification or inhibition imposed on the hon. the Minister, is imposed by the words “for the security of the Republic”. It is for this reason, as I have explained during the Second Reading, that I believe the words “for the security” have become so widely used and have become such a vague expression that it is necessary to add to this particular provision, i.e. the proposed new section 8B—which gives the hon. the Minister such very wide and unlimited powers— some kind of restraint to the words “for the security”. I therefore move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 2, in line 26, after “Republic” to insert: against an economic or a strategic threat relating to any essential goods or service
2. (2) on page 2, in line 28, to omit “any” and to substitute “such”.

The proposed section 8B(1) will then read—

The effect of this is merely to circumscribe the hon. the Minister in relation to this class of information where he is not restricted, as he is in the proposed new section 8A, by the provisions of the principal Act. This is my intention. I once again wish to apologize for giving the hon. the Minister such short notice of this amendment, but I hope that as it is a short amendment, he will find time to consider it before we go further.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, I just want to draw your attention once again to the provisions of the principal Act. The principal Act deals with the acquisition of national supplies in certain circumstances and empowers the Minister of Economic Affairs to acquire for the country’s security, certain goods or services and/or both, in given circumstances and for specific reasons. The principal Act also describes the machinery the Minister has to use to acquire those goods or services. The fact that he needs those goods or services, determines the strategic elements in the fact that he wants them. This is inserted in the principal Act. However, we are now going further by saying that when in those circumstances the Minister decides to acquire certain goods or services or their production or acquisition or whatever, he has to serve the affected persons with a notice as stipulated in the Act. The Bill now goes further by providing that no one may disclose that information, i.e. that certain goods or services have been acquired for the State in terms of the provisions of the principal Act. This may not be disclosed. This refers to the proposed new section 8A(1). I want to argue here that the concept of security, to which both section 2 of the principal Act and the proposed new section 8A refer, is the decisive element which may cause the Minister to decide whether he wants to use certain services.

With regard to the new section 8B, the same element which requires action in terms of the principal Act and of the proposed new section 8A, is contained in the words “the security of the Republic”. The hon. member’s proposal entails a qualification of the circumstances which may threaten the security of the State by his addition of the words “economic or strategic activities”. There may perhaps be a great deal of merit in the hon. member’s amendment, but I have to consider it in the context of the legislation as a whole, and I once again give the undertaking that I shall do so. If I find it possible to accommodate the amendment, I shall move an amendment in the Other Place. However, the hon. member must give me the opportunity to examine to what extent it affects the principal Act and the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I follow the hon. the Minister’s arguments very clearly and well. With regard to the insertion of the proposed section 8A I have no problem. The proposed section 8A does refer to the principal Act, as far as security is concerned. Although reference is made to the security of the State in the proposed section 8B, there is no reference or relation to the principal Act. This proposed section is completely outside the context of the principal Act. If the hon. the Minister wants to link the proposed section 8B to the principal Act in another way, I should be satisfied. One example is where the proposed section refers to any goods or service. If the hon. the Minister would be prepared to have those goods or services defined so that the term refers to specific goods or services under the principal Act, it would suit me. The hon. the Minister must accept that the concept “goods or service” can also have a very loose meaning. It could mean anything. If he is prepared to link “goods or service” to the intentions of the principal Act, by referring to the principal Act in the proposed section 8B, as is the case with the proposed 8A, it would no longer have such an indefinite meaning. At present the proposed section 8B makes it of absolutely unlimited effect If it were linked to the intentions in the principal Act we should have far fewer objections to it Since there is a reference to the principal Act in the proposed section 8A, it is just as essential in the proposed section 8B where reference is made to a whole series of undefined goods or services. This should refer to the goods or services in the principal Act. We should be satisfied with that.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say that it might be possible to restrict the purport of the proposed article 8B by the acceptance of the amendment which the hon. member has moved. At this stage I am asking hon. members only to consider the amendment in the Bill. If it is not acceptable, I shall also consider the other points he has raised now. I am not giving him a further undertaking, except to say that I shall consider both his suggestions. If I find them acceptable, I shall move an appropriate amendment in the Other Place. In the meantime I shall consult with the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister. I do not intend taking the matter any further. The hon. the Minister has declared his willingness to consider the alternative that I have offered. It may be that there are better suggestions. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider very seriously the desirability of defining the proposed article 8B in the same way as the proposed article 8A. I should like him to circumscribe the proposed article 8B in the same way. I think it is improper legislation and it is not acceptable to us if the proposed article 8A is defined and the proposed article 8B not so defined. I do not believe that we can give the hon. the Minister an absolute carte blanche on the proposed article 8B and I do not think he is seeking an absolute carte blanche. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept this, I shall be happy to support the Bill and to withdraw my amendments.

Amendments moved by Mr. I. F. A. de Villiers, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (2)
   1. (a) Any agreement in terms of subsection (1) shall be published in the Gazette and may not be unilaterally cancelled save in the case of a serious breach of the provisions thereof.
   2. (b) In the case of a dispute as to the question whether or not there is such a breach, such dispute shall be submitted for a decision to a tribunal specified in the agreement
2. (3) In the event of the cancellation of any such agreement the provisions of section 8A or 8B or any notice under section 8B shall apply to such person or category of persons with effect from the date of notification of the cancellation by notice in the Gazette.”.

The intention here is exactly the same, viz. to empower the Minister to grant exemption in certain circumstances.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Economic Affairs, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The State Oil Fund Act, 1977, provides for two Funds, viz. the State Oil Fund which is used as an instrument for the financing of Sasol 2, and the Equalization Fund which was established to finance the difference in price between the official Opec price and the international market price of crude oil.

It is necessary that the revenue basis of these funds be broadened and that they should not consist solely of the portion of excise and levies referred to in the Act. Accordingly, it is envisaged in terms of clauses 1 and 2(b) of this Bill to channel not only the fines referred to in section 11 of the Petroleum Products Act, 1977, but other moneys on which the Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs may decide, to these two funds as well.

It has come to my attention that since the establishment of the levies on fuel earlier this year, certain large consumers have indicated that they are no longer going to purchase their petroleum products locally, but are going to import it themselves for their own use and thus evade the payment of the levy.

†When I approached Parliament earlier this year for enabling legislation to impose levies on petroleum products, I indicated that all sectors of the economy should contribute equally not only to our efforts to save petroleum products, but also to the payment of the levies imposed. I also pointed out that to achieve this goal, no exemptions could be granted. In order therefore to prevent certain large consumers from making use of a technical point to circumvent the payment of the levy, I propose that section 4A of the Act be amended as set out in clause 2(a) of the Bill before the House.

In terms of section 55 of Act 11 of 1977 the Minister of Economic Affairs in concurrence with the Minister of Finance is empowered to issue guarantees to Sasol and certain subsidiary companies of Sasol. As such guarantees will also be required by a company named Sasol (Overvaal) Limited, which will be used as an instrument for the financing of the Sasol 2 extension project, it is proposed to amend the relevant section to provide for the possibility of having to issue such guarantees to this company. The proposed amendment is contained in clause 3 of the Bill.

Members will recall that when I announced the Government’s decision towards the end of last year to impose levies on petroleum products with effect from 1 January 1979, Parliament was not in session, and that in the State Oil Fund Amendment Act, 1979, provision had to be made for the amending legislation to come into operation with retrospective effect from 1 January 1979. This was also necessary for the validation of the relevant notices provided for in section 3 of that Act. Since the promulgation of the Act, the State Law Advisers have, however, indicated that although the said section provided for retroactivity, this was limited to the actual day on which the notices have been served and that section 3 of the Act could not be interpreted as retrospective validation with retrospective effect from 1 January 1979 of the notices and the levies imposed thereunder. The provisions of clause 4 will now put this beyond any doubt.

Clause 5 contains amendments consequential to the provisions of clauses 3 and 4, and clause 6 contains the short title.

Mr. Speaker, we propose to support this Bill. There are, however, a few matters I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister at this stage, essentially by way of clarification. The hon. the Minister has an amendment on the Order Paper. I do not know whether he would prefer me to deal with this in the Committee Stage, or whether he is prepared to have me discuss the principle now. In anticipation of the hon. the Minister moving his amendments in the Committee Stage, however, I think it may be useful to discuss the principle involved at this stage. The hon. the Minister proposes to move that “any such notice shall not contain any exemption from the payment of a levy” except for certain “petroleum products manufactured from raw material produced in the Republic”. This also applies to “petroleum products manufactured on behalf of a person for use outside the Republic against delivery by such a person of a quantity of raw material produced outside the Republic which is required for the manufacture of such petroleum products or an equivalent quantity thereof”. I shall now be looking at the Bill as a whole, and shall not be examining the particular amendment. That we may do in more detail in the Committee Stage. To look at the Bill as a whole, however, one has to take into account what the hon. the Minister proposes to do. One understands from this that petroleum products, that is to say liquid fuels, manufactured in South Africa from raw materials available in South Africa, can be exempted from the relevant duties. We have to quarrel with that. I think it is right that every inducement should be given for the rapid advancement of an industry which may supply South Africa with liquid fuel and make us increasingly independent of the importation of petroleum products. If the proposed exemption from duties helps to serve that purpose, it can only enjoy our fervent support.

The hon. the Minister, in the proposed amendment, also refers to petroleum products produced outside the Republic. A barrel of oil imported into South Africa contains a variety of products. After refinement it may be possible for some of the by-products which are in surplus supply to be traded against those which are in short supply. I do not know whether this is or is not the hon. the Minister’s intent I am merely probing because it would be helpful to us to know exactly what he is talking about here. It is difficult to measure up a Bill like this outside the envisaged practice. If it were possible to produce, from barrels of crude oil that are imported, a sufficiency or over-sufficiency of some petroleum products, but it were found that there is an insufficiency of others and that the products of which there is an over-sufficiency can be traded outside the Republic, this would enable us to import an equivalent quantity of either crude oil or the particular products which are in short supply. An action of that kind would, I believe, be equally deserving of the suspension of a levy or duty on the second importation.

Mr. Chairman, if that is the hon. the Minister’s intention we will be very happy to support it If he has another intention and I have misunderstood his purpose, then I will be glad to know what his purpose is before I give him my unqualified support.

As regards the rest of the Bill we can see very little wrong with it or content which is not necessary. But I would like to ask the hon. the Minister about one thing. In clause 5 there is a repeal of the Finance and Financial Adjustments Consolidation Act, a repeal of section 55 of that Act. That Act is a consolidated Act relating to the financial institutions and practices in South Africa. I can quite understand that the hon. the Minister has introduced into this Bill a repetition of section 55 with a slight addition relating to Sasol (Overvaal). We go along with that.

The addition proposed by clause 3 is in fact virtually a repetition of section 55 of the Finance and Financial Adjustments Consolidation Act. What puzzles me is if in this Bill the addition of section 1D is necessary, why should it be necessary to remove it from the Finance and Financial Adjustments Acts Consolidation Act I would have thought that if that is a consolidated Act, it is desirable that the Act of the Minister of Finance should also contain the powers which are required in this Bill and it is hardly acceptable that if there is an insertion of this particular clause in this Bill it should be left out of the other one. In fact, it would seem to me that the more logical course would be to propose at some time or another a small amendment to the Finance and Financial Adjustments Acts Consolidation Act by the addition of the words “or Sasol (Overvaal) Limited”. However, I think the position as it is now is covered by the amendment proposed in clause 3 by the hon. the Minister. We will support clause 3, but I am curious as to why it should be necessary to repeal an equal, although slightly deficient, section in the Finance and Financial Adjustments Acts Consolidation Act.

As regards clause 5(2), which is the savings provision for the levy, we can quite see why that should be necessary and we will support that as well. Generally speaking, we are therefore in favour of the Bill and give our support to it at Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased that the Opposition supports this measure. The hon. member for Constantia devoted much of his speech to the amendment on the Order Paper. I do not want to deal with this amendment in detail at this point. The hon. members do in any event accept the first part of it, and I think that to some extent the hon. member misunderstands the second part. The hon. the Minister will be able to clear this up. When someone imports raw material for oil production—and it can be mainly crude oil—we must make it attractive for him to refine that raw material here and then export it from here to consumers in other countries. It might be to the benefit of such an importer and it might also be to the benefit of our refineries when they are not working at full capacity. But I think the hon. the Minister will be able to discuss this in more detail.

This amendment Bill, like the principal Act itself, is a very important piece of legislation. It is a fact that oil supply is probably one of the most important priorities in our economy today and I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to convey our appreciation from this side of the House to the hon. the Minister for his hard work with regard to this whole question of oil supply. It is surely one of the most difficult matters, the most difficult portfolios to have at this stage. Rain and oil are two of the most important production components we need at the moment. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister cannot do anything about one of them. Providence looks after that, but as far as oil supply is concerned, he really does his best. We appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister has been working on this from a very early stage, viz. in the recess, when most of us were still on holiday, and took the necessary steps to obtain the necessary oil. We also appreciate—and want to place on record—the fact that the hon. the Minister is continually trying to gain the co-operation of the private sector with regard to the whole matter of oil supply. There are constantly meetings and conferences with the private sector, and I think that the hon. the Minister has succeeded in this way in obtaining the co-operation of the private sector as well.

This Bill makes provision for logical amendments. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister explained the reasons for them very clearly. It is a good thing that the basis on which these two funds are financed, is being broadened. The provisions of the amendment Bill also prevent circumvention of the Act by importation by large consumers. There are, of course, always people who try to find loopholes in legislation. It is a great pleasure for us on this side of the House to support this amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Malmesbury, we on these benches will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. In doing so, however, I should like to make one or two general remarks, particularly of course in view of the position in which South Africa finds itself today in relation to the procurement of oil supplies and the usage of oil products. South Africa is, of course, not alone in this position; it is a position that obtains throughout the world today. It is also not going to be a short-term position, but something which I think future generations will have to get used to.

In the light of these facts it is fairly obvious that measures of this nature will have to be introduced to protect and control the resources available to us. However, I should like to refer to this type of measure as really being somewhat of a negative measure rather than a positive measure. Measures like this one and the Petroleum Products Amendment Bill we discussed a short while ago are basically measures designed to protect and control the resources we have available through the current methods of supply.

Apart from such negative measures—and I do not mean negative in a bad sense at all—I should like to urge the hon. the Minister also to consider coming forward with legislation containing more positive aspects in terms of oil conservation and energy conservation generally. In this connection I would mention a few items, one of which is daylight-saving, something which I know France has used with a great deal of success. This involves putting one’s clocks forward at certain times of the year to save energy resources. The figures I read in a French publication the other day indicating the saving that had been effected in this way were quite staggering. Secondly, there is the electrification of the country. There can be no question but that a tremendous amount of oil resources are used particularly by people like dairy farmers who use oil for pumping and irrigation. I think that in this respect a positive measure could be introduced.

I should like to leave the hon. the Minister with these thoughts. As I have said, we can support the Bill. On behalf of this side of the House, I should also like to wish the hon. the Minister the best of luck with his unenviable task on behalf of this country to see that our business community and the country generally do not suffer because of the shortage of oil with which we are faced.

Mr. Speaker, as we have said previously, we feel that the additions to Sasol 2 are absolutely vital. The expenditure of approximately R3 200 million is fully justified. We note that in a mighty country like America, more especially in the State of California, there is an oil crisis which is far more serious than we have in South Africa. We want to compliment the hon. the Minister on the fact that he has enlisted the support of commerce and industry and people from the agricultural sphere in order to get the broader public support that this matter deserves. One cannot solve this problem in isolation, but have to work together as a team and take all the people in the country with us in this effort. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has taken the necessary steps to bring all the various sectors together.

The oil crisis which was sparked off by the international uncertainty as to sources of supply obviously necessitates that we take further steps. Thus Bill broadens the scope of the income base. At present local authorities, amongst others, receive the proceeds from certain fines. If the revenue of local authorities is going to be reduced in any way by this, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister that the Browne Committee that is investigating the question of local authorities, must come to the relief of those local authorities.

We think that the new principle introduced by clause 2(a) is a fair one, whereby the Minister may impose a levy on certain importers who import certain petroleum products; otherwise it would mean that local purchasers would be paying the levy that the importers would not be paying. The guarantees, in terms of clause 3, by the Minister of Economic Affairs in respect of loans and export credits to the undertakings mentioned, is an essential requirement. In fact, except for Sasol (Overvaal) Limited there is nothing new in this particular clause.

Under the circumstances we will not oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have had concrete proof of how one can obtain the co-operation of both the Opposition and the private sector when as important a subject as this one is involved. I thank hon. members for their support of the legislation.

I want to furnish certain explanations with reference to certain questions which were put to me. The hon. member for Constantia asked a question about the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper. I want to say at once that I shall have to add a (c) part to my amendment. The hon. member referred to the part of my amendment which reads as follows—

His statement was correct. I do not think that we should impose levies on the liquid fuel products manufactured in South Africa from South African raw materials. In fact, in terms of the Act preferential treatment is already being given to the existing products of Sasol 1, and it would be wrong to impose a levy on fuel products manufactured locally from raw materials that are here. In that regard the conclusions of the hon. member are correct. As regards the (b) part of my amendment, the circumstances to which the hon. member referred may obtain. In other words, there may, in given circumstances, as a result of the limitation of the fractions of products which can be produced from one barrel of oil, a surplus which we have to export, and then it would be wrong to impose levies on that. However, there are other circumstances as well, and I want to mention one to the hon. member and that is that at the moment we have a surplus-capacity in our refineries. It is possible that there are people who want oil refined. This would have the advantage that some of that capacity could be utilized so that the unit cost would be lower. In those circumstances one would not like to impose a levy on the products manufactured for someone else from oil that that person gives to the refinery for his own purposes. The hon. member is, therefore, correct in his conclusions.

†I intend adding a paragraph (c) to this amendment. This will read as follows—

*I want to explain this briefly. The hon. member knows that excise is imposed on products and that with regard to certain transport services there is a rebate of 50% and that for agriculture in some respects it has virtually been done away with. Recently it so happened that we persuaded the hon. the Minister of Finance to help us not to have to impose a further increase by using 2c of the excise on petrol and diesel oil to cushion those increases. This, however, meant that we also had to make this exception in certain cases to get the adjustment right. This is merely a technical matter and that is why I shall move this further amendment during the Committee Stage.

The hon. member also referred to clause 3. It is as the hon. member said. At the moment the authorization for the issue of guarantees to the existing group of Sasol companies is contained in the Act pertaining to financial institutions. When we had to grant that same power with regard to Sasol (Overvaal) we found that it would be better to have the provisions on the obtaining and production of oil in one Act instead of in various Acts. It is merely a practical arrangement that we are making in this regard. Because of the provisions of clause 3 we therefore have to arrange the repeal of section 55 of the Finance and Financial Adjustments Acts Consolidation Act, 1977 by means of clause 5. Often that financial Act is an omnibus Act in which a number of financial components have to be covered. Our arrangement here has been made with the consent of the Department of Finance.

As far as the speech of the hon. member for East London North is concerned, I want to say that this is a positive Bill because it actually makes provision for the funds which will help us to a large extent with the production of fuel. It is therefore a positive Bill and does not contain negative measures to limit consumption, for example.

The hon. member referred to what other countries, for example France, are doing with regard to fuel saving. I want to tell him that we have already accepted a general series of positive proposals aimed at limiting use of these commodities to the minimum—for important reasons which I do not want to discuss now, but of which the hon. member is aware. At the appropriate time I shall state the Government’s standpoint on this matter and other matters. At this stage I merely want to say that many consumers are under the erroneous impression that the price of fuel is being raised in order to reduce the consumption. This is factually incorrect. It has never been our approach to increase the price of fuel products in order to limit their consumption. It is, however, true that the drastic increases in the price of fuel recently led to a restriction of consumption. This, however, was the result and not the aim. I want to say once again that any further increases in the price of these products will only be aimed at making provision in certain circumstances for the covering of the cost of the imported product as well as the manufacture and that part which must be included in the price to help with the financing of the Sasol II extensions and with the protection which the local product must of course be afforded against the imported product I want us to be clear on this point at this stage. From time to time I receive representations to the effect that instead of increasing the price, we should rather introduce rationing, as if the one is an alternative to the other. I would be glad if hon. members will help me in this regard so that we can get rid of this wrong impression. I would also be pleased if the media could help me in this regard. We did not raise the price of the products to cause consumption to drop, but for the reasons I have given: In the first place, to pay for the products we import; in the second place, to help with the financing of Sasol; and, in the third place, to ensure the protection the local product must have against the overseas product. If hon. members could help me in this regard, I would really appreciate it.

I thank the hon. member for Malmesbury for his very kind words. He said there are two production components that are presenting problems these days: Rain and oil. He said the Good Lord gives the one and a little help from the Good Lord to get the second would not be inappropriate. Just as the hon. member for Walmer did, the hon. member for Malmesbury referred to our actions in this regard, and I only want to point out that we take action in co-operation with the private sector. After all, it would never be possible to achieve the level of saving that South Africa has to achieve if we do not have the cooperation of all the consumers. Therefore, the other side of the coin is that I want to convey my appreciation to the private sector which, within a short time, did a tremendous job in providing us with information on the effect of fuel saving, certain levels of fuel saving, on our economic activities. On the other hand I also want to convey a word of thanks—even if it might be slightly sentimental—on behalf of this House to the officials of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. These officials work under very high pressure; they do a tremendous job for our country, and I think they deserve the appreciation of all of us. Therefore, on behalf of all of us, I want to convey our appreciation to them.

The hon. member for Walmer referred to the question of the source of income of local authorities. In this regard I want to remark that this legislation is enabling legislation. The motivation is that if we want to get the co-operation of the public we have to create the psychological atmosphere in which they will co-operate with us. However, if we were to use the power to channel those fines to the funds we have to use for the purchases or the production of fuel, there is no doubt that compensatory resources would in any case have to be created for those authorities. I do not undertake to take a decision in this regard before alternative steps have been taken to compensate those authorities for the loss of income which they would otherwise have suffered.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. (a) petroleum products manufactured from raw material produced in the Republic;
2. (b) petroleum products manufactured on behalf of a person for use outside the Republic against delivery by such a person of a quantity of raw material produced outside the Republic which is required for the manufacture of such petroleum products or an equivalent quantity thereof;
3. (c) petroleum products on which customs or excise duty is payable.”.

I explained during the Second Reading what the implications and the purpose of this are.

Mr. Chairman, regarding the last amendment moved by the hon. the Minister, I believe I understand him correctly that this particular provision is added to cover cases of people who import oil products on their own account for consumption in South Africa. They have to pay customs and excise duty on it, but they seek to escape the levies. Is that correct?

No, that does not fall under subsection (c). I shall explain it again.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the position is that excise duty is at present levied in respect of certain locally manufactured products. The full duty on the product is for example recovered from the motorist who buys his fuel at the filling stations. Half the duty is recovered from the passenger services. Therefore, there is a rebate on it. A lower duty is also recovered from the agricultural industry. There are therefore various rates at which the excise duty is levied. A certain portion of these increases is now being given up, because a rebate is now being granted and carried over in respect of a certain part of the excise duty so that we can cushion the price. Consequently there has to be a differential and the Minister therefore has to have the authority to exempt certain people. That is what this provision is all about.

The other provision to which the hon. member referred concerns people who evade the existing situation, in other words, those people who import already-processed products directly. In terms of the provisions of clause 2 of the Bill, we seek to close the door in this regard by also imposing levies on the goods which are imported directly. I hope the matter is now clear.

Mr. Chairman, I think we have the matter sorted out now. It relates to the amendment contained in clause 2(a) in line 10 on page 4.

“Imported by any person.”

Yes. If it were possible for large companies in South Africa, by virtue of their overseas connections if they should be international companies of some kind, to obtain the liquid fuel products they require for their business in South Africa on a preferential or on a special basis independent of South Africa’s ordinary purchasing arrangements for the provision of oil to the general public of South Africa, that would surely be a great asset If, for example, South Africa’s only supplies of petroleum oil came from the spot market at certain prices and under restrictive conditions, and it were possible for a major manufacturer in South Africa, by virtue of special affiliations or advantages it enjoys abroad, to import additional supplies of oil possibly at a lower price than can be obtained on the spot market that would surely be highly beneficial to South Africa, because it would reduce its dependence on the spot market for oil, where supplies are restricted, and it would also reduce its dependence on foreign currency for the purpose of paying those increased prices. It would in fact enable the manufacturer in South Africa who enjoys that advantage, to supply goods to the South African public at a lower cost price than if he had to rely on expensive imported oil from the ordinary sources. In these circumstances I hope that, despite the addition of this clause, the hon. the Minister would see it as an advantage to be encouraged if additional supplies could be obtained through such channels to augment or supplement the supplies available to South Africa, especially if they could be obtained at lower prices. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would explain his intentions in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to explain again that we naturally utilize and welcome any source from which we can obtain crude oil or oil products. The hon. member is aware that the levies to which reference is made in this provision, relate to the funds of the SFF Association and that they serve as a financing institution for the erection of Sasol 2 and, later, of Sasol 3. I believe the hon. member will agree with me that we have to treat all users of these products alike with regard to the final products to which this provision refers. We have to cast the net as widely as possible with regard to the levies we require for the financing of Sasol’s activities. If we do not do that, it will only mean that we shall have to increase the levy with regard to others, because we require a certain amount in order to be able to finance it. In these circumstances, I just want to explain, that is what we are engaged in at present.

I shall consider the other aspect to which the hon. member referred. I shall determine whether there are methods by which we can provide other forms of assistance. The levy is not the only obligation being imposed on people who purchase or consume this product Customs and excise duty is payable on this product, as well as turnover tax and various other obligations. If possible, I think that one should rather look to those spheres. As far as the levy is concerned, it seems to me as if we should obtain the biggest possible amount from it so that we can extend our production facilities. That is what this particular Bill is all about.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, today might have been an occasion to say a good deal about the oil situation in South Africa. I believe that there is a general awareness of the fact that the supply of oil is critical, that we face difficulties which are not clearly understood by the entire population of South Africa and that the hon. the Minister and his department face very severe difficulties in meeting the demands this situation imposes. As a result of the pressure of business in the House today, I believe, however, that this might not be the occasion to get involved in a long debate on this issue. However, I should like to say that it has been my experience on this side of the House, especially in relations with the public, that there is still a very large area of ignorance about the nature of the oil shortage in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has gone public on this issue and made statements from time to time and other hon. members have attempted to do the same. The fact remains, however, that the media of information have either failed or not been adequately used to get across to the public of South Africa the fundamental reasons, implications and consequences of the shortage we face. I believe there is not yet a psychological readiness in South Africa to accept the implications and consequences of this. I believe that South Africans are reasonable people and that, if these things are explained to them fully, without going into secret details, confidential matters of supply, where supplies come from, quantities in reserve, etc., if the basics of the situation are explained such as the kind of consequences we might have to face, especially if we do not succeed in doing what is necessary, one might create the kind of psychological climate in which people will, inter alia, attempt to save petrol. The saving of petrol is not, however, the whole issue; it is, perhaps, not even the most important issue. If a climate were created in which people, who are consumers of all oil products—and I would interpolate that many people very often do not even know when they are consuming oil products, that they do not know that waxes, paraffin, etc., all come out of the same barrel of oil—fully understood what comes out of that expensive barrel of oil and what the effects can be of waste, carelessness and thriftlessness in the use of these precious commodities, they would co-operate much more effectively and willingly. Without wishing to reproach the hon. the Minister, who I know has made strong appeals to industry and the people who are perhaps most able to make effective contributions to overcoming these problems, I would ask him in addition to appeal to the ordinary man and give him a better understanding of what is at stake and what is at risk.

I believe that a much greater effort should be made. Let us take the example of the recycling of lubricating oil. This may not be the key problem, but if people see lubricating oil being poured down the drain by the thousands of litres every day, it creates a feeling of disinterest in the effort to save oil products, or it creates the impression that the authorities do not care of that the situation is not as serious as is pretended. I think that in engaging the public in an effort of this kind, even if it is not specifically the critical issue in the whole of the oil situation, one should involve them in an attempt to make a contribution towards the relief of this very grave problem. I think that these things are all important, either in material terms or in psychological terms, and I believe that more can be done—as far as we are concerned on this side of the House, and I am sure I speak for everyone in this House—to assist the hon. the Minister in being effective in the control of consumption, the elimination of waste and the more effective utilization of the resources that are available to us. We shall certainly all do what we can, but we believe that the lead must come from him and that the public must be taken more fully into his confidence by way of better public information campaigns.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the debate this afternoon has shown a degree of unanimity which must be very heart warming to the hon. the Minister in the difficult times in which we all find ourselves. This is, of course, not a problem that South Africa alone is facing at the moment. I want to associate the NRP with the hon. the Minister’s good wishes to his staff who, in these days of on-going problems, have obviously a tremendous amount on their plates. Perhaps I may therefore be permitted to make a few observations, because we are not dealing with a once-and-for-all problem. I think it is now accepted, by a very wide cross-section of people, that the problem that we and the world are facing is far from improving. In fact it is probably going to get worse in both the short term and the dong term. The estimates that are being made, even today, of the world’s oil reserves indicate that supplies are decreasing and not increasing, as was the case up to a few years ago. This would seem to indicate that we are going to find ourselves in even more serious difficulties as the years go by.

We in this country are in a unique and very fortunate position, but I need not elaborate on that at a time like this. Through our Sasols we have a unique answer to the problems that are facing the world. Although we are world leaders in this field, however, I believe that we must continue with our research because there could well be processes that could improve our recovery rate. I am sure that this is an aspect to which the hon. the Minister, his staff and our scientists are giving the necessary attention.

I should like to direct an appeal to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. Whilst he will always enjoy the support of this House in matters such as this, which concern us greatly, there are some of us who are concerned about the fact that the steps that we have taken are perhaps not going to be of sufficient long-term benefit to South Africa. In this regard I again want to put a point to the hon. the Minister which I know is not a new point. Whilst Sasol 1 and Sasol 2, and the extensions to Sasol 2, are going to provide the answer to a very large part of our problem, let us please not once again find ourselves having to carry out future developments in this whole scheme of Sasols as the result of pressure. Let us please start considering now the fact that it is inevitable—it is as clear as day follows night—that we are going to need a Sasol 3. I am sure the hon. the Minister agrees with me.

In this regard—I am sure you will permit me to make brief reference to this, Mr. Speaker—there is very great acclamation around the country for the decision to allow the public to invest in Sasol 1. I believe this is a wise decision. It is perhaps a little overdue, but it is a most welcome decision. I believe the hon. the Minister will be delighted at the results of this placing of shares in Sasol. I hope that he will look at this again on an on-going basis to involve the public as widely as possible in the whole question of fuels and their local production in South Africa. As the hon. member for Constantia so rightly says, public awareness of and involvement in this problem can only make the problems of the hon. the Minister and his department in the long-term very much easier. Public commitment to the fact that we are in the same boat and that we in South Africa have to sort out that problem for ourselves, is the biggest single plus factor on the side of the hon. the Minister. I leave those two thoughts with him: Continued involvement of the public in all aspects of the problem and the acceptance in principle that South Africa will be needing in the not too distant future a Sasol 3. To these two thoughts I should like to add a plea that we start planning for it as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to avail myself of this opportunity to discuss the general oil position. Hon. members will know that this is sensitive information at present. I should just like to repeat for the sake of the record that I am of course dealing with the problematical situation with regard to liquid fuel and the procurement of crude oil in the closest co-operation with the private sector, and I shall continue to do so in future as well.

The hon. member for Constantia mentioned that the necessary understanding did not yet exist among the general public—with that I do not mean only the motorist but all the consumers of the products in question—of the problem internationally and nationally and what the consequences would be if we did not find an answer for dealing with it. The statement which the hon. member made in this regard was true. It is a fact that we have not yet succeeded, through the media, in creating an atmosphere which illustrates the urgency of the circumstances in which the oil importing countries in general and South Africa in particular find themselves. It is also true—and I want to concede this point to the hon. member—that it is more difficult to motivate people to carry out unpleasant and often irritating actions when theybare not aware of all the facts on the subject.

Hon. members will understand my dilemma in this regard: It is impossible to furnish the information which will ensure effective motivation without discussing the vulnerability or otherwise of our country. I am therefore in the position of a boxer who finds himself in the boxing ring with his hands tied behind his back. It is in view of this that I have great appreciation for the way hon. members have acted this afternoon during the discussion of this subject.

We have to realize that as far as South Africa is concerned, the most important elements of the oil crisis in the world do not tie with the balance of payments of our country. In fact, as a result of the increase in the price of gold and platinum, as well as other commodities, it would be possible to compensate to a large extent for the increased costs of importing crude oil from the income which is being earned by the exporting of these commodities. The fact is that, apart from the price, there is a shortage of crude oil in the world. Nothing we can do can change this situation. It implies that South Africa, in view of the non-availability of crude oil in the world, will of necessity have to adapt its own consumption pattern to what the situation requires of it. There should be no doubt about that. There are measures which can be adopted for the short term and there are measures which can only be adopted for the longer term. Take, for example, the thoughts of file hon. member for Berea, although he will realize that I do not want to discuss them in detail. The point is that it is an illusion to think that South Africa consumes more fuel products than we are obtaining. Therefore, we have to bear in mind, in respect of the restructuring of the consumption pattern and of our transport situation in general, that we also have other economic targets which we have to meet. I want to try and outline them as they are reflected in the budget. In the first place we must have economic growth, and in the second place we have to create job opportunities for our people who are already unemployed and for those who may still become unemployed. Therefore it is becoming essential that we understand that the stability of our country is closely associated with and synchronized to our ability to allow the economy to grow. Consequently, in restructuring the consumption patterns, we shall have to look in the first place—and I am making no apology whatsoever for this—at the productive sectors, and that is not easy. In the second place, we have to bear in mind that if we want to achieve the savings levels which the international procurement position requires of us, we shall have to act with the utmost circumspection if we do not want to face the terrible results of a further restriction of economic growth and a subsequent increase in unemployment. Therefore, I also ask our people to be understanding, as I have received understanding from the hon. members on the opposite side. I plan to give detailed information by way of a Press conference after I have considered all my information and all the proposals of the private sector, and after the Government has taken decisions on it I want to invite hon. members who are interested to attend that conference, because it is essential that, while we may have our differences in respect of many other things, we should tackle this matter as a national enterprise which affects all of us.

I now want to make further reference to the Sasol 2 extensions. We are at present engaged in extensions to Sasol 2. Therefore the hon. member is actually talking about Sasol 3.

†I want to refer to the question of public involvement Long before the decision was taken to invite public participation in Sasol, I had gone public by saying that it was the responsibility of the private sector to assist in the obtaining and production of energy in South Africa. This is still my view. I believe we have only started with this process as regards the public participation in Sasol. I think we will have to go a long way further than we are doing now. I commit the Government to that attitude. Before Sasol and the company that will be formed to handle it, go public and is quoted on the Stock Exchange, I will make a statement to explain fully the Government’s attitude towards further future participation by the public in this type of venture, in the group of companies referred to as the Sasol group.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In spite of the fact that the Bill appears fairly bulky, its contents are not very wide-ranging.

It is standing Government policy that Government departments should continually give attention to the renewal and improvement of obsolete legislation. This served as the point of departure for the Bill which is now before this House, which has been drafted with a view to—

1. (1) The consolidation of the principal Act, 1928, and the 15 amending Acts hitherto passed by Parliament; and
2. (2) the improvement and rewording of this legislation to bring it into line with—
   1. (a) the Government’s standpoints as laid down in recent legislation of this nature, i.e. the measures regulating the Fisheries Development Corporation, the Indian Industrial Development Corporation, and other public corporations; and
   2. (b) certain principles contained in the Companies Act.

Because the legislation under discussion consists mostly of old material which has simply been consolidated in an improved form, I shall not try to discuss every clause in full, as is customary, and I hope hon. members will accept that the details of the legislation can more fruitfully be discussed, if they call for discussion, in the course of the debate and in the Committee Stage.

†While, as I have stated, I do not propose to dwell at length on the contents of the Bill as such, I do think this is an appropriate occasion to give hon. members a short resume of Iscor’s position during the past few years and to refer briefly to some positive developments in favour of Iscor.

In the late ’sixties forecasts of local demand for steel products suggested a comprehensive expansion programme in order to avoid excessive imports of primary steel products in later years. The Newcastle works and extensions at other works, notably at Vanderbijlpark, were commissioned towards 1974-’75, increasing Iscor’s production capacity by almost 42% from 3,2 million tons of finished steel products per annum in 1973-’74 to 4,53 million tons per annum recently. The capital invested in new plant and equipment involved in these expansions came to roughly R1 600 million.

The local demand for steel products increased by 58,7% or 9,6% per annum compounded over the five-year period 1969-’70 to 1974-’75 to reach a record level of 5,51 million tons in 1974-’75, resulting in imports of 1,6 million tons in that year. During the three-year period 1973-’74 to 1974-’75 a total of 2,75 million tons of steel had to be imported to supplement local production, namely 420 000 tons, 730 000 tons and 1,6 million tons during the successive years. These imports cost the Republic R470 million in foreign exchange.

However, the world recession following the international oil crisis, which became noticeable in the USA at the beginning of 1974, also hit the South African economy towards the second half of 1974. The impact of the recession reflected a dramatic downturn in the local demand for steel from the beginning of 1976. This coincided with the commissioning of Iscor’s large expansion projects planned in the early ’seventies. In terms of percentage downturn—36,5% from 1974-’75 to 1976-’77—the duration of the current period of depressed conditions in the local steel market is the worst ever in South Africa’s history.

Over a short period of time the local steel industry switched from a situation of critical steel shortages and record imports of 1,6 million tons in 1974-’75, into a surplus position leading to exports by the local steel mills collectively of almost 1,6 million tons in the year 1976-’77, a net switch of 3,2 million tons within two years. Iscor’s exports in 1976-’77 amounted to 1,09 million tons. Because of the prevailing depressed local market Iscor had to continue exporting its surpluses. In 1977-’78 it exported 1,6 million tons of steel products—36% of its total production—and for 1978-’79 the figure is estimated at 1,7 million tons—35% of its total production. Such most unfavourable market conditions could certainly not have been contemplated in 1970 when the expansion plans were initiated. Exports of this magnitude, yielding on average a net return of R80 per ton below domestic sales, naturally affect Iscor’s profitability in a serious manner, compared to what the position would have been if the tonnages could have been sold locally at local prices. On the other hand, the Corporation’s financial position would have been much worse if these exports had not been undertaken. The net contribution to revenue over and above direct costs amounted to R70 million in 1977-’78 and is estimated at R100 million for the current financial year. Foreign currency earnings from these steel exports over the latter two years alone are estimated at R700 million, which, together with iron ore exports of R340 million over the same period, provided a major contribution to the improvement in the Republic’s current account and balance of payments position.

*In practical terms, this means that we earned more than R1 000 million in foreign exchange from steel and ore exports over that period, which effectively made an important contribution to the improvement of our balance of payments position, more specifically on the current account.

†Part of the decline in the South African economy, and thus the decline in the local demand for steel, is due to cyclical factors, but it is also generally accepted that for certain basic reasons a structural change has set in, for instance due to the energy crisis, which will probably still be with us for some time to come and the availability of foreign capital and political developments generally, particularly in this sub-continent Iscor has therefore adjusted its long-term demand projections downward, both as regards the trend level and growth rate. At the same time management reviewed its future development plans in terms of the revised projections, resulting in substantial reductions in capital expenditure from 1977 onwards and generally in a meaningful shift of plant expansion previously contemplated for the remainder of the ’seventies and early ’eighties into the second part of the next decade. Thus, Iscor does not contemplate any major expansions during the planning period covering the next five years. However, minor alterations aimed at increasing operating efficiency and plant utilization will be proceeded with. The Corporation, in co-operation with other local steel producers, should be able to fully supply the local market to the mid-’eighties.

Iscor’s financial difficulties arose mainly from the development of the circumstances which I have outlined to hon. members and which have been aggravated by other basic factors, all of which fall principally beyond the control of Iscor’s management. It is a problem which cannot be remedied overnight.

At Iscor’s request the Pistorius Committee was appointed in July 1975 to investigate Iscor’s affairs in general and, more particularly, matters relating to its financial situation and corporate policies. The Committee recommended the rationalization of the Corporation’s investment, pricing and financing policies and the adoption of progressive task-setting objectives to attain the desired results, inter alia, that the debt ratio should be reduced to a maximum manageable 50%. This in fact also implied a more progressive steel pricing policy, coupled with continued firm internal cost saving measures and policies aimed at restricting capital expenditure. Iscor accepted these recommendations and has since embarked upon a programme of implementing them systematically in collaboration with the Government.

With regard to Iscor’s immediate financial requirements at the time, the Pistorius Committee proposed that further investment plans be cut back whenever possible. The Iscor management’s plan, which was already formulated at that stage and subsequently further pruned, succeeded in reducing planned capital expenditure for the period 1976 to 1979 by some R677 million. A recent survey of Iscor’s steel-making activities by the National Productivity Institute has revealed that a 4,7% annual productivity improvement in real terms over the past three years has been achieved. However, the NPI also concluded that rises in input-cost factors had not been fully compensated by increased steel prices and income. Consequently, Iscor’s improved productivity has been to the full benefit of the local steel consuming industry and did not help to improve its own financial position. I wish people would sometimes acknowledge this.

Mr. Speaker, we have not had the advantage of seeing the report of the Pistorius Committee. I do not want to go into any detail at this stage. However, brief references have been made to the advantages of foreign exchange earnings in respect of iron ore exports. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether any report was made on the relationship between the foreign earnings from iron ore exports and the costs, notably those in relation to exploration, development, production, transport and interest on loans incurred in respect of that sector of Iscor? I ask this because it is a sector which concerns us considerably.

To my knowledge no report was made, but I shall obtain the details for the hon. member and give it to him at a later stage.

At the end of the last year I appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. P. F. Theron, Secretary for Industries, with Dr. J. de Loor, Secretary for Finance, Prof. C. W. I. Pistorius, Mr. Kurt Rümelin, General Manager of Iscor, and three other senior members of Iscor’s management team as members. This committee has the task of formulating a financial recovery plan for Iscor and I am sure and confident that it will also lay the foundation for an even better future working relationship and co-ordination between Iscor and the Department of Industries and the Department of Finance. The Committee has already held two formal meetings and its report with full recommendations is expected to be submitted to me within the next month or two.

Various external parameters which influence Iscor’s profitability have already been analysed by the Committee, for example, Iscor’s financial structure and the required future steel pricing policy, taking into account adjustments necessary to improve operational earnings in the short-term. Agreement has been reached on vital determinants such as the projected local steel demand over the next five years, growth rate, cost escalation rates and Iscor’s minimum capital expenditure and requirements. The main aim is to place the Corporation once again on the road to profitability within a couple of years without, however, unduly disrupting other sectors of the economy, including the primary and secondary steel industry itself.

From the information at my disposal, it would appear that Iscor is already on the road to financial recovery. The Corporation probably experienced its worst year in 1977-’78. Indications are that the loss for 1978-’79 could be substantially less than that of last year, and for the following year a further improvement is projected, provided the assumed parameters, which are considered to be conservative, materialize.

From the foregoing it would appear therefore that although serious problems are still being experienced, the Corporation has succeeded in reversing the trend of escalating losses. The recovery to full profitability and the time taken to reach this long-desired goal will naturally depend on many factors, such as the sustained efforts by management to maintain internal costs and to increase productivity generally whilst minimizing capital expenditure, as well as on the vital external elements linked with a positive recovery and healthy growth in the national economy, at a reasonable rate of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, we were very interested to hear the hon. the Minister’s introduction to the Bill. Perhaps we were unduly alarmed by the thickness of the Bill, but it has only recently been made available to us and its sudden elevation to a high position on the Order Paper has perhaps put us off unduly. Nevertheless I believe that there are important implications we would like to study in what the hon. the Minister has said and, therefore, with the approval of the House, I should like to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since its acceptance, the Diamond Cutting Act, Act No. 33 of 1955, has never been amended or adjusted. Many of the provisions of the Act have become outdated and obsolete and no longer meet today’s needs. Among other things, the Act has not yet been decimalized and there are glaring deficiencies that make effective control over the diamond cutting industry impossible. There are irregularities and malpractices in the industry which, owing to inadequate legal authority, cannot be eliminated or checked.

Since 1955 the diamond cutting industry has remained virtually statis and has even dwindled, because the number of large diamonds on which the South African diamond cutting industry was based has gradually dwindled, and the quantity of small diamonds which could not be processed in South Africa has gradually increased. In the middle of 1976, for example, there were only 1 050 White artisans in the diamond cutting industry, and this number would in time have dwindled further and the industry as a whole would have decreased in size until eventually it would virtually have disappeared, unless steps could be taken to process a large quantity of small diamonds in South Africa.

Towards the end of 1976, after a strike of nine weeks by White artisans that completely paralysed the diamond cutting industry, as we will all remember, a start was made with the processing of small diamonds, viz. diamonds ranging from 0,50 carats to 1,50 carats, by Coloured and White operators who had not undergone the customary period of apprenticeship. Since then, the diamond industry has more than tripled. Whereas there were approximately 40 diamond cutting industries in 1976, by the end of 1978 there were 51 factories employing, apart from about 1 100 White artisans, approximately 2 500 Coloured, Asiatic and White operators, whereas in addition, approximately 400 automatic cutting machines, minded by operators, were already in operation. It is estimated that by the end of this year approximately 3 500 Coloured operators will be employed and the number of automatic cutting machines will come to approximately 800.

To illustrate the growth of the diamond cutting industry I might mention that as against the 642 000 carats of uncut diamonds processed by the industry in 1975, by 1976, 694 000 carats were already being processed, in 1977 approximately 944 000 carats and in 1978 approximately 1 200 000 carats. The money value of the uncut diamonds processed in the years mentioned is approximately R134,25 million, R155 million, R218 million and R284 million respectively. This is an indication of the increase in the money value over the same period if one compares the initial figure of R134 million with R294 million. It is conservatively estimated that in 1979, 1,4 million carats of diamonds to the value of approximately R450 million will be processed in South Africa. Looking at the figures we will surely concede that there has been phenomenal growth over the past few years.

It will be clear to hon. members from this data that there has been a tremendous increase in diamond cutting activities in South Africa. Apart from the far greater volume of diamonds processed here, an entirely new type of labour is being admitted to the industry. This sets new requirements and creates new problems which cannot be effectively dealt with under the existing outdated legislation. It has therefore become necessary to revise the legislation and adapt it to the changed circumstances. Therefore this Bill at present before the House repeals and replaces the Diamond Cutting Act of 1955.

A few glaring deficiencies in the existing Act that must be rectified, are—

1. (a) the scope it affords the diamond cutters, owing to inadequate definitions, to export semi- or partially processed diamonds as cut diamonds. There is deficient control of the export of cut diamonds. In a recent case in which a diamond cutter was charged with having attempted to export as cut diamonds, semi-processed diamonds which should in fact be classified as rough diamonds, the accused was found not guilty and discharged. What this amounts to is that no steps can be taken to ensure that diamonds are fully cut. In fact, therefore, there is at present no legislation wherewith to exercise proper control of diamond cutting;
2. (b) the existing loopholes for the illegal export of rough diamonds by diamond cutters owing to inadequate control and outdated penal provisions which in many respects hinder the operation of other legislation, for example the Precious Stones Act of 1973 and the Diamond Export Duty Act, 1957. Exploitation of these two loopholes could cost the State millions of rands per annum in foreign exchange, and this has indeed occurred in recent times;
3. (c) the ineffectual control of the employment and movement of employees in the diamond cutting industry;
4. (d) the lack of co-ordinated marketing of cut diamonds, for example in South Africa there is no recognized diamond market such as in Belgium and Israel, despite the fact that the South African diamond cutting industry has existed from as far back as 1928;
5. (e) the total lack of statutory provisions whereby to impose restraint on under-invoicing of cut diamonds. There is no doubt that this malpractice costs the country a large sum in foreign exchange annually; and
6. (f) the lack of statutory powers whereby to restrict the sale of diamond cutting works to totally foreign interests.

The latter deficiency is due to the fact that as the Act stands at present, there is nothing to prevent diamond cutting factories being sold to foreign persons or bodies. What then happens in practice is that diamonds sold locally at a 10% discount are processed here and then exported at a value which only makes provision for the purchase price plus production costs. The profit on the cut diamonds is taken by the foreign enterprise which possesses the factory abroad, and is not returned to South Africa in the form of foreign exchange. In essence, what this amounts to is that the State is subsidizing the cutting of diamonds by such foreign enterprises to the detriment of the country. Provisions in this Bill now provide authorizations to prohibit the sale of the controlling interest in diamond cutting factories to foreigners in such instances.

I want to put it clearly that there is no effort or intention to discourage the investment of foreign capital in the local processing of diamonds. However, there are malpractices in regard to the sale of diamond cutting factories which must, in the interest of the State, be restricted. Hon. members must bear in mind that in order to encourage the local processing of diamonds, local cutters purchase diamonds at a price 10% less than the London price at which all other cutters from other countries have to purchase diamonds. In fact this 10% is donated to the local cutting industry by the State, because the State forfeits 15% export duty on all diamonds sold locally. Apart from that, producers of diamonds sold to the cutters, also benefit by 5% at the expense of the State. The advantage of a discount on the London price to local cutters is intended to encourage the local processing of diamonds.

This is in place of the so-called processing subsidy—that is the tax concession—which is received by any other enterprise, for example mines and refineries, that process minerals locally or refine them to a greater or lesser extent. Therefore the discount does not constitute unfair preferential treatment for diamond cutters, but then South Africa must derive the benefit, and not foreign persons or bodies that have no assets here or any loyalty towards South Africa.

The diamond cutting industry and the trade in cut diamonds is an extremely sensitive enterprise. In order to bring about greater coordination and improved co-operation among the State, diamond producers, the cutting enterprises and employees, a more representative Diamond Cutting Board, on which all these interested bodies are represented, is being created. At present the Diamond Cutting Industry Board only consists of five Government officials and is regarded on the one hand as a bureaucratic and on the other as an obstructive institution to which the diamond producers, diamond cutters and diamond cutting employees attach little value.

The bigger board is being clothed with wider powers to control and develop the diamond cutting industry effectively without in any way derogating from the authority of the Minister, the S.A. Police, etc. The board can devote itself to the development of the industry into the important earner of foreign exchange which it ought indeed to be. South Africa is the only important diamond producer that is also an important diamond cutting centre. It is in South Africa’s interests that its diamonds are utilized to the full and I believe that this Bill is now establishing the foundations on which a sound and disciplined diamond cutting industry can be developed. In order to permit of adjustment from time to time as needs arise, and to facilitate essential adjustments, provision is made for the promulgation of regulations covering a very wide field. In terms of the Bill, statutory power is being granted, inter alia, to assist the Minister of Finance and bodies and persons under his control to exercise exchange control over the export of cut diamonds by way of the promulgation of regulation by the Minister of Mines in consultation with the Minister of Finance, in order to exercise due control over the export of diamonds and, if necessary, to subject diamonds intended for export to impartial valuation in certain instances. As a whole, the Bill is aimed at establishing proper order and discipline in the diamond cutting industry, an industry which is continuing to grow and is of increasing importance, without smothering it.

The penal provisions have been drastically revised in order to bring the penalties for offences, many of which are just as serious as and even more serious than illicit trade in rough diamonds, into line with the penal provisions in other Acts, inter alia, the Precious Stones Act, 1973.

The Bill has no financial implications for the State. Except for minor indirect expenditure, the administration of the legislation as a whole will be financed from funds levied from diamond cutting factories by the Diamond Cutting Board and from licence fees payable to the board in terms of provisions of the Bill.

This Bill enjoys the approval and support of all the interested parties, viz. the interested diamond producers, the employers and the employees in the diamond cutting industry. The Bill has also been submitted to all other Government departments with an interest in the matter and is accepted by them in its present form. The Bill does not contain any controversial principles and I therefore have no hesitation in submitting it to the House as an agreed measure.

The Bill meets a need that has been felt for a very, very long time for the streamlining of the entire diamond cutting industry. The fact that all bodies and persons, whether in the public or the private sector, are unanimous about this Bill, enables me to say without hesitation that this Bill is in fact one that is being looked forward to and that it will meet a specific need.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I wish to express the regret of the hon. member for Parktown for not being able to be here today. He is sorry about that, since he takes a particular interest in the Bill and has gone to a great deal of trouble to study the legislation. He would have liked to have made a contribution to the debate. He is therefore sorry that circumstances do not permit him to be here today.

In the second place I wish to thank the hon. the Minister for his very clear and comprehensive explanation of the background to the Bill. It is quite true, and we agree with him, that the time has long been overdue for satisfying the need for a modernization and improvement of the present statutory provisions pertaining to the diamond-cutting industry.

We have studied the Bill in detail and we must agree with the hon. the Minister that it meets the demands of our modem times. For example it keeps pace with the need in South Africa for the refinement of our own minerals. In fact, this is a need that has often been expressed in the House. I think the legislation would to a large extent contribute to the fact that the refining of diamonds in South Africa would benefit, since the provisions are now being stated more clearly than has been the case in the past. We feel that there have been certain deficiencies and even obscurities in the existing legislation, but these are now being rectified.

We have taken the trouble to consult the persons and bodies concerned, and we agree with the hon. the Minister that they are satisfied with what is being proposed in the Bill. Actually such a Bill could to a large extent have been a contentious measure, but fortunately this is not the case now. We in these benches therefore have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that, as the hon. member for Constantia has stated, the Bill before the House is a very good one. As the hon. the Minister has also stated, all persons and bodies and individuals who have an interest in the diamond trade, and also the S.A. Police, are in full agreement with the contents of the Bill. I therefore wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the manner in which he introduced the Second Reading of the Bill.

At this point I should just like to say a few words about the background and history of diamonds in South Africa without going into it in too great detail. As hon. members are aware, the diamond industry is the mother industry in South Africa. In point of fact, all the other mining activities originated from the diamond industry. They came into being as a result of the discovery of diamonds at Kimberley, whereby Kimberley was irrevocably introduced to the women of the world and acquired undying fame. It is a fact that Kimberley has for many years been the main centre of diamond production in South Africa.

However, I wish to bewail the dwindling industry at Kimberley. The expected remaining life span of the diamond industry at Kimberley is approximately another 20 years. After that the mining activities will virtually come to a standstill there. That, of course, creates immense problems in my constituency. At this stage, therefore, I cannot but pay tribute to a company that has played a major role in this regard. You will forgive me if, on behalf of this side of the House, I pay tribute in this hon. House to a company like De Beers: one cannot, in conscience, omit to do so. One must pay tribute to a company like De Beers for what it has done for the diamond trade in South Africa and throughout the world. The effective marketing in the industry is ascribable to De Beers.

That brings me at once to my local problem. The hon. the Minister must please excuse me for telling this little story here. When I came here a few years ago, in 1974 to be exact, I wanted in my maiden speech to plead the cause of the cutting of small diamonds in Kimberley. Since Kimberley is also a growth point for Coloured people, I wished to avail myself of the opportunity of arguing that Kimberley was the appropriate place at which to establish such an industry. Then, as became a good Christian, I approached the hon. the Minister and vary naively laid my speech before him. That was the end of my speech. He told me on the spot that I could not make that speech. Shortly afterwards, members of the Economic Advisory Council of the then Prime Minister also approached me, as a greenhorn in this House, and told me not to talk about that sort of thing. Hon. members can therefore appreciate that under those circumstances, I was so frightened, my milk dried up. Accordingly I did not deal with the subject.

The bit of milk you still have left.

Yes, with the milk prices rocketing as they are, I do not have much left in any case. I therefore wish to put this case to the hon. the Minister on this occasion. This year, this industry will cut 1,4 million carats of diamonds which will earn us R450 million. At the end of this year this industry will have approximately 3 500 Coloured operators in service and the number of automatic cutting machines will also increase to approximately 800. These machines are going to handle diamonds of 0,50 carat— “fifty-pointers”, as we call them in the trade—to 1,50 carats. I therefore again wish to make the plea that the hon. the Minister should not be so hard-hearted as not to grant further licences.

In spite of the problems being encountered with the issuing of licences—and I wish to state this very clearly—and in spite of the fact that a number of those issued, have lapsed, I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister to be sympathetically disposed to all new applications for licences, particularly when these licences are related to the continuation of the industry at Kimberley. In other words, applications for a diamond cutting licence should be localized and confined to Kimberley. I think a case could be made out for that, and I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister once again to be very sympathetic when applications are received from Kimberley in particular.

I also just wish to ask the hon. the Minister briefly: Since we are getting an altogether new Diamond Board to regulate the industry, is this legislation also going to apply in our neighbouring countries, for example Transkei and Bophuthatswana? Because, if the same Act is not applicable there, and if the same measures that apply here in South Africa, do not apply there, I predict that all that is going to happen if we refuse licences, is that would-be cutters will apply for licences in our neighbouring States and will very probably obtain licences there, and start a diamond cutting industry just across our borders, 30 miles from Kimberley. That is all I wish to say on this occasion. The Whips told me that there will be trouble if I speak for more than 10 minutes, and since I am not looking for trouble, I merely wish to state that I support this legislation 100%. If all the interested parties support it—the industry, all the State departments, the Opposition and I—then who can be against it?

Mr. ’Speaker, at the outset may I please make apologies for the absence of the hon. member for Durban North. He is required to address a meeting in Durban this evening and would have been dealing with this Bill on our behalf. May I say that we of the NRP will also be supporting this Bill and in doing so we would like to make a few brief comments on it.

There is no doubt that the growth of the diamond industry in South Africa has been inextricably bound up with our economic growth over a period of many decades. It was heart-warming to hear the tribute paid by the hon. member for Kimberley South to the company that has made the organized and ordered development of that market a fact of life in South Africa over a period of many years. His tribute is indeed well-founded and we agree with him in that regard.

In an industry such as we are discussing trust is still very heavily relied on for the sales and marketing of diamonds wherever it takes place throughout the world. To keep that trust and to keep a stability in that market, controls and fairly strict controls will therefore always be necessary. To the extent that the controls have been accepted and welcomed by all people concerned we, too support the hon. the Minister in his legislation.

There is just one point I feel we should raise from this side of the House and perhaps the hon. the Minister will give us an indication of his thoughts on this. As regards the composition of the Diamond Cutting Board referred to in clause 2 and the requirements for membership of the board referred to in clause 3, it seems a pity that a person who is not a South African citizen permanently resident in the Republic is automatically excluded from serving on that board. There are countries in the world with a great degree of expertise in the polishing and cutting of diamonds and all the other processes involved. It seems a pity that the knowledge, experience and international connections and contacts of a person with that kind of expertise cannot be utilized in that he is being automatically precluded from serving on the board if he happens not to be a South African citizen. This exclusion is extended through clause 19 to people to whom licences are issued to perform the acts referred to in the Bill. There may be very good reasons for this, but I feel it is a pity that that provision is included. I feel it is a retrogressive step. Checking back on the original Act, I found it did not contain a similar provision. It would seem to us to be a shame that the hon. the Minister is excluding people who are not South African citizens permanently resident here.

The need for trust is, as I have said, a very important factor in this industry. To stress that point further, I should like to refer briefly to recent Press reports indicating that a country unfriendly to us has perfected a process for producing a stone very similar to a natural diamond. I believe it is a zirconite stone and I understand that in the form in which it is finally presented it is so similar to a diamond that even experts in the diamond trade have considerable difficulty in distinguishing the zirconite from the true diamond. I believe this gives added reason for supporting the strict controls which are apparently necessary for this industry.

There is one final point I should like to make. It seems strange to me that in a country which produces such vast quantities of diamonds of all grades and sizes we do not have an international market in the country for diamonds. I am not an expert in this field; perhaps the hon. the Minister will do me the favour of indicating whether there are any factors or pieces of legislation preventing the establishment of an international market for diamonds to be based in, say, Johannesburg. In the local market there are companies which have recently started making available for purposes of investment certified, finished stones in sealed packets. These stones have been valued, graded and guaranteed by experts. It seems to me that, if this can be done for the local market, there could be tremendous advantage to South Africa not only in the extension of the diamond market and our sales to other countries but also, as a spin-off, in bringing high-ranking people, people of substance and importance in the world markets, to South Africa, i.e. if we were to have such an international market in Johannesburg.

You are making a mistake. It should be in Kimberley, not Johannesburg.

Sir, the hon. member for Kimberley South naturally has a parochial interest in Kimberley, and I must say I have no objection to that. I believe that the principle behind this is worthy of some discussion this afternoon. I would be interested to hear the comments of the hon. the Minister or any hon. member on the other side of the House in regard to this suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, I expected that there would be general support for the legislation on both sides of the House, and I wish to express my cordial thanks for that. The hon. member for Constantia apologized on behalf of an hon. member who could not be present here this afternoon, and I accept that.

I want to come at once to the points raised by the hon. member for Kimberley South. He has raised a matter that is very important to Kimberley and also to the hon. member himself, for I know that he is interested in it and talks about it a great deal. The matter he has raised is, of course, one that is of very great concern to him, and that is the fact that one would expect the old city of Kimberley to be the centre of the diamond-cutting industry in this country. It is, after all, the place where all the rough diamonds are brought together and from where they are distributed.

The hon. member is sorry now that the cutting works are not in Kimberley, but are situated outside Kimberley. I, too, am sorry about that. For sentimental reasons, and also because it is near the major source of diamonds, one would have liked to have seen the diamond-cutting works established in Kimberley. In the third place, there is a large number of Coloureds who would not easily be able to obtain other employment, since they are mainly dependent upon the diamond cutting industry.

The hon. member has asked me on a previous occasion already whether it was not possible for further licences issued to be restricted to Kimberley. I am very sympathetically disposed towards the matter of a stipulation in a licence that it should be restricted to Kimberley. If such a time were to come, I should certainly keep that in mind. I think the hon. member has a point there.

The other matter raised by both hon. members, is the question of the diamond market, and what is going to happen in future. Hon. members will remember that a few years ago we started saying that South Africa should not only cut large diamonds, but should also enter the market for small diamonds, because one of these days there would be no more large gem diamonds, and in any case the world would not have a great number of large gem diamonds. The world trend is more and more in the direction of the cutting of small diamonds. Diamonds are becoming so expensive that a diamond that is of an acceptable size today, will no longer be of an acceptable size in future, because it would be too expensive. A man who, in the past, could afford to buy his wife a diamond of one carat will, because of the price, have to be highly satisfied in future if he can afford half a carat. The trend is there. It is therefore very important that we should create a second leg for the diamond-cutting industry, namely to make a start with the cutting of small diamonds, since they are cut in a different way to large diamonds. It is therefore gratifying to know that we have succeeded in establishing such an industry. However, we do not cut all small diamonds, but only those of half a carat to 1½ carats. We have not reached the stage yet where we cut the very small diamonds. We are still exporting these very small diamonds, and there is a vast potential for the cutting of these stones. We are now talking in terms of 3 500 diamond cutters, but I can foresee that if we became more sophisticated, the figure could perhaps increase to 10 000. Consequently I think the development of an industry for small diamonds holds a vast potential for the future.

The hon. members have asked why a country such as South Africa with its diamonds does not have a large market for cut diamonds. I, too, am sorry that this does not exist, because 95% of the diamonds cut in South Africa are still being exported.

†If the hon. member for Berea is suggesting that we extend the industry and that we become lenient in opening up the industry to people from outside on account of the fact that we would obtain expertise, I want to tell him that the expertise in this field is in South Africa. We are polishing our diamonds much better than the Far East and we are not only on a par with Amsterdam and London, but I think that in many ways we are better than they are. There is a premium on South African polished diamonds.

*There is therefore no need for us to obtain expertise. We have the expertise. As far as this is concerned, we can make our expertise available to other countries. But we have to have something different. We must, namely, try to create a large diamond market in South Africa. A Minister cannot state that he is going to create a diamond market; the industry itself has to create it However, I hope something like this can be achieved, and I have spoken about it before. It is my ideal that we should reach the stage where we have a large diamond market in South Africa where people from all over the world would come to buy diamonds. In this way new impetus would be given to the diamond industry of South Africa. I wish to tell the hon. member that if such a diamond market were to be created in South Africa, it should be in Kimberley. The hon. member therefore has a point.

I wish to express my thanks for the contributions that have been made. This Bill is aimed at further improving this industry and boosting it so that it should become the great industry we think it ought to become.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members are aware, the National Institute for Metallurgy—Nim—was established in 1965 as a State research institute with the aim of promoting metallurgical research in the Republic.

In terms of section 1 of the National Institute for Metallurgy Act, No. 90 of 1965, the word “Republic” includes the territory of South West Africa. When the Act came into effect in 1965, the Black States that have achieved their independence from the Republic had not yet come into being, and consequently until a few years ago Nim was able to carry out research in terms of the Act in the Republic, including Transkei and Bophuthatswana.

Transkei and Bophuthatswana have in the meantime become independent and Venda is going to follow them in the near future. It may be expected that South West Africa will also become independent in the near future. In the past NIM has sent some of its officials to Rössing in South West Africa for relatively long periods to carry out research at the uranium mine there. As hon. members are aware, Rössing is the big uranium mining complex near Walvis Bay in the Namib Desert.

†As it seems unlikely that the Governments of the independent Black States will be able to establish their own research institutions within the foreseeable future and as Nim is authorized to undertake research only within the boundaries of the Republic, it is proposed that Act No. 90 of 1965 be amended so as to empower Nim to carry out research outside the Republic, in certain circumstances, in any country which requests such research; in other words, not only in the Black States which have recently become independent. The research will take place at the request or with the prior approval of the Minister and on the terms and conditions approved by him.

Nim is prepared, at request, to undertake research in another country on condition that it is indemnified against losses which may be suffered in consequence of any act or omission of the Government of such a country. Provision is therefore made in the Bill for the issuing of such an indemnity by the Minister of Mines with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. Parliament passed similar measures during the 1977 session whereby the CSIR was authorized to undertake research outside the Republic.

*The same allowances, such as housing allowances and holiday savings bonuses, as are paid to officers and employees in the Public Service are also paid to the employees of Nim, with the approval of the Minister of Mines and the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. Every time an adjustment to the allowances of Public Servants is made, the corresponding adjustment in regard to the staff of Nim has to be approved by two Ministers. It is therefore proposed that the Act be amended to provide that Nim may pay to its staff the allowances which would have been payable to them if they had been officers and employees in the Public Service. Such an amendment will facilitate the administration of staff matters. Hon. members will note that it is also proposed that the wording of the section in question, namely section 7(2), is also being improved in two other respects, and this is being done in order to state clearly that the remuneration of officials and employees of Nim, and the conditions of service to which appointments are subject, may be adjusted from time to time. Similar measures were passed during the 1976 Parliamentary session in regard to the remuneration and payment of allowances and amendment of conditions of service relating to the staff of the CSIR.

It is desirable that Nim should be authorized to receive assistance in regard to its research by officers in the public service seconded to Nim in terms of section 13(6) of the Public Service Act, 1957. It is also desirable for it to be possible for an officer or employee of Nim to be seconded to the service of the State or another State or any other board or body in connection with research. Nim often undertakes projects on behalf of and in co-operation with State institutions, other statutory boards, etc. It may occur that the most practical method of carrying out such research is by seconding an officer of Nim to the service of another body. Legal authorization would also be necessary before an officer of Nim could be seconded to one of our neighbouring States, for example, in connection with research.

The measures proposed in the Bill are not of a contentious nature and I trust that they will enjoy the support of all parties in this House. I also trust that the Bill will enable us to make it possible for Nim to eliminate these minor technical problems to which I have just referred.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to support a Bill relating to the improvement of conditions for and within the National Institute for Metallurgy. I say this as one who has had direct personal experience of the Nim, as one who has experienced the advantages of working with this excellent institute. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to the quality of the work which the Nim has done and the contributions it has made and continues to make to the mining industry in South Africa. I believe that the Nim will continue to make these contributions not only to the mining industry within South Africa, where it has a long record of co-operation and cordial collaboration, but also to mining in countries which are our neighbours. I believe that where the Nim has made such a valuable contribution to the highly developed mining industry in South Africa, and is able to continue to do so, it also has a more than necessary task to perform in relation to the countries which are our neighbours and which have mineral resources which are the common wealth of the whole of Southern Africa. It is sometimes thought that Southern Africa consists of various States with their own political destinies. Be that as it may, the fact is that we do share a common economic destiny, a common economic interdependence, and that it is entirely to South Africa’s advantage that the special skills which it has in certain fields should be extended to the benefit of the other countries which form part of the community of Southern Africa. I believe this is not only practical at present, but that it is also an aspiration for the future. One can therefore only welcome the provisions made in this Bill for the Nim to extend the range of its activities and to make that broader contribution which I believe is the hope of all South Africans for their future prosperity and security. I believe that the Nim, because of its very excellence, would make a valuable contribution to this kind of development.

As regards the conditions of service within Nim, I would like to say that this has for many years been a difficult matter and a bone of contention. It has been a bone of contention particularly because of the fact that Nim works for an industry and within an industry where rates of pay, conditions of service and inducements apply which cannot be provided by a public service organization. On the whole it has been my experience that the people who work for Nim are dedicated and are not only concerned with their salaries and the other perks that may go with their job. Nevertheless, we live in a competitive world and one of the difficulties that has been experienced from time to time—I am not sure whether it is an actual problem or still is as severe as it used to be—is that young men cannot easily be induced to enter the profession of metallurgy. This certainly was a problem, and I think it will continue to some extent to be a problem. It is a profession which makes high demands. In this profession one needs a good university background, a high degree of skill and a high degree of intelligence, and the people who possess these qualities are naturally attracted to those parts of the mining industry which offer the highest inducements and rewards.

I believe that Nim is an essential part of the expanding mining industry of South Africa. We are increasingly entering into a field where our base minerals very often have to be extracted from the ore in the most refractory conditions and where new techniques are required, techniques which are not only effective, but also economical. It is in this field that Nim has made valuable contributions in collaboration with the mining industry as a whole. It is therefore essential that the Nim should continue to induce people to attend universities to study metallurgy with the assurance that, when they complete their courses and their degrees, they will be given adequate employment and adequate compensation by the Nim in the field in which they have chosen to make their career.

I believe that these things are encompassed in the short Bill which is before us and that provision is to some extent being made for the kinds of inducements that the Nim needs to offer and the kind of opportunities by which the Nim is seeking to make its contribution in the wider field of Southern Africa. The Bill does not do all these things, as it is merely an amendment Bill, but it goes quite a long way towards achieving some of the benefits which we have discussed this afternoon. We therefore support the Bill unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the hon. member for Constantia said. I should like to associate myself with the tribute he paid to the members of the institute, including the researchers and scientists. The hon. member has personal experience of the institute and therefore he can speak with authority. Like the hon. member, I, too, should like to welcome the amendments relating to the conditions of service embodied in the Bill.

This institute was established to carry out research in the field of mineralogy. I am pleased to say that it is an exceptional institute, yielding outstanding results. I want to show why I welcome this amendment Bill. Recently, in a discussion of the Mining Vote, the hon. the Minister was able to announce that this institute had achieved a major breakthrough in regard to the extraction of gold. The institute has succeeded in radically changing, improving and also abridging the process of recovery of gold. Consequently, in future the recovery of gold will not only be a considerably shorter and cheaper process than it is at present but is also expected to cost up to 52% less than the existing process. This will mean that present un-exploitable reserves may again be exploited. Hon. members will realize that this will mean further revenue for South Africa.

This gives an indication of the high degree of skill which our scientists have achieved. The researchers at this institute are enthusiastic and dedicated people, as the hon. member for Constantia mentioned. I, too, should like to take my hat off to them. This Bill asks that the institute should be able to carry out research beyond the borders of the Republic so that we can make our knowledge and skills available to countries beyond our borders. It may even be necessary on occasion to make officials available to other countries. This Bill authorizes this.

The institute means a great deal for South Africa. Indeed, knowledge, skills and leadership in this field, and in other fields as well, are probably the greatest future source of strength for South Africa with regard to Africa and other parts of the world. I trust therefore that this institute will go from strength to strength in the interests of our country. I wish the institute everything of the best, particularly with regard to its future task, which this Bill authorizes it to perform.

According to the institute’s report for 1978, the institute is encountering problems in regard to the recruiting of postgraduate students. In certain respects this impedes the work of some of the five research groups of the institute. There are at present a large number of vacant posts, and if these can be filled, this will enable the institute to enter a number of other important fields of research as well, fields which cannot at present be attended to. Like the hon. member for Constantia I trust that the institute’s recruiting campaign will reap dividends. I also trust that our schools and universities will encourage scholars and students—particularly those studying in the scientific and engineering fields—to make their services available to this institute. It is important for South Africa that this institute should be in a position to carry out comprehensive and effective research in its field. For that reason the assistance of other public servants will be necessary and this, too, is authorized by this Bill. I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the words of the hon. members who have just spoken. I do not believe that there is any enterprise in South Africa that has contributed so much to the development of technology than this National Institute for Metallurgy. Indeed, they lead the world with the processes they have developed. Many are original inventions that make the rest of the world jealous of the calibre of the scientists of the Republic of South Africa. The literally hundreds of millions of rands that have already been saved by this enterprise for the mining industry in particular, the contribution to the increase in the export efforts, with the consequent increase in the reserves of the Republic can never, in my opinion, be estimated at their true worth. Accordingly it is fitting that the Bill should make provision for improved conditions of service and compensation for men and women who are greedily snapped up by the private sector. I do not believe that they can ever be compensated in terms of money for what they mean to us, but this is a gesture towards these people who could probably earn in the private sector double or triple what they earn at present. They are people who remain at the disposal of Nim, purely for the sake of loyalty to this body and their love of their life’s task, research, to promote the welfare and prosperity of humanity as a whole.

The provision made for research in other states, particularly with regard to the recovery and extraction of minerals, with specific reference to the neighbouring States of South Africa, is an important step, particularly with regard to the development of the economies of such countries. It is a step which can also give rise to a substantial increase in the income of the inhabitants of the territories concerned, even in the short to medium term. It is also significant, indeed essential, for the determining of a mineral strategy for Southern Africa, that this be made possible.

While I am on my feet I should like to invite hon. members to come and pay a visit to Nim and to look at what is being done there. While they are there they might as well stay for a while in Randburg, one of the finest and most pleasant constituencies in our country.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP supports the Bill and we associate ourselves with the remarks of the hon. member for Randburg who has just resumed his seat.

South and Southern Africa has mineral wealth which is the envy of the whole world. This places us in a position of strategic strength in what is very often a hostile world. If we, in conjunction with our neighbours, can exploit and utilize that source of strength, we can only improve our position and our respectability in a hostile world. We therefore welcome the provisions aimed at research outside the boundaries of our country. Some of our neighbours have reserves which can add very much to the strategic importance of those reserves in the southern tip of Africa.

The technologies of increased and improved recovery will also mean a great deal to the amount of our earnings from the minerals which we mine. Let me refer to one brief example in this connection. The hon. the Minister’s recent announcement on the improvements in our recovery of gold is just an indication of how this is an on-going process and one in which we must continue to maintain our position of, I would say, leadership in the world.

The hon. members who have spoken before me have dealt with the increased and improved benefits for the staff of the institute and I do not think I need to deal any further with that aspect beyond welcoming the fact that the staff’s contribution is going to be recognized to a greater extent.

With these few words I support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members on both sides of the House for the fact that they support the Bill.

The National Institute for Metallurgy is of course in the constituency of the hon. member for Randburg, as he pointed out I also want to associate myself with what he said in regard to the exceptional work done by this institute. He and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat both referred to a recent breakthrough. The leadership which South Africa has achieved due to the accomplishments of this enterprise is indeed something to be very proud of. I want to associate myself with hon. members and say that I greatly appreciate the tremendous job being done and that I am grateful for the fact that hon. members themselves have spontaneously expressed their appreciation of the institute’s staff for their dedication, their exceptional achievements and the exceptionally hard work they do. I am proud of their achievements and am deeply conscious of the circumstances under which they have to work. I am aware that their salaries cannot always compete with those offered in the private sector. I know that it is only dedication that still keeps them there to perform a service for South Africa. I hope that the efforts being made by the Public Service Commission to consider the position of officials in statutory bodies with a view to considering whether the principle of differentiated compensation could be introduced in order to provide for improved compensation will lead to our perhaps being able to provide better remuneration to the officials of this institute as well.

†I should like to concur in the hon. member for Constantia’s conception of what I think he called a mineral commonwealth of Southern Africa. It is indeed a fact that we, in Southern Africa, actually control, and will be controlling, a vast majority of the most important minerals on which the Western world has to depend for its survival. South Africa’s resulting interdependence with the Western world will actually make the National Institute for Metallurgy a very important institution in the leadership role we shall be playing in future. I therefore very much agree with the hon. gentleman.

*In fact South Africa has been placed in the exceptional position of being able to achieve world leadership. The hon. member for Klerksdorp referred to this achievement, as did the hon. member for Randburg. In my opinion this is a field in which South Africa can act in such a way, and do so well, as to prove itself indispensable for the survival of others. The Institute for Metallurgy is an institute which has to its credit achievements which we shall not be able to assess at their true worth in our generation. However, history will show how important this institute was in this critical time, in being able to make breakthroughs for South Africa in the present circumstances.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to a general increase in the remuneration payable in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Bill of 1973. Hon. members will recall that compensation payable for accidents was adjusted earlier this year and that the hon. the Minister of Finance also announced an increase in social pensions. The position of workers in mines and works suffering from occupational diseases, and those who run the risk of contracting such a disease, had therefore to be reconsidered. A decision was taken to grant a 10% increase in all benefits. This is within the means of the State account from which pensions are paid and is also within the means of mines and industries that are responsible for new benefits.

The other amendment being proposed is a simple one, and is being included while the opportunity presents itself. The position of a mine worker who has contracted ordinary, infectious tuberculosis but has been cured of it, is that he may, in terms of the existing wording of the Act, be permitted to perform this work for at most 100 hours in any period of 30 days. The restriction, which was aimed at protecting cured sufferers from tuberculosis from excessive exposure to dust, gives rise to practical problems, and what is now being proposed is that the director of the Medical Bureau should himself have the discretion in every case, on the basis of the medical evidence, to decide on the periods for which cured tuberculosis sufferers may perform risk work. It therefore goes without saying that the Director will be able to adjust the period to the man’s physical condition, but particularly to the nature and degree of the risk to which he will be exposed. In addition, medical science has made progress in regard to the cure of tuberculosis and therefore greater flexibility in the legal provisions is called for.

As hon. members themselves can see, these are two very simple but most essential measures which in fact need no explanation and have been requested by the workers. As was the case in respect of the other two Bills, I believe that this Bill, too, will be agreed to by hon. members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is almost embarrassing to have to rise and say that we have supported three of the Minister’s Bills in a row. We have no difficulty in supporting this Bill because again it meets a simple and logical need.

All I want to say very briefly, is that the Bill is firstly improving benefits, something which is obviously justified in the present circumstances. Secondly it allows for more flexibility in the treatment of people, who have recovered from tuberculosis, as employees in the mining industry. Both these proposals are consistent with modern developments as regards inflation on the one hand and improved medical services on the other hand. We therefore have nothing whatsoever to quarrel about concerning this Bill and we support it.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the Minister for having again given attention to this Bill this year and for having introduced this Bill with a view to adjustments. I was almost afraid that the hon. the Minister would not introduce this Bill this year and indeed, the mine-workers in my constituency have on numerous occasions asked me when they were going to get their increase. Consequently we are grateful that the increase of 10% has been granted to them. It is very welcome in these days, when the cost of living is rising so sharply.

With regard to the other matter, I concur with what the hon. member for Constantia said. People who have suffered from tuberculosis or are still suffering from it, look forward to the day when they can again perform their normal work, even though not in full. In fact, people who have contracted tuberculosis underground in the mines—and many of them are still young—are under sentence of death. Formerly, these workers were prohibited from working in the mining industry, and this entailed tremendous financial loss for them. We are very grateful today for medical science which has progressed so far with medicine and treatment that these people are again able to take up their work as before. Such a person no longer works 48 or 36 hours per week, but can now perform his normal work for a maximum of 100 hours per month. This will afford a large measure of relief. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the Minister for this concession and I know that we have the support of the medical experts in this regard as well. Once again, many thanks.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Stilfontein, who has the interests of miners very much at heart and always speaks with great feeling about their welfare. We thank him for his comments and support him very strongly in what he had to say.

Not only do we, like my hon. friends to my right, make of this a hat trick for the hon. the Minister, but figuratively speaking we are rolling out the red carpet of welcome, because this Bill is indeed a very welcome Bill to pensioners who are at the moment having a tough time of it. The only problem is that, when we figuratively rolled out this red carpet of welcome, we found rolled up in the red carpet at the end a little man called Oliver who held up his hand for more. I am only sorry that the increase in this instance is 10% because, having regard to the fact that the last change was made in 1977 and that during the last two years the increase in the cost of living and the cost of so many basic necessities has gone up by much more than 10%, it seems to me a great shame that it was not a minimum of 15%. I would say that we of the NRP hope that the hon. the Minister will bear the problem of the constantly rising costs very much in mind on an on-going basis so that regular changes can be made to the benefits payable to these people who have given so much to creating so much wealth for this country. Many of them are in their twilight years and many others, younger men—and the hon. member for Stilfontein also referred to this—were I will not say cut down in the prime of their life but were certainly in their prime restricted in their future years. We must never forget the contribution these people have made and we must be very conscious of the falling value of their benefits. I hope the hon. the Minister will see to it that their benefits are regularly updated.

I want to convey to the hon. the Minister the hon. member for Umbilo’s apologies for not being able to be present this afternoon as he had to catch an aeroplane. On his behalf I should briefly like to raise two matters with the hon. the Minister. The first is how these increased benefits will affect the means test which is applied to these people who may also qualify for a pension under the means test. The other point the hon. member for Umbilo would have liked to have raised with the hon. the Minister is what the reason is for waiting till 1 October with the commencement of the new benefits and whether it would not have been possible to have the benefits paid from 1 July. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could just give us a reply on those two points when he replies to the debate.

With those words, Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I had expected that the hon. members would support the Bill, because it will benefit our people. I appreciate the fact that the hon. members on all sides so wholeheartedly support legislation of this nature which the NP Government introduces in abundance every year to care for our people.

†The hon. member who has just sat down asked me how the increased benefits would affect the means test. I should like to speak to the hon. member for Umbilo about that question when he returns, but I can say that the means test will not be applicable to these benefits. As regards the other question, I must admit that I would rather discuss that with the hon. member for Umbilo on his return.

*The hon. member for Stilfontein is an old campaigner who looks after his people and talks to them. He also speaks with feeling. I think the hon. member will inform the mineworkers that as in the past, we shall not forget them. We shall not fail to adjust this amount regularly in the future. We can reconsider it again next year and the year after. It is true that our people are having a difficult time, and we can only do so because the funds are available, and we are grateful for the fact that the economy can bear the burden. Therefore I want to assure him and the mineworkers that we shall not fail to consider the adjustment in good time in the future.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one point I want to raise again, as I have done in the past, and that is that there continues to be an inconsistency and inequality in the treatment of people who benefit from the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act and those others who benefit under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I have pointed out this inconsistency and inequality for a number of years. The hon. the Minister is in the position where of being responsible for both the departments that administer those two Acts. The hon. the Minister will therefore be as well aware as I am—or more aware—that these inconsistencies do cause difficulties and problems. I believe there is a very strong case to be made out for a reconciliation between these two Acts. I believe there is a strong case to be made out for the concentration of these benefits, and their administration, under the auspices of a single department. I cannot see a really good reason, other than antiquated customs and old conventions, why we should have two separate administrations dealing with the same kind of thing, namely the benefits to people who have suffered illness or injury through disease or industrial accidents. More and more the kind of industrial accident or illness one suffers in a mine is becoming the same as that suffered in a factory, because prevailing conditions are no longer the conditions of ancient times. The conditions underground are in many cases not all that different from factory conditions, nor are surface conditions on the mines very often any different from those in factories. There are therefore many inconsistencies and inequalities in the fact that we are running two systems side by side. The Nieuwenhuizen Commission has been looking into this. I do not know how much progress it has already made, but I want to take this opportunity to tell the hon. the Minister that if we are going to streamline our public service, if we are going to do the things the hon. the Prime Minister undertook to do the other day, this is clearly one of the things that has to be looked at from an administrative point of view and also from the point of view of industrial relations, bearing in mind the aspects relating to both beneficiaries and administrators. I believe this is a matter which requires serious attention. I merely take the opportunity of the Third Reading of this Bill to bring this aspect once again, to the hon. the Minister’s attention and to tell him that if he could rationalize this situation, he would have strong support from this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I immediately want to concede to the hon. member that he does have a point. I do not want to discuss the matter now, because I have appointed the Nieuwenhuizen Commission. I can only hope that the Nieuwenhuizen Commission will come forward with a suggestion in this regard. I shall see to it that the hon. member’s remarks are brought to the attention of the Nieuwenhuizen Commission. I do not think it would be appropriate for me now, since I have appointed the commission, to comment on the work of the commission, but I fully take the hon. member’s point.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I want to motivate the amendment by saying that it is the right thing to do as far as the officials who are affected by this legislation are concerned. The officials of the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications are also involved in this Bill.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As is customary, this Bill contains amendments to various pension laws which have become necessary in order to cause the administration of pension matters to function more smoothly or to regulate the pension rights of certain bodies to better effect. This is a measure which may be discussed more profitably during the Committee Stage—perhaps it is not even necessary—and on that occasion I shall furnish hon. members with any information concerning this matter which they may require.

In the meantime I just want to point out briefly that the Bill deals, inter alia, with the elimination of the obstacles which have up to now prevented the widow of certain officeholders from qualifying for pensions if they married their former spouses after the latter had ceased to hold the offices in question.

Some members of statutory bodies sometimes serve simultaneously on two or more statutory bodies. In such cases it is frequently difficult, as matters stand at present, to determine on the basis of what salaries their pension benefits ought to be calculated, and the requirement that they should be in the full-time service of the statutory body concerned also gives rise to problems. The calculation of pension benefits in such cases on the basis of only one of the salaries received by the person in question must of necessity produce a result which falls considerably short of the total remuneration which such a person received immediately prior to his retirement, and consequently leaves him in an unenviable financial position. Clauses 2 and 4 are aimed at solving the problems which are being experienced in this connection.

In order to explain the position further and to prevent unnecessary discussion of the clauses during the Committee Stage, I want to point out that we do have a case where a person serves on two statutory boards. Since this is the only income he has, we now intend to give him the benefit of both salaries, because he places all his time at the disposal of the two statutory boards. That is what it amounts to. However, I do not wish to mention his name.

†Members of the Associated Institutions Provident Fund are often appointed or transferred to posts in the Public Service. In terms of existing legislation such persons are required to become members of the Government Service Pension Fund and to contribute to that Fund in respect of their previous pensionable service. The amounts standing to their credit in the Associated Institutions Provident Fund are often inadequate to pay for the amounts required by the Government Service Pension Fund for the purposes of recognizing such previous pensionable service.

A solution to the problem would be to allow these people to retain their membership of the Associated Institutions Provident Fund and to continue to be members of that Fund as if they were not transferred to another Fund. Clauses 5 and 6 will provide the necessary machinery to give effect to such a solution. George Bernard Shaw is quoted as having said—

I am sorry the hon. member for Houghton is not here this afternoon, but as hon. members will observe from clause 8, she is getting what she has been struggling for so valiantly, namely that the gratuities payable to the female members of Parliament will be paid to their estates in the event of their dying before such gratuity can be paid to them. She has achieved her heart’s desire, but unlike Bernard Shaw I sincerely trust that she will live long enough to collect her gratuity in person and that the provisions contained in clause 8 will serve as nothing more than an assurance to her that in the ultimate end the gratuity will be paid one way or the other.

*When the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act was passed in 1971, it was the intention that members of Parliament who had formerly been members of provincial council, could in certain prescribed circumstances cause half of their service as provincial councillors to count for purposes of the Parliamentary pension scheme. However, the period during which provincial councillors are required to contribute to provincial pension schemes has since been reduced from 20 to 12 years, with the result that former provincial councillors, by virtue of the definition of “pensionable service” in the various ordinances in terms of which only periods during which contributions were paid are included, may cause no more than six years of their service to be thus counted. This was never the intention, and this matter is now being rectified.

In terms of section 110(l)(a) of the Water Act, 1956, water boards may, inter alia, take over waterworks from local authorities. Such take-overs are normally accompanied by the take-over of the staff involved in such a project and consequently provision has to be made for their pension rights. This is now being done in clause 10, which in brief amounts to the pension rights of the existing pension fund of a staff member thus transferred being transferred to the Government Service Pensions Fund and any deficits which may arise in such a transfer having to be borne by the Water Board concerned. This arrangement prevents such a staff member from losing his previous pensionable service.

As has already been said, I think that the Bill can receive further attention during the Committee Stage, although this might not be necessary.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has raised a large number of questions. This Bill makes provision for the amendment of a fair number of existing Acts of this Parliament. I believe we should have a further opportunity of studying some of the implications, particularly in view of the particular position of the hon. member for Houghton. I think we should also inquire whether the quotation from George Bernard Shaw is relevant. I have a feeling it is. However, in these circumstances I should like to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.