Mr Chairman, before this debate commences, I should like to refer to a few matters.

In the first place I want to refer to privatisation. The first series of inquiries into privatisation on the commission’s programme have just reached the point where the Cabinet could take certain decisions on them. I therefore want to announce on this occasion that the Cabinet has approved in principle of the privatisation or, in cases in which such services had already been privatised to some extent, the further privatisation, of 11 activities which are being performed by the Public Service at present. The activities concerned are the following: The construction and maintenance of roads; the provision and maintenance of motor transport, excluding the SA Police and the SA Defence Force; the construction and operation of toll roads; the production and sale of tobacco seed; the regulation of meat standards; the regulation of cotton standards; the regulation of butter and cheese standards; the roller marking of meat carcasses; rendering of specific engineering advisory services; the evaluation of tractors and agricultural implements; and the making of laboratory analyses concerning agricultural materials and products.

The relevant Government departments, own and general affairs as well as the provincial administrations, will be very closely involved in these efforts. The commission experienced a positive and constructive attitude of co-operation throughout its inquiry, and the commission is proceeding unceasingly with further inquiries into privatisation.

The general spirit—I think this is an important factor—of privatisation has already taken root in our communities. The ideal situation is that government bodies on all levels must activate and develop the process within their organisations.

In this connection I welcome the announcement made during the week by a provincial administration with reference to the privatisation of health services. Further reports about this from that source appeared in the Press this morning. The Cabinet committee of three Ministers will not suppress the initiative in this connection, but will have to be kept well-informed of such privatisation strategies and will have to co-ordinate them.

Naturally privatisation is not a simple matter in all cases. By undertaking the less involved things first, one is paving the way for larger and more complex projects. The assurance is being given once again that proper care will be taken of the interests of staff members who are involved in these efforts. Even pension matters will be addressed by way of legislation which is being considered at present.

In addition I want to refer to staff remuneration matters. I have pointed out on previous occasions that it is Government policy to try to maintain salaries paid to public servants at a level which is relatively competitive with the market and the private sector. The system of occupational differentiation is being followed for this purpose. Approximately 470 specific occupations have thus far been identified in the Public Service.

Understandably the maintenance of market competitiveness is a continuous process, and that is why, despite the economic slump, an amount has been set aside by the Cabinet every year, for the maintenance of certain occupational structures. Funds were voted in respect of more than 50 occupations this year. Occupations that are involved include those of labourers, computer programmers and operators, pension clerks, nurses and paramedic staff.

The Government also agreed to do away with all salary disparities among various population groups in respect of educators in colleges and schools, as well as nurses and paramedic staff to whom reference has been made. The new dispensations will be implemented during this financial year, as and when inquiries that are being undertaken in this connection have been concluded.

Mr Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

I would like to congratulate the hon the Minister on his appointment to the post of Minister for Administration and Economic Advisory Services in the office of the State President. This is the first time that he is presenting his Budget Vote. This post covers for the present moment the Commission for Administration, the Central Statistic Service and the Central Economic Advisory Service. He has given the Committee this morning some information with regard to privatisation and conditions of service which I think have to be investigated. The question of privatisation is not a simplistic matter at all and each and every case has to be considered on its merits.

The people who carry the responsibility for these new posts are the chairman and the Commission for Administration and their staffs, the Chief: Central Statistics Service and his staff, and the Chief: Economic Advisory Service and his staff. To all these people and their staffs go the good wishes of all the hon members of this party and my own for all success in the difficult task that will confront them all in the next few years.

I want to congratulate them all on their annual reports that clarify in detail the aspects of their important work. However, I will devote my speech to economics today because we have to consider the major priority for the 1986-87 Budget, namely job creation as a means of eliminating the poverty question.

We require a new economic deal to save South Africa. This country finds itself embroiled in political dilemma and social turmoil of frightening dimensions. This turmoil is caused, to a great extent, by the reality of day to day poverty among a large part of the people of South Africa irrespective of colour, creed or race. It is this poverty problem that is central to all our other political and social problems. But is this a new problem in South Africa?

The tragedy of this Committee is that too many of us here have forgotten that many of us are descendants of fathers and grandfathers who rose from abject poverty through various aids and help to be in the positions in which we are today. To the Carnegie Corporation in the USA must always go our grateful thanks for providing in 1927 the funds for the deep investigation of the poor White question in South Africa and for the printing of the report. This report covered the whole aspect of poverty among Whites. The economic report deals with rural impoverishment and rural exodus. There were also a psychological report, an educational report, a health report and a sociological report. The report was published in 1932 at a time when the world was experiencing its greatest economic depression to date.

Today the poverty problem is still with us but instead of being a poor White question it is the poor Black question. For the same reasons as the Whites were compelled to leave the rural areas to seek work in the urban areas so have the Blacks in their millions streamed into our cities and towns since World War II.

To meet a similar situation in the USA there was an action called the “New Deal”. This was the name given to the domestic programme of the administration of the US President Franklin D Roosevelt between 1933 and 1939. It took action to bring about immediate economic relief to thousands of poor, homeless Americans as well as reforms in industry, agriculture, finance, water power, labour and housing. This vastly increased the scope of the federal government’s activities. The government of the USA under pres Roosevelt created huge public works programmes which created jobs for millions in an infrastructure provision which allowed production to be stimulated which in turn led to more persons being employed. The multiplier effect was significant.

What role did the South African Government play in 1932? Of the total 1932-33 Budget, 15,9% was set aside to provide aid and employment by instituting public works programmes. Applying the same formula to our 1986-87 Budget of R37,571 billion it would mean an allocation of R5,936 billion to undertake the same job on the same scale today. Research shows that it takes R2 036 to create one job opportunity. If the above amount was available it would mean 2 920 000 in job opportunities. This should be priority number one for the 1987-88 Budget.

I now want to give an assessment of why the 1985-86 employment creation package will fail. The R600 million scheme which has recently been introduced already fails in many areas. It is closely identified with the Government. This is a condition which will ensure less than full enthusiasm from the people it is trying to help. It is implemented through existing bureaucratic channels which again will lead to less than full acceptance or trust.

It is certainly not sufficient. The much heralded R600 million is less than 2% of the Government’s Budget. The allocation to this endeavour must be increased drastically. Nothing less than an allocation of about 16% of the Budget will help. This scheme is an ad hoc effort and there is no indication that the State will follow up the initiative.

Mass unemployment is the greatest cause of mass poverty. It is difficult to get accurate figures on unemployment in South Africa. The figures which I will now give to the Committee have been furnished by research done by the Economics Department of the University of Cape Town. I will first give the figures of what they believe unemployment to have been in 1982, then the additions and then what they believe the figures were in 1985.

The number of unemployed Blacks had risen from 2,7 million in 1982 by 979 000 to 3,6 million in 1985. The number of unemployed Coloureds rose from 370 000 in 1982 by 101 000 to 471 000 in 1985. The number of Asian unemployed rose from 95 000 in 1982 by 35 000 to 130 000 in 1985; and the number of White unemployed rose from 600 000 in 1982 by 120 000 to 720 000 in 1985. That means that there were 3,965 million unemployed in 1982. There have been an additional 1,235 million in four years and the figure now is about 5 million. Whatever the situation may have been in 1981, therefore, and even if the figures given appear to be too high, there are certainly 1 235 000 more people unemployed now than there were in 1981; of that the researchers are certain. It does not matter whether they are urban or rural, but the urban areas offer, even if only in the imagination of many rural dwellers, the possibility of a job.

We are in the midst of the worst depression since the 1930s, and the political situation seems set to aggravate it until it is, in effect, even worse than that of the 1930s. There was a run on a bank in South Africa yesterday; that is the sort of thing which started the great depression in the United States.

We have an excess capacity of some 70% in the private sector. Any stimulation, therefore, must be non-inflationary. We must stimulate the demand side rather than the supply side, and consider the best areas for the benefit of our society as a whole. We must stimulate the socio-economic services which can be complementary to the private sector.

As I have said, the major and overriding priority for the 1987-88 Budget must be job creation. The way it should be done is by means of a massive public works programme.

I would like to quote from the economic policy of the PFP as agreed to at its national congress in November 1981. It states the following, inter alia:

Another part of the PFP’s economic policy reads as follows:

I was fortunate enough to be a member of the Commission of Inquiry into Township Establishment and Related Matters, commonly known as the Venter Commission. The first report of that commission discussed the provision of housing until the year 2000. It estimated the total need for additional housing for all population groups for the period 1980-2000 to be about 3,5 million units. At least 55% of this total would be units for Blacks. This was based on the conservative estimate that about 50% of the Black population would be urbanised by the turn of the century. HSRC reports, however, estimate that the figure will be 75%.

The report of the Venter Commission notes the following:

The financial implications of the enormous township development task confronting South Africa up to the year 2000, if the country’s housing needs in respect of all population and income groups are taken into consideration will be 3,5 million units, which is gigantic. I would like to quote estimated figures based on the value of the rand in 1980. The establishment of residential sites will cost R22,5 billion and the building of homes will cost R65 billion. That means a total of R87,5 billion in 1980 terms which will have to be found to build additional houses up to the year 2000.

Why should the Government be responsible for that?

I shall come to that. I am glad the hon the Minister asked the question, because that is exactly with what I want to deal.

The establishment of a development corporation was recommended by the Venter Commission. The task confronting township establishment and the housing industry is such that it cannot be undertaken successfully by either the public or the private sector alone—that is the point—not only because of the financial input required, but also because of the specialised manpower needed. If this development task—the consequence of the expected future urbanisation according to the urbanisation report which was tabled in this House—is to be carried out successfully, it will have to be tackled jointly on an integrated basis. Without derogating from the independence of action of the private and public sectors, this task will have to be undertaken on a more structured and coordinated basis in future.

Township development, combined with the provision of housing, is conducted largely on an ad hoc basis at present, and even projects initiated by the Government are not always programmed in order to ensure continuity of action in the local context. The Venter Commission recommended a housing development corporation consisting of the private sector and the public sector, with the private sector having the majority. The Urban Foundation will be able to play a big role in the functioning of this corporation. I said that 15,9% of the 1987-88 Budget should be made available, not only for township and housing programmes but also for other urban and rural public works. When this is considered as a plan to save South Africa, R5,9 billion is not a large amount to spend annually. Public works programmes here are not limited only to housing, but to the provision of dams on farms and other works which have to be done on farms to prevent future droughts from having the ravaging effect which they have had in the past. There are a host of programmes which have to be undertaken and which should have been undertaken previously.

Housing and township development and other public works could provide job opportunities with available capital so as to help hundreds of thousands of the population. The building industry is the best economic multiplier we have, and the factories supplying building materials would run again. We would be using mainly South African produced goods and very little imported materials. Our balance of payments would not be affected.

We have the basic technical and organisational knowhow needed to design and implement labour-based civil works projects, while our universities, technical colleges and trade schools, being more highly sophisticated in their training and educational methods than in the 1930s, can provide training for the highly skilled jobs. The corporation will have to provide on-the-job training so that the unskilled can become semi-skilled and can eventually become tradesmen. However, there is an additional bonus. With the introduction of freehold to Blacks, every worker, irrespective of colour, will now be able to own his own home. This is the sort of scheme which becomes self-generating after a few years, and provides economic stability which will lead to political stability. The present first-time buyer’s subsidy will come in very usefully.

Unlike the schemes of the American “New Deal” and the efforts of South Africa in the 1930s, here we would have the private and the public sector joined together to save South Africa. Therefore legislation for the establishment of such a joint corporation should be passed as soon as possible.

Now, where do we get the money? That is what people will ask. It is most likely that a bigger deficit will have to be contemplated. There is nothing wrong with deficit financing, provided that the money borrowed is utilised for productive purposes. To tie the deficit borrowing to some fixed percentage of GDP need not necessarily be correct.

The financing of this new economic plan must be kept completely separate from the normal day to day Government financing as we have in the 1985-86 Budget. The borrowing that I have in mind has the sole objective of creating jobs and for that special corporations with separate accounts are to be developed to carry out the allotted tasks. In the normal Budget, restraints will have to be introduced so as to prevent inflationary tendencies. These will entail a cutback in expenditure on unnecessary, non-productive items. Salary and wage increases will also have to be limited to, say, not more than 10%. This will have to apply to both the public and the private sectors. Taxes must be kept to a minimum so as to stimulate entrepreneurship in the private sector to assist in this new economic plan.

As far as borrowing is concerned, the insurance companies have a cash flow of R9 billion per annum. They have to put 30% of this into Government stock. Surely it should be possible to create a special new deal stock for this gigantic job creation programme in which the insurance companies would be only too pleased to be able to invest in order to save South Africa and themselves. In addition, the mining houses have a good cash flow of billions of rand which could also be made available. Finally, more new money could be created by borrowing from the banks. This figure should, however, never exceed 25% of the total borrowings. The role of other financial institutions will also have to be investigated. However, the building societies will have to provide the finance to allow prospective home-owners to buy houses.

It must be clear that there must be some constraint on interest rates. Clearly the whole financing method will have to be discussed with the mining houses, insurance companies and whatever other financial institutions are going to be utilised in this deficit borrowing to ensure that interest constraints help to bring down the inflationary spiral, because we will now put back to work the idle resources that we have in South Africa. We are all aware that some 70% of the manufacturing capacity in South Africa is estimated to be idle. In this way the Stock Exchange will assume its rightful role. At the moment, the excessive cash of the institutions is going into the purchase of shares in companies which are suffering under the depression thus causing inflated prices to prevail resulting in uneconomic returns.

This plan will definitely stimulate the economy so that it may be possible that there will be the floating of many more new companies and so that the Stock Exchange can resume its rightful place of borrowing capital for a productive economy and not be what it is today, a storehouse for excess capital.

There is no doubt that this is one plan that can help to save South Africa.

Mr Chairman, in essence we on this side of the Committee agree with what the hon member for Bezuidenhout has just said. In fact, the theme that housing has to be accepted as a stimulus for the whole economy, has been used in this House for many years. The fact is that many people talk about the “housing problem”. I think it is correct to say, as the hon member for Bezuidenhout put it, that it is indeed a “housing challenge”. When one speaks of a shortage of a million houses, one is in fact speaking of a million houses multiplied by so many millions to calculate how many windows there have to be, how many bricks are required and how much cement is going to be used. In the final analysis housing is the pivot on which the economic revival could turn.

If we look back over the past few years of our country’s history, we should all agree that the fact that we have prohibited Blacks from owning land in certain places over the years is one of the biggest inhibitory and obstructive factors in the economic growth of South Africa. There is also the fact that land allocation in South Africa was of such a nature that the normal land initiative could not activate the economic activities centred around housing.

I think the hon member for Bezuidenhout adopted a fine standpoint and put forward a good case here. If we reach the point where we can allow individuals to start self-help building projects by providing the infrastructure, I think that we would all be amazed to see what happens in this country, which many people believe today to be in an economic recession to a fair degree.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the 10 minutes, of which one minute has passed. I should just like to make this remark—I do say in all seriousness—that I think that 80% of my colleagues in this Committee would agree with me when I say that these Vote discussions, with the 10 minute turns to speak we are given, under no circumstances do justice to democracy, or to the important work that our top officials do.

A large number of officials come down from Pretoria at tremendous cost for all the discussions of Votes, and they have to listen while we as parliamentarians try to debate very important matters in the interest of South Africa in speeches of 10 minutes. I just want to ask that we take a very serious and penetrating look at this matter. The new parliamentary system we have, requires us to do more to deal with the public discussion in connection with the Votes.

Today’s discussion of the Vote: Commission for Administration is a very good example of this. The activities of the commission, which in terms of legislation is directly responsible to Parliament, deals directly and indirectly with billions of rand which is allocated in the Budget. Directly and indirectly the commission’s activities involves dealing with billions of rand allocated by this Parliament, and we are barely given 50 minutes to discuss it. We cannot do this. It is not in the interest of democracy. [Interjections.] I shall leave the matter at that.

To start off with, I just want to convey my thanks. I shall begin with the hon the Minister, and I should just like to say that we are not trying to pay him exaggerated compliments. I just want to say that we on this side of the Committee are very proud of him. We are grateful that he is doing this important work, and we thank him for the fine things that have come to the fore as a result of this work. The area covered by the hon the Minister is of course very wide. It includes the Commission for Administration, the Central Economic Advisory Service and also the Central Statistics Service.

Because I am running out of time—and I still want to pause at the Commission for Administration for a while—I just want to say in passing that everyone in this Committee is very grateful to the Central Statistics Service for the outstanding and important work it does in the interest of South Africa. One only has to look at the quality of the statistics all of us as parliamentarians, as well as the entire country are increasingly receiving from this department, to realise what I am talking about.

As far as the Economic Advisory Services are concerned I do not have the time to get round to it. I should just like to tell the hon the Minister that his announcement on privatisation today is of tremendous importance to us as parliamentarians and to the country of South Africa. It is a fact that with further privatisation we could still set in motion hundreds of small business undertakings in South Africa, and I want to argue this point today—I should also like to ask the hon the Minister how he decides on this—that when we speak of privatisation we should not only look at big concerns and big organisations, but that we should also take a close look at the functions performed by the separate departments and public service as a whole and through which we could activate a large number of small businessmen and get them on their feet.

The point is, if we privatise, we would not be weakening the Government sector by doing so. We would indeed be strengthening South Africa, and therefore it is in the interest of every public servant to become involved in privatisation. As someone who along with my colleague the hon member for Gezina as well as other colleagues, represents public servants, I am pleased to convey the message that privatisation is not a threat, but will in many respects come to the rescue of our country’s resources. If the country is not economically strong, it is in any case impossible for a public service to function.

There is an interesting interaction between one’s own interests and those of the country, and I think, as the hon the Minister has said, that the Commission for Administration and most of the officials in our Public Service can spot that interaction quite well. We are also grateful for the fact that the hon the Minister has said that people’s interests would be looked after as far as pensions were concerned.

I should like to make an appeal just in passing today. We are in the process of a tremendous number of reform activities in South Africa. Every reform campaign on which the Government takes a decision, has an impact on the officials of the State, and unfortunately it has happened in the process that decisions were taken which were simply presented to officials overnight and which could be to the detriment of the individual, the spirit and the department’s own morale. I therefore ask that when the Government takes the necessary steps of reform, it should hold the officials of the specific department in confidence throughout, so that the officials can also consider how they regard the situation ahead. It just does not help—and I am referring specifically to a department where I worked myself—when such major decisions suddenly descend upon people. In that case it took many months, and I personally think—I am now talking about my own voters’ experiences—that it is not beneficial to the enthusiasm of the officials if they are not taken along the whole time in respect of decisions at which the Government wants to arrive. I am not saying this by way of negative criticism. We find ourselves in a delicate situation in which things are being done very quickly in South Africa and decisions are also being taken quickly.

To return to privatisation, let me say that there is no security to be found for any worker in a protected bureaucratic position. Total security, also for the officials who are essential and produce fine work, is to be found in a stronger South Africa.

Privatisation initiatives are actually three-pronged. We can look at what the State is doing, what we can channel away from the State and what can be avoided. I want to ask the hon the Minister that serious attention also be given to this. Unfortunately the report of the standing committee which dealt with deregulation, cannot be discussed yet today. In a certain sense this is a pity, because it would appear that investigations that take place before a particular State function is put into operation, investigations which are aimed at determining whether it should not perhaps be privatised—I am not only discussing the central Government now— could also be very important in the future. I am referring to steps which could be taken to prevent any Government body doing things which should actually be done by the private sector. All tiers of government must become involved in this. It is extremely important. This not only applies to the central Government.

The accusation that the Commission for Administration is part of an incredibly large and clumsy State machine, is in many respects not quite justified. It is also unfair in many respects to the people in the State machinery to make such wild accusations. Many of the facets in the Government sector about which economists complain, have nothing to do with the central Public Service.

On this occasion I should like to tell the Commission for Administration, on behalf of our voters as well, that we are very grateful for their concern for the position, powers, rights and privileges of the officials. It is a fact, for example, that the lower salaried officials in the Public Service are having a hard time, particularly in this harsh economic climate. There is no doubt about it that there are vast masses of people who are in a very unenviable situation as a result of the high inflation rate.

I still have a great deal to say about privatisation, but I shall leave it at that now. I just want to raise one last point. I should like to say today that while the Government is introducing dramatic reform in the economic, constitutional and social welfare spheres, it is necessary that we should receive the support of the total corps of officials throughout. The officials who serve the Government of the day, must therefore move with the changes. They must be motivated. We should not have people in the Public Service who deep down object to these changes. I am not making any accusations; I am really just appealing …

[Inaudible.]

Oh, keep quiet. Daan!

I am making this appeal because I know what I am talking about. I myself had the privilege of working in the State machine. I started my Public Service career under very senior people, people who voted against my own party, and it never bothered me. Those people, however, were absolutely loyal to the Government of the day. Today, for the sake of the hon member for Rissik, I make the statement that I cannot see how someone who works in the Public Service, and feels resentful towards the Constitution of the day and finds it objectionable, could work in a State department and really do his work with conviction.

And so I just call upon the Commission for Administration, which falls under the leadership of the hon the Minister, to see to it that we take our corps of officials along with us in all the changes made by the State, because otherwise one will have people in one’s service who feel opposition against the Constitution under which they have to work. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am really sorry that the hon member for Innesdal spoilt the good speech which he made this morning at the end by dragging politics into it. The hon member really wants to say that if one is in the service of the State, one must be a member of the Government party. That is completely wrong! [Interjections.] Everyone in the service of the State gives to the best of his ability. One does not have to be a member of the Government party to be able to do so. [Interjections.] The hon member should therefore really stop making that little allegation of his, because he is discriminating against certain public servants, and we on this side of the Committee are not prepared to tolerate it.

Frans, but you know that is not true!

In the short space of time I have available to me—I have just as little time as the hon member for Innesdal—I can unfortunately not enlarge on all the points made by him. But I shall certainly pause at certain things touched upon by him in the course of my speech.

I firstly want to express this side of the Committee’s deepest appreciation towards the public servants of the Republic of South Africa. They are helpful in the extreme when we go to Government departments to look after the interests of the voters. We want to thank them very much for this.

We fully appreciate the efforts of all public servants, male and female, who have made the service of the State their life-work. And so it is also our privilege to act as mediator for these people for the purpose of furthering and fulfilling their aspirations. We understand the problems public servants are struggling with, their personal problems as well as the problems they experience in the service. We should also like to act as intermediaries in regard to the problems that are being experienced, with a view to helping to solve these problems.

The Commission for Administration has made good progress with its instructions for rationalisation. It has been accompanied by departments being divided and changed and it has also resulted in public servants being moved to and fro, and we really just want to express the hope that the end result of everything will be to the benefit of the Public Service.

But I really do want to tell the hon the Minister that when one examines the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning and compares it with every other Government department, one comes up against one problem—in the midst of all this rationalisation. That department is starting to look like a monster to me. One could, for example, examine its annual report and take note of its top structure only. There are seven chief directorates, 26 directorates, plus regional offices, the Commission for Co-operation and Development and 32 sub-directorates. The names of all those things overlap each other to such an extent that one does not know what one is dealing with after a while.

It is a government within a Government.

I wonder every day if all those directorates and subdirectorates can differentiate between all the different functions they have to carry out. I at least want to ask if the hon the Minister can not give instructions that the Commission for Administration should examine this State department for a change, because it seems to me as if rationalisation is not taking place there, but rather a confusion for all those involved.

It is a Heunis empire.

We have taken note of the hon the Minister’s announcement in connection with certain services that are being privatised. We on this side of the Committee have no problems with privatisation; in fact, we support it. But when one comes to the question of privatisation, there are certain matters one should look at, because it is a sensitive matter and it is also a matter which one should handle with great care.

There are specific services and specific functions which simply have to remain with the State. They cannot be privatised under any circumstances. The fact of the matter is that the State as such is an established, stable, guaranteed institution. All private organisations may come and go, but the one organisation that remains and which has to remain at all costs, is the State and its services. And so there are simply certain functions with which one cannot gamble, take chances or run risks. It is absolutely essential that those functions be identified so that they can remain in the hands of the public sector, the State, at all costs.

One should also bear in mind that some of these services are not only of a local nature and are not only centred around the State, the private sector, a community or an individual, but also extend to countries overseas and have repercussions in countries abroad. These services must consequently continue daily and their work must be guaranteed. Every one of these bodies must have the security and the guarantee every day that this service will continue and that no hitches or problems will arise in it.

Another matter which I think we should also take into account when it comes to privatisation, is that we should not privatise in such a way that it is not to our advantage. I must say there is no private body that will provide any service or carry out any function if it is going to suffer a loss or if it is not going to be profitable to it. It must be rewarding for these private bodies, and the only body which is prepared to provide a service on which it is going to suffer a loss, is the State. It just has to find a way to make good that loss, by means of tax or whatever.

That is why it is important, when it comes to privatisation, that the State guards against the possibility that the only services that remain State-controlled, are those essential services such as security services and other guaranteed services that by nature are provided at a loss. The State must also make sure that it retains services of a profitable nature as well. Therefore it is also important that an equilibrium should be maintained between the public and the private sectors as far as profit and loss is concerned.

A second factor that must not be overlooked, is the fact that the state really is the most dependable employer in the country. We could plead with the private sector to create more job opportunities, we could even direct various appeals to the private sector, but the fact of the matter is that the private sector will only go as far as is necessary to serve its own interests. The private sector will not create excess job opportunities if it is going to lead to a loss for itself.

The State remains the major creator of guaranteed job opportunities. In addition the State cannot be diminished to such an extent that it eventually becomes an inferior or minor employer. The State must at all times keep its people employed. The State must therefore supply the service. It can indeed call upon the private sector, and we can have the confidence that the private sector will do its share. But the private sector will not do more than its own requirements dictate. The State will eventually come up against the problem of unemployment, and the State will then have to take control.

On top of this the State has to provide social and medical services when there is an economic slump and unemployment sets in. Then it is the State which in the first and last instances bears the responsibility to care for its people and then has to take control. Therefore the public sector, the State, must see to it that it in any case retains as many job opportunities as possible for the purpose of providing for the labour needs of its people.

As far as the employer is concerned, it is also very important to me that we have received an exposition in the annual report in connection with the remuneration of public servants. There is much uncertainty and confusion, also prejudice sometimes amongst members of the public as far as the remuneration of public servants is concerned, just as there is concerning the remuneration of parliamentarians. There are people in the private sector who are quick to point a finger at the public service in regard to the way the State remunerates its people. But we must bear two principles in mind. The first principle is that a worker is worth his wage. Whether he is in the service of the State or of the private sector, a worker is worth his wage.

It is also a fact that one cannot muzzle a thirsty ox, in other words, the State must take care of its people. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon member for Koedoespoort on his speech and also on the fact that he also supports privatisation. I must say that there is not much on which I can disagree with him. I was pleased to hear such a speech coming from the CP side. After all, hon members know that we normally hear from them about the Hochenheimers and the Rothschilds, and they also make attacks on big business. In all honesty, when I think of the speeches of hon members of the CP over the years, I cannot think of many occasions that really good views on the economy came from the direction of their benches. That is why I really do want to congratulate the hon member for Koedoespoort on his speech. [Interjections.] When we discuss privatisation, we must realise that it is virtually a philosophy that is not only going to find acceptance in the western world today, but also in the communist world. When we look at privatisation, we must view it in a broad prospective. It is a question of competition, deregulation and privatisation. It is interesting that the Minister of Finance in the French Government is called the Minister of Finance, Economics and Privatisation. It shows us how important this development is in the western world today.

The hon the Minister has tabled a Bill, the Temporary Removal of Restrictions on Economic Activities Bill. This is being discussed by the standing committee at present. I hope the CP supports this Bill in the standing committee, because it has to do with a very important aspect, ie deregulation.

When one looks at regulations, one very often asks oneself what chance a small undertaking has of being successful today. We are regulated from the day we are born until the day we die. We only have to look at the administered prices in the case of electricity, transport and food. We can also look at the licencing of undertakings.

Many years ago, one could see lorries loaded with naartjies, parked around Loftus Versfeld. Then suddenly one day there were no longer any lorries and naartjies. In the end the farmers of Rustenburg had to start chopping down their naartjie trees because somewhere someone had decided that there was a regulation that those naartjies could no longer be sold at Loftus without a licence.

We can also look at land use regulations, building regulations, health regulations, the registration for the control of factories, the registration for the use of machinery and the control of transport and the people and goods which are transported. As someone said, it takes about a year just to fill in all the forms if one wants to start off with a small factory today.

In triplicate.

Yes, in triplicate.

Two years ago the Minister who deals with small undertakings in Britain tabled a report on how to decrease the regulations affecting small undertakings in their public service. The committee recommended that a permanent task group should be established which would constantly have to examine how they could decrease and simplify regulations.

I now want to ask the hon the Minister— this really links up with the Bill which is possibly going to become an Act soon—that he should see if we could not appoint such a committee under him. It can keep an eye on the situation, continuously and act as a kind of watchdog to examine many of our acts and bills in connection with this. It is not only we who are making a mistake; I think we could really go and look at our local authorities as well.

Particularly.

I agree that we should look at our local authorities in particular.

We must simplify things for our people. We have become a country of computers, computer print-outs and forms. It takes longer to read our computer print-outs or to fill in our forms than it does to do our business. The process of regulating has many disadvantages. When one regulates, the undertaking which is being regulated tends towards quality control because price competition is restricted. I know of factories in South Africa which are being regulated to a considerable degree and when they instal new equipment, they will not look at a secondhand machine. No, they buy the best, because they do not have anything to do with price competition.

Our people are always looking for regulations. We do not know why. It is as if it gives them a certain feeling of security. I want to ask that we make propaganda amongst our people to please not ask for regulations the whole time. It seems to me they think that if we make a regulation, we are protecting someone. It is a psychological problem. I think we should really pay attention to making our people aware of the fact that they should not come along with everything to the Government or the local authorities and ask for more regulation.

When one considers privatisation—as I was saying, it is now a philosophy in the Western communist world—the whole idea is to make the economy more market orientated, and to try to create a more flexible economy and one based on undertakings. There are many advantages to that. But we should be very careful not to make State controlled undertakings which are insensitive into privately owned monopolies which are insensitive. That is just as dangerous.

A further aspect we must keep in mind is that when one speaks of privatisation, it is not merely the privatisation of our factories but also of property and the ownership of shares.

When one privatises, there is a danger that the shares could end up in the hands of a few big organisations. They should rather be distributed.

Mrs Thatcher of Great Britain is not only an idealist in this area, but she also implements her ideals. In Great Britain there was an increase from 7% in 1979 to 14% at present in the number of shares owned by adults. I think we should try to distribute the shares amongst the people in the street when privatisation takes place.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member how one can prevent the small man from stagging shares which would then allow big organisations to gain control over the whole sector? This will only mean a change from one monopoly to another private monopoly.

According to the latest British budget the law over there allows certain tax benefits, but those tax benefits fall away when one sells one’s shares before a certain period. I do not think one can restrict such a process completely, but at some stage the individual should at least have the right to get rid of his shares, but one could control the entire process with the aid of taxation. There is also a safety element built into the building society legislation of the British Parliament.

I want to go further. While we all support privatisation, we should have of course not forget—I want to agree here with other hon members—that the State naturally has another duty, that is as far as employment and risky investments are concerned. The private sector is always a little careful when big risks are involved in an investment.

One sees this if one goes back into history when the NP Government started with Iscor. In those days there was a member of the United Party, Mr Mushet, and he asked in this Parliament how we could manufacture our own iron and steel, seeing as our blastfurnaces were definitely going to burst. He thought we should just continue importing from Britain.

The private sector is definitely afraid of risky investments sometimes. There was much criticism from opposition members when Sasol was founded. Today we have an example in Sasol of a State-controlled undertaking that had a risky beginning, and was later privatised.

Today the private sector no longer wants to invest so that there is actually a local disinvestment by our own companies taking place. I think it is the duty of the State to come up with a plan of action. I am now thinking of the Mossel Bay plan of the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. Since liquid funds are now beginning to accumulate, I think we should use them to invest in these kind of risky undertakings.

At the same time we should tackle the problem of unemployment and in this regard I agree with other hon members. The State has a function to promote economic growth, to fight inflation and to prevent unemployment. That is one of its basic functions. When privatisation takes place and the funds are obtained, they should be used to help to reduce unemployment. We should therefore not be afraid to privatise.

There are of course always problems. If one were to privatise Foskor, then there would be the problem … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to agree with the previous speaker, the hon member for Waterkloof, because I think that he was correct in everything he said. I am pleased that the hon member had the opportunity to speak before me, because I should like to carry on where he left off.

I want to tell the hon member for Koedoespoort that for the first time in all the years that we have been together in Parliament—this is a little more than five years—I have agreed with what he said. I should also like to say something kind to the hon member by telling him that he makes his best speeches when he is unemotional; he must stop being as emotional as he was the other day. [Interjections.] I, however, agree with everything he said. Unfortunately, he in any case does not appreciate anything; therefore I shall simply leave him alone. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Waterkloof held a long discussion on the necessity of privatisation. What he said was correct.

I firstly want to congratulate the hon the Minister—he is the chairman of the Cabinet’s privatisation committee—on his appointment. This is a committee with very difficult complex terms of reference. I should like to address him in my speech this morning and make a request to him.

I want to urgently request the hon the Minister to publish a White Paper on the Government’s whole policy of privatisation. I think everyone in the Committee agrees that we must privatise, but I also gain another impression particularly when I follow the financial Press during recent times, because some of them run amok with the idea of privatisation. I should like to ask the hon the Minister and his Cabinet Committee— one of his advisors is Dr Wim de Villiers—to publish a White Paper detailing the policy in broad terms.

I am not asking the hon the Minister to detail all the particulars, because I think every activity which is privatised, is unique and therefore it should not be attempted to set a specific policy for all of them. I particularly ask that the hon the Minister will deal with the guidelines, aims, and also the other matters, touched on by the hon member for Koedoespoort and Waterkloof, in the White Paper.

It is essential that we receive a White Paper at this stage particularly to further the discussions. The discussion on the pro’s and cons of privatisation at the moment is taking place, in my view, in a reasonably loose fashion, because everyone has his own standpoint. If the hon the Minister made such a document available to us all, it would at least structure the discussion. We would then at least know what the points of departure and the aims were. We would then be in a position to take the debate further.

Well said!

The aims of privatisation can vary, depending on every person’s approach. I ask the hon the Minister to deal with the aims, particularly from the Government’s viewpoint, and to make details about them available so that we can debate on them and eventually reach a measure of consensus of what we are striving for. This also goes along with what the hon member for Waterkloof said. A part of it will probably touch on the deregulation aspect, but I ask for a White Paper particularly to get the discussion going and to allow us to try to reach the same ends.

I do not want to go into the details of such a White Paper, because the hon the Minister has enough advisors who are better qualified than I to lead him on this, but there is still one point which I should like to deal with. The hon member for Waterkloof also referred to it. At the end of the day, members of staff are going to be involved in certain cases. I ask that the hon the Minister will explain the Government’s standpoint on this, in the event of those bodies involving those staff members being privatised or transferred. We should also like to find out who the owners will finally be if bodies are privatised. I am opposed to it encouraging a concentration of power.

That is the $64 000 question!

Anglo-American!

I very clearly want to support the hon member for Waterkloofs statement that the British and other governments are paying a lot of attention to this aspect.

We are all optimistic, but the idea that privatisation is a panacea which will remove all economic differences in all spheres in this country, must be driven out of our heads. I do not think it is possible. It would certainly contribute to a better economic system and greater prosperity, but at this initial stage we must admit that it could not possibly solve all our problems.

The philosophy of protection and possible advancement of private undertakings is given substance even in the Constitution. I constantly want to refer everyone who is participating in this debate to the preamble to the Constitution in which the Government as a first step has indicated where this train of thought is heading.

I want to thank the hon the Minister for having made an announcement on privatisation here. There are two particular activities for which we transport riders, as the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Water Affairs always puts it, are very grateful, ie the establishment and maintenance of roads, and the establishment and running of toll roads.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister for the fact that it is now possible to privatise toll roads and that the State, in the first place, can now also transfer the risk which it always ran in connection with this, to the private sector.

As we have approximately 150 000 kilometres of roads in this country at the moment, of which approximately 50 000 kilometres are tarred, streets included, and in the 1984-85 financial year we have employed a capital amount of approximately R140 million for the improvement of our road network, I want to thank the hon the Minister very much for making this announcement.

The 7c per litre which we now receive for the national road fund, is insufficient to provide all the roads in South Africa. The 7c per litre is only a measure intended to assist matters. I even want us to move away from the idea of the National Road Fund to an idea of a central road fund so that when the provinces appear in their new form on 1 July 1986 we shall also be able to ensure that we have enough money available to maintain our national road network in South Africa in the future on a larger scale. I not only mean national roads, but also roads in the rural areas, urban roads and through roads. The money invested in these roads, is estimated at many billions of rand and is regarded as an asset to the South African economy, and maintaining this asset is an important point which we shall have to address in the future.

I am grateful that we are going to have private toll roads in future, so that we can obtain money from outside. It is easy to privatise toll roads at this stage, because at present a large part of the work is being undertaken by private initiative. They plan the roads and do the construction, and all the State has done in the case of national roads, was to finance them and to carry the risks. Now the hon the Minister is making it possible for these people to also be able to do the financing and to carry the risks.

This gives the State the opportunity to apply the additional funds made available to it when the hon the Minister of Mineral, and Energy Affairs increased the levy to 7 cents per litre over a broader area and in particular in the urban complexes, because the major problem in future will be our urban roads. It is not so much our rural roads, but our urban roads which are creating a problem. I therefore ask for a central road fund.

I am also very grateful that the hon the Minister has made provision for roads at a local level—that is to say provincial roads as they are known to us today as well as roads in urban complexes—to be built and maintained by private people as well.

Let me conclude. We have pleaded today for job opportunities. Today I therefore want to ask the two consortiums involved, although they are not here today, which are now going to be allowed to handle the toll roads, to please see to it that they will make maximum use of labour and will use every opportunity to move away from capital-intensive equipment to labour and creating job opportunities. I want to ask them and the hon the Minister as well today, when he has finally negotiated with them, to request them to create job opportunities, because many of these toll roads go through the rural areas of South Africa where job opportunities are absolutely essential. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the central theme of the debate is privatisation and unemployment. That is why I want to compliment hon members who spoke about privatisation this morning on their contributions.

Unemployment gives us all great cause for concern. Earlier this week, during the discussion of the Vote of the hon the Minister of Manpower, unemployment was of great concern to every hon member who spoke. Apart from other reasons, the unemployment we are experiencing at present is mainly due to the following. I want to point out that during the past four months we have really reached an all-time low in our economy. Apart from other factors, this is mainly due to the fiscal measures of 1984, our very high interest rates which have brought even millionaires to their knees during the past few months, disinvestment and Bishop Tutu. This bishop must take very clear cognisance of the results of his plea for disinvestment. The results of the mentioned measures have been insolvencies and sequestrations, which the newspapers are full of, unprecedented unemployment, emigration on a larger scale than we have had in 10 years, and unrest.

Unemployment causes great anxiety in each one of us. We shall combat unemployment mainly by means of three industries. These industries are the agricultural industry, of which the hon member Dr Odendaal knows much more than I do, the motor industry, of which the hon members from Port Elizabeth know much more than I do, and the building industry.

I should like to talk to the hon members about the stimulation of the economy and the creation of job opportunities by the building industry.

I want to refer to the hon member for Bezuidenhout first, because as he said, the building industry is the greatest generator of economic activity, and economic activity creates employment. The hon member for Bezuidenhout was fortunate to have half an hour in which to speak. I have only 10 minutes. The hon member for Bezuidenhout made an excellent speech on this topic this morning. The hon the Minister and the Economic Advisory Council must take very thorough cognisance of the content of the hon member’s speech. [Interjections.]

I say the building industry is the greatest generator of economic activity. The hon member for Bezuidenhout spoke about the provision of housing. What is the situation in respect of housing in this country at present? According to Rapport of 25 May there is a shortage of 450 000 houses in housing for Blacks, mainly subeconomic housing. In the case of Coloureds there is a shortage of 105 775 houses according to the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the Administration: House of Representatives. In the Asians’ case, there is a shortage of 40 000 houses according to the speech made by Mr Baldeo Dookie, Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Delegates on 13 May. There is a shortage of 600 000 houses in this country.

That is not the end!

That is not the end of it; it is merely the beginning. If we have a shortage of 600 000 houses, it means there is a shortage of millions and millions of bricks. As a result of the economic inactivity, at the moment this country has a supply of bricks sufficient for its normal economic activity for the next 12 months. We need not manufacture one brick. We have enough for 12 months. The same applies to the cement industry or cement manufacturers.

If we build those houses, we shall create a demand for bricks, cement, stone, sand, wood, windows, roofs and window panes. All those things have to be manufactured. That is not where the demand ends, however. We shall also have a demand for spades, picks, trowels, hammers, nails, paint and brushes, and once the houses have been built, we shall create a demand for furniture, curtains, stoves, refrigerators and carpets, as well as for services that have to be supplied. I am talking about services such as electricity and water and refuse removal and much more. These are services which are rendered by people, but we are brought up short by regulations.

I indicated that there is a shortage of 40 000 houses for the Indian community. For longer than I can remember, the Indian community in Pretoria has struggled to have land identified on which they could build houses for themselves—not the Government; they themselves. The Coloured community of Pretoria has been struggling for just as long to have land identified on which they can build houses.

I therefore want to request that we stimulate the building industry by removing regulations which have an inhibiting effect on these activities. There are millions of people who want to work, and if we give them work, we are also solving most of the political problem as well because the great cause of today’s political unrest is unemployment. It is an economic cause and not a political cause.

I want to conclude by asking the Government please to accept the policy of not undertaking building projects in times of great prosperity, but of spending money on building projects in times of low prosperity. There are two examples of countries which follow this policy strictly and do not get involved in the building industry in times of strong economic activity at all, but build strongly in times of economic inactivity. The fluctuation in the building industry in those two countries has been no more than 10% over a period of many years. May I request that we accept this as policy? I want to support it very strongly and ask the hon the Minister to give serious attention to the matter.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Hercules. We are experiencing a period in our country in which we are building a structure in which all the groups in South Africa can find a secure home, and among the materials we need to build that structure, we also need certain building-blocks. I am thinking of love, co-operation and understanding. These are the materials we must use to build a structure to ensure safety, peace and prosperity for everyone in South Africa, and it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Hercules.

The world is changing, and there is nothing that cannot change with it. A new dispensation was instituted to adapt to the change in our society, and to think that government administrations would not be affected by this would be wishful thinking. The new administrative structure has the inherent possibility of ensuring an effective administration, and it will depend on the people who have to apply it whether it will be used effectively to the advantage of the country and its population. The rationalisation of departments is a dynamic process, and the structures and organisations, as they exist at present, must therefore not be regarded as unchangeable.

To function effectively, it will be imperative for all population groups to participate in the Public Service of the future. The Public Service renders services to all sections of the population, and that is why it is appropriate and necessary that the Public Service be manned by people from all population groups. That has always been the case, and it will be no different in future. The Public Service Act of 1984, like the Act of 1957, admits this reality, and draws no distinction between the various population groups.

Although the emphasis in the Public Service Act is not on colour or population groups, it is true that certain utilisation arrangements in respect of staff have always applied in the Public Service. These arrangements are of an administrative nature and are aimed at the promotion of effectiveness and the occupational development of the respective population groups. The utilisation pattern for the respective population groups is something that is continuing to develop on the basis of political, social, economic and administrative considerations.

In this connection the composition of the labour force is a fundamental factor which influences the utilisation pattern, especially as far as the entrance of members of the respective population groups to certain professions is concerned. The new constitutional dispensation will definitely have an influence on the utilisation of the respective population groups in the Public Service, especially, of course, as far as the White, Coloured and Asian population groups are concerned. It is logical, for example, that the new administrations for own affairs be manned, as far as possible, by people from the relevant population groups themselves. This relevant principle is a tried and tested one in South Africa.

At the same time one must expect that not all posts in the new administrations will be filled appropriately in this way, and that members of other population groups will have to be used as well. Obviously this type of situation will have to be handled with caution and appropriate arrangements if one wants to prevent the assimilation process, as well as individuals’ legitimate career expectations, from being affected detrimentally.

As far as general affairs are concerned, the constitutional principle of co-responsibility will have to find obvious expression in the utilisation of White, Asian and Coloured population groups in the departments concerned. The principle of co-responsibility will, however, have to be reconciled with the principles of merit and effectiveness which underlie our method of staff administration and which I have emphasised particularly. As far as I can see, there is no reason why the three principles, viz co-responsibility, merit and effectiveness, cannot be put into practice in a good spirit and a productive way. As far as personnel administration is concerned, we are faced with a great challenge, viz to maintain and develop such a principled personnel strategy even further.

In this respect I want to refer again to the need for balance in the Government administration. It is clear that a balance between the requirements and interests of the department and those of departments which deal with general affairs and their administration will have to be pursued purposefully. Once again the staff in the Commission for Administration are facing a challenge.

The conclusion to which one comes is that the utilisation pattern with reference to the respective population groups will develop further under the new constitutional dispensation, and that there may be an acceleration in this connection. In my opinion, the structures, principles, policy and processes according to which our personnel administration is being pursued, is adequate to accommodate this pace of development successfully.

An aspect which is expected to receive far more attention than in the past, is the consulting of staff associations. One of the objectives of staff associations is to ensure a well-paid, effective and satisfied work force in our country. In a time in which the inflation rate is sky-rocketing and all employees are insisting upon higher salaries and greater benefits, staff associations do indeed have an exceptional part to play. Staff associations are in fact experiencing a dilemma, because on the one hand employees are pressurising the association for better benefits and remuneration, while on the other the public is exerting pressure on the authorities for the improvement of public services and the reduction of Government expenditure.

The role played by the staff associations must therefore be concentrated on the maximum utilisation of all their members in return for the improved benefits. Dr P Rautenbach, the former Chairman of the Commission for Administration, said on occasion that bringing the recommended establishment up to full strength and the optimum utilisation of Public Service staff is one of the key objectives for the future. A dedicated staff association can make a great contribution to realising this key objective.

Staff associations must therefore strive to persuade their members to increase their productivity in return for service benefits. Members must be made aware that a general increase in productivity promises even better benefits for employees. The methods that can be applied to increase productivity, are inter alia an effective system, merit determinations and training programmes to provide the training requirements of all the employees.

The staff associations concerned must make this possible by means of joint consultation with the employers concerned. If effective performance can be ensured, the result—which is productivity—will have an effective influence on the image of the Public Service as a whole. A favourable image in turn promotes the positive attitude of the employee so that employees of an exceptional quality can be recruited for and kept in the Public Service.

I want to raise a further matter very briefly. This is what I want to appeal to the hon the Minister as well as the Commission for Administration to take a fresh look at uniformity among the officials on all Government levels. I perceive an uneasiness among our officials in respect of the process of constitutional development. I am thinking, for example, of the appointment of a public servant in terms of the Public Service Act. There are teachers, for example, who are appointed in terms of three separate Acts. In addition, teachers have now been transferred from the provincial administrations to the Department of Education and Culture. Our development boards come to mind as well. There is an uneasiness among our people, and I request that the whole matter of staff on the various levels of Government be considered urgently.

Mr Chairman, we have now come to the end of this debate, which was a very calm debate in which few negative notes were heard.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to refer to the speakers in this debate. Before I do so, please allow me to convey my thanks to the executive officials who support me in this portfolio. I should like to refer to Dr Johan de Beer, who is the chairman of the Commission for Administration—CVA—to Dr du Plessis, member of the Commission, to Mr Wessels Meyer, the Secretary of the Commission, to Mr Dreyer, the head of the Central Economic Advisory Service, to Dr Treurnicht the head of the Central Statistical Service, to Mr Jimmy Vermaak, the Chief Director of Privatisation, and last but not least, to Dr Wim de Villiers who acts as adviser for privatisation. I should like to thank these gentlemen sincerely for the very loyal and effective service with which they provide me. This is enabling me to establish this portfolio which, as hon members can see, is very divergent, but which is also in many respects new. I think it is really a compliment to the Commission for Administration that little if any criticism was expressed this morning of their handling of the Public Service. I think they deserve this compliment for the way they manage this large organisation warrants no criticism.

Hear, hear!

The hon member for Bezuidenhout referred chiefly to economic matters. He said, and I agree with him, that the problem of job creation is the most pressingly important problem we have in this country today. Let me remind the hon member, however, that we are still a part of Africa even though we have this First World component of “mon-economy”, which is a rather freak component in Africa. Unemployment and poverty are perennial problems in Africa. They are problems that will stay with Africa and that will also be with us for a very long time to come.

We must try to get rid of them.

Yes, we must try to get rid of them. It is all very well to say so, but how do we get rid of them? That is the point: how do we get rid of them?

Not by getting a Black Government or Black President. [Interjections.]

The challenge facing this country is to settle …

A Third World Government.

The hon member for Rissik must just be quiet, please.

As I was saying, the challenge facing this country is to settle millions of poor people— because Africa is poor—and to get them involved in the economy of this country. [Interjections.] We must get them involved in housing—many hon members referred to this—in small-scale agriculture and in small business operations.

The Government is well aware of all these problems and we addressed this issue in the White Paper that was published recently. Job creation, we said, was mainly the function of the private sector.

No, it is not.

It is. Job creation is mainly the function of the private sector because ours is a free economy. Government can provide the stimulus for it, yes. It has been proven all over the world, however, that wherever government involvement in the economy is greatest, growth in the economy is smallest. [Interjections.] The fact that the hon member shakes his head will not alter the situation; it is a proven fact. [Interjections.] That is why this Government has embarked upon a decentralisation policy—to take work to people. The hon member cannot, therefore, refer only to this R600 million that he referred to, but …

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has said that decentralisation has taken work to the people. Does he not agree that it has also taken work away from people? I refer specifically to the situation of Port Elizabeth where work has actually been taken away and has gone to other areas.

We have people all over this big country of ours, and so to allow people just to stream into a few centres would give rise to other problems which would in turn make it necessary for the Government to spend more money.

But you are arguing for influx control.

That is why we say wealth must also be distributed to the areas where those people are. It is all very well to say we must spend capital. We agree with that. However, we have a very limited supply of capital in this country. The hon member knows what we are up to at this very moment.

I wish we did.

The hon member also referred to the large number of houses that have to be built in this country. We say that we can only address that particular problem—I also refer to the hon member for Hercules in this respect—by encouraging self-built housing. I must say that although I agree with the hon member in many respects I do not think the private sector is doing its bit at this very moment as far as that is concerned. I think the hon member agrees with me.

The Government has taken all our money away in tax.

It must be a joint effort.

I can assure the hon member that all the aspects that he referred to need capital expenditure. That is scarce in this country. I can assure him that the Central Economic Advisory Service, which is part of my portfolio, the State President and the National Priorities Committee of the State President are addressing the questions of employment and capital as matters of the highest priority and of national priority in our country.

*I should like to react to the speech made by the hon member for Innesdal. He referred to the high calibre of the work of our Central Statistical Service. I should like to thank him sincerely for doing so. Statistical Services make a special contribution to the development of this country, for if there are no good statistical services or if statistics are not kept well, advanced planning is not possible. It is also important for population planning. That is why I can also inform hon members that the Government has decided that the next census will take place in 1990. The idea of 1995 was raised, but in order to make the numeration as accurate as possible and to convey the best possible information to the public, it was decided that the census would take place in 1990.

The hon member stated a very important point. He said, as regards privatisation, that we should not only consider large undertakings, but that we should in particular consider small business undertakings. I think that is the crux of the entire privatisation campaign. The hon member is also the chairman of the committee which examined the deregulation Bill. It is known to all the hon members that the grounds for that Bill is in reality the growth of the economy, competition and job creation. That is why I can assure the hon member today that the committee dealing with privatisation will at all times ensure that the interests of the small entrepeneurs are looked after.

He asked for the officials to be coaxed towards acceptance of this policy. I have already referred to this, and I give him the assurance once again that this will be done. I can also tell the hon member that it has become apparent from the investigations which have been disposed of thus far that officials are not only co-operating, but there is also a large percentage of them who are thinking of the question of privatisation with enthusiasm.

The hon member referred to the low-paid officials. The question of these officials is of course a very serious problem to us. It is not easy, in times such as these, to maintain a house with a small salary and feed one’s wife and children. I can point out to them, however, that we have since 31 December 1983 increased the salaries of those labourers and the low-paid members of the Public Service by no less than 110%. Furthermore I can say that the recent 10% increase also applied in their case. As I said in my introductory speech, those labourers are also among those sectors of our personnel who are being singled out in the differentiation of salaries which we are engaged on at present.

We must not lose sight of the fact that there must be market-relatedness in all these activities, and also as far as labourers are concerned. In labour, too, there is a situation of supply and demand. These are all factors which influence the entire matter.

The hon member also referred to officials who could be involved in the implementation of the reform process. The hon member for Koedoespoort, who spoke after him, thought he meant the officials should perhaps be intimidated to support the Government’s policy with a little cross in the right place. I do not think that was what the hon member meant. I, as the Minister responsible for this matter, do not see it in that light at all. [Interjections.]

The Act is very clear on that point. It does not prohibit an official from being a member of a political party nor does it prohibit an official from being an executive committee or ordinary member of a political party, but it does prohibit an official from using his position to influence politics. I am quoting from where it emphatically states:

That officials may not do, and as long as officials adhere to this I have no problems. [Interjections.]

I should also like to refer here to the speech made by the hon member for Koedoespoort. He referred to rationalisation in the Public Service and he then referred in particular to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. He said the department was hopelessly too big.

The Heunis empire! [Interjections.]

Hon members need only read the speech the hon the Minister made, in which he referred to the devolution of power which must take place from this department to the local authorities and provincial administrations. I can give the hon member the assurance that the size of departments on an ongoing basis and that the Commission for Administration is constantly engaged in doing this.

The hon member also referred to the question of privatisation. He said there were certain services which the State would always have to provide, and I am in full agreement with that. He said the State must not be left merely with the services on which losses were being suffered. The hon member said in other words that the State must not be a small employer. On that point I differ with the hon member, and the committee does not share his view either. In principle we are opposed to the cross-subsidation of services. It means that one should not utilise the profits on a service in the Public Service to compensate for the losses on another service.

Those parts which can be privatised and which produce profits could preferably be transferred to the private sector. They then make their profits, we collect taxes from them and then we preferably subsidise those socioeconomic services that have to be borne by the State. That is a sound principle. Then we know precisely what we are asking the taxpayer for, we can tell him that we need his money in order to promote a certain socioeconomic service, and then the taxpayer or voter himself can decide whether that service should be continued.

The hon member also asked us to ensure that we were not left with a tiny public service. I want to refer him to the object which is to make the Public Service as small as possible for the reason I have just mentioned to the hon member for Bezuidenhout, namely the smaller the Public Service the smaller the State involvement in the economy, the greater the prosperity in that connection will be.

The hon member also referred to the remuneration of officials, and said that people were pointing their fingers at certain officials. He is right.

Mr Chairman, with reference to what the hon the Minister said a moment ago about aspiring to a smaller Public Service, may I ask him whether it is the Government’s policy to get rid of Public Servants, if I may put it like that? [Interjections.]

That is such a poor question that it is almost not necessary to reply to it. The hon member need only have listened to what I have already said. [Interjections.] In this process officials can also become businessmen and entrepeneurs, because we want to promote small business undertakings. [Interjections.]

I am aware that people are pointing their fingers at certain officials, and also that there are people who begrudge officials a good life. I want to say in public this morning that I want officials’ remuneration to be improved even further. [Interjections.] However we also ask officials to produce the work which is consonant with such improved salaries.

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

I should like to reply to questions, but my time is too limited. If I had any time left at the end of my speech I shall reply to it. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Waterkloof referred to the question of deregulation. We cannot discuss the Bill in question now, but I can tell the hon member that I am receiving a great deal of support from the private sector in this connection. I am also receiving a great deal of support from politicians. But it must also be said now that vested interests will eventually have to be affected in the process of deregulation. [Interjections.] It is inevitable. We must understand this too.

The hon member referred to the naartjie pedlars in the Northern Transvaal, and also in Pretoria. When I was a young man in the northern suburbs of Cape Town there was a small shop attached to a house in almost every side-street. Those things disappeared, and I do not know why. I should like to associate myself with many other hon members by saying that we must go back to those small businesses, for they are the providers of employment, and the competitors. It is they who provide people with jobs in an ingenious way. I shall make it my task to look into this matter. [Interjections.]

The hon member also advocated the establishment of a committee to give ongoing attention to the question of deregulation. The principle of that matter is already being dealt with by means of the Competition Board. We already have a component within the board which is dealing with this, and we can expand it or even transfer it to another body if we deem that necessary, but at the moment the competition board is doing this quite competently.

A standing committee will have to be established!

The hon member also referred to the fact that the State sometimes has to make risky investments. That is true, and that is why we have again entered the field of investment in Mossel Bay. The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, who carried out that task, is also present here. The secret is that the State must withdraw at the right time after it has established such an industry. It must not hold on to the business because it is profitable. When an investment shows prospects of becoming profitable, the State must withdraw. Then the economy will grow and prosper. I thank the hon member for this contribution.

The hon member for Primrose also made a contribution and requested that consideration be given to the possibility of a White Paper on privatisation, which would of course include deregulation as well. I can inform the hon member that the guidelines for privatisation and deregulation have already been accepted by the Cabinet. We have already made quite a good deal of progress with the question of a White Paper on deregulation. At present we are also in fact incorporating the ideas of the private sector into this document. I can give the hon member the assurance that we shall gladly comply with that request and that a White Paper on privatisation will in due course be tabled here.

To the benefit of the Oppenheimers! [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to the object of privatisation. [Interjections.] If the hon member for Kuruman would only keep his mouth shut, he could perhaps learn something, also about the small businessman. The hon member is so petty-minded about Oppenheimer, he can try to calm down a little for a change. [Interjections.]

Order! I put the Vote “Commission for Administration”, not “Comical Politicking”. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Primrose referred to the object of privatisation and asked what we were aspiring to. We state unequivocally that we are aspiring to smaller involvement of the State in the economy of this country. We are aspiring to more entrepreneurs, and not to fewer entrepreneurs as that hon member in his petty-mindedness is trying to imply here. We are aspiring to more and to smaller entrepreneurs. Does the hon member not understand that?

The Indians in India! [Interjections.]

The hon member also referred to toll roads here. It is common knowledge that we are considering the first two toll road projects which will be initiated by the private sector. This is the first trial run we are taking in this regard, and it is necessary to watch the matter with great care, for what we are proposing must serve as an example for what is to follow. The fact of the matter is that the committee of the hon the Minister in question is working on this, and is on the point of making an announcement in this connection. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Hercules also referred to the unemployment problem. He also referred to high interest rates, and made the important point, in conjunction with the hon member for Bezuidenhout, that the economy should be stimulated by means of the building industry. He demonstrated very effectively here, with emphasis on the technical aspects, what other industries would all be affected if one could succeed in stimulating the building industry effectively. I do not think there can be any arguments about this, and I should like to agree with the hon member.

The hon member also asked us to undertake this stimulation of the economy when the business cycle was in a downward phase. That was a meaningful argument of the hon member, and I have taken note of it. It is quite correct that we have a political and an economic problem, and when we can succeed in addressing both those problems by spending money, that is by far the most successful exercise. I agree with the hon member that housing and home-ownership jointly addresses the problem of politics and the problem of the economy. I thank the hon member for this contribution he made.

The voters of Hercules no longer agree with him.

Man, why don’t you go and read up your family tree.

The hon member for Witbank referred to the public sector administration which is being affected as a result of reform, and said that the State administration should also be adjusted to the changes that are being brought about by reform. I should very much like to refer to …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Could you not ask the hon member for Kroonstad to keep quiet? We cannot hear what the hon the Minister is saying. [Interjections.]

Order! I would rather ask the hon member for Kuruman to keep quiet. He is disrupting the debate with his persistent interjections. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Kuruman can control himself, it will also be easier for that hon member to keep quiet! [Interjections.]

I am referring now to the hon member for Witbank, particularly when he said that the State administration must develop, change and be reformed. This morning I should like to refer here to a matter which is raised very frequently in this Chamber, namely the triplication of State administration. It is implied here that we are suddenly going to treble the number of officials in this country because we have three Parliaments. That is utter nonsense.

There are not three Parliaments!

Three Chambers of one Parliament then. [Interjections.] The actual fact is that the expansion of the public service establishment as a result of the new constitutional dispensation resulted in only 165 additional posts.

Congratulations!

I would be pleased if that hon member, now that he has congratulated me, would make this known and convey the information to his colleagues who are so fond of referring to the so-called triplication of the administration of this country.

Hon members will also read in our annual report that we succeeded this year in reducing the number of posts in the Public Service by 1 423. This is in fact a reduction of 1,1% of the establishment. The hon members can then deduct the 165 additional posts as a result of the new constitutional dispensation. Then they will see that we still have approximately 1 300 posts less than during the previous year.

The hon member also referred to the various population groups who are being drawn into the Public Service. This was of course an aspect to which many persons and bodies are referring. I shall repeat here what I also said in the other two Houses, namely that the norm in terms of which people are appointed and in terms of which people are assessed for an appointment, are efficiency and effectiveness.

The hon member also referred to the staff associations for consultation. During the short while I have occupied this position, I have had an opportunity to negotiate with four different staff associations and to meet their representatives. I found it to be an enriching occasion, and I experienced only the best co-operation from all four of those associations.

Then the hon member also referred to productivity. I have already referred to the fact that it is my ideal to remunerate officials even better, but then we must look at the productivity of these people. It is a fact that the only truely happen person is the person who is always doing something productive. We are looking into this, and are working on it intensively. The hon member is aware that we have abolished 50% of the posts which were vacant on 1 April 1985. That was one of the reasons why we were able to reduce the establishment. Officials are in fact working half an hour longer everyday. They are doing so voluntarily. They are not receiving any additional remuneration for it.

The Commission for Administration has already made a start on the establishment of an institution for the training of our own officials. We have the buildings for this purpose, and the training institute is already in operation. We have an arrangement with the University of Pretoria for the management personnel to be trained in an ongoing course. I could also refer here today to a new trend in the Public Service. It is a trend which we shall allow to continue in the long term, and which we call the function accounting technique. This means that every function in the Public Service is questioned and that the people performing that function have to defend that function, as it were, before a questioning team. We hope to obtain genuine results with this in the long-term.

Every department is also in truth engaged in initiating a specific project every year in which greater productivity with fewer people has to be achieved in order to render the same services. I can also tell hon members that in this connection we are already obtaining excellent results.

I also want to refer to the question of in-service training within the departments. I had the honour of bestowing awards on the first 12 members in the central statistical services who were trained within that service and who attained a degree of competence which afforded them the promotion opportunity in that department as a university degree would have given them.

With this I should like to thank all the hon members who participated for a fruitful debate.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 26—“Improvement of conditions of service”, Vote No 27—“Central Statistical Services”, Vote No 28—“Central Economic Advisory Service”, Vote No 29—“Administration: House of Representatives”, and Vote No 30—“Administration: House of Delegates”, agreed to.

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

Mr Chairman, I move:

time.

Permit me an opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation for the interaction between the various interest groups that has led to the present amending Bill being submitted to the Standing Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs on a consensus basis. In this connection I should like to mention Escom, the Chamber of Mines, the Association of Municipal Electrical Undertakings, the United Municipal Executive and the Electricity Control Board.

It is also fitting, Sir, to focus attention on the fact that this Bill is the next and penultimate step in the implementation of the recommendations of the De Villiers Commission of Inquiry. The first step was taken by way of Act No 50 of 1985, which created the new Escom controlled by an Electricity Council, existing representatives of interest and consumer groups in the private sector and the public sector.

†Mr Chairman, as hon members will recall, I stated in Parliament last year that the new Electricity Council is charged with a formidable task, which involves proposals to the Government regarding the implementation of the remaining recommendations of the De Villiers Commission and, in particular, to giving attention—on a priority basis— to the establishment of a tariff structure according to the recommended guidelines and with the emphasis on saving.

The Electricity Council has taken active and visible steps to implement a new tariff structure and to turn Escom into a dynamic, efficient and professionally managed business. What is more, the Electricity Council, through its Chairman, Mr John Maree, has committed Escom to tariff increases below the inflation rate for the forseeable future.

*Apart from making it possible to reduce the members of the Electricity Council and the Electricity Control Board by two in each case, to bring about administrative improvements and to entrust the Electricity Control Board with powers to make additions to the amendments of existing licensing and permit conditions and conditions relating to permissions, this Bill addresses the question of doing away with Escom’s existing operating principle of “no profit and no loss”. By removing this principle now, one is acknowledging the necessity of having Escom make a profit for the purposes of building up a reserve and to making provision for the self-financing of say approximately 30% of its capital needs. As provided by the Act at present, these reserves are necessary, amongst other things, for out of the ordinary repairs, emergencies and self-insurance. Providing for a portion of its own capital needs for the extension of its development capacity is essential because this forms the basis of Escom’s loan programme. Bankers and investors do not feel at ease about lending money to a borrower who does not contribute at least one-third to its own capital needs.

The abolition of the principle of “no profit and no loss” from the existing legislation clears the way for the preparation of legislation for the 1987 legislative programme with a view to the establishment of a modernised and rationalised financial structure for Escom and for the substitution of the Electricity Act as a whole. The removal of the principle already provides Escom with a balance sheet indicating the surplus on the operating costs and how this should be employed to meet obligations and to reduce accumulated losses.

†The removal of the “no profit and no loss” principle does not mean that Escom will be at liberty to charge any price for electricity. Section 14 of the present Act still determines what prices should be charged by Escom, covering inter alia the cost of production, including distribution, maintenance and administration, as well as the amounts required for interest on money raised by way of loans and also redemption of such loans. Section 19 of the Act in addition requires that Escom shall in its annual report disclose, inter alia, the source and application of its revenue. Apart from legislative controls, I also remind hon members that the Electricity Council, whose members also represent strong electricity consumer-related interests, is not only the body responsible for the functions of policy-making and planning, but also excercises general control over the activities of Escom. In other words, it has direct control over Escom’s tariffs and it also appoints the members of the management board who are obliged to manage Escom’s affairs in accordance with the council’s policy objectives and directives.

The Bill provides that the Electricity Control Board, an independent body, shall remain a forum for objections to any amendment of Escom’s schedule of standard prices. Escom’s schedule of standard prices is the product of its tariff structure, and Escom is obliged to publish any intention to change the schedule.

*I have placed inordinate emphasis on the control measures that exist to reassure the public that Escom’s tariffs are indeed controlled throughout the country and that all possible steps are taken to ensure that South Africa has enough electricity available at reasonable prices. In addition, by way of an enabling provision, the Bill provides that in the national interest the Minister can ensure that there is an efficient electricity supply in towns and in urban areas. Naturally this provision is only aimed at exceptional cases, and even then it is my conviction that the desired results should rather be achieved by way of agreement. By way of an enabling provision it is also made possible for the Minister, during a proclaimed state of emergency, to ensure an uninterupted electricity supply way of regulation.

At present the Electricity Act provides for an electricity supplier, with very little by way of defence, being fully responsible for injuries and damage caused by electricity supplied by him. It has long been thought that this arrangement is an unfair one, and local authorities find themselves in the position of not being able to obtain insurance against such eventualities. It is thought desirable to return to the acknowledged method—to put it in simple terms—of placing the onus on the provider of electricity to prove his innocence, if he is held liable for damage caused, because he has had greater technical expertise at his disposal.

†I wish to thank especially the members of the Standing Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs for their excellent co-operation in dealing with this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I should like to view this Bill against the background of electricity supply generally in South Africa because there have been some very worrying factors surrounding the supply of electricity.

I want to quote from a recent article which appeared in Business Day on 6 May this year, in which it was stated that electricity prices in South Africa showed a massive average increase of 19,7% for the year ended 31 March 1985. I think everyone will agree that a 19,7% hike in prices is a pretty steep one. In fact, the article goes on to say that the increase is nearly four times higher than the next highest percentage of 5,3% which pertains to Sweden.

That is the bad news in regard to electricity. There is some good news in this regard as well, however, and that is that the South African rate of charging for electricity which has not been generated from water-powered resources, is actually still the lowest of all the major electricity suppliers. These facts are from the National Utility Services Survey which shows that at a rate of 4,67c Pretoria is still the lowest non-hydro supplier in the world, being second only to Manitoba Hydro in Canada which has a rate of 4,39c.

Nevertheless, one has to state that the increase in electricity charges is very worrying. One must therefore welcome the comment of the new chairman of Escom, Mr John Maree, that they intend to limit increases in the future. I hope sincerely that they will be able to do so.

When one looks at Escom’s annual report, one realises what the extent of the problem is because the chief executive, Mr Ian McRae, says the following in his report:

That is in three years—

Over four years.

Over four years, right. What we are therefore looking at is a saving in operating costs of something of the order of R350 million per year. Now, Sir, we can only congratulate them on this achievement but one has also to say that had they been operating properly and efficiently in the past, a saving of this nature would not have been possible. In my opinion this points to good management in the future but I think one has to query the management in the past which apparently allowed operating expenses to run away with them.

I think I must congratulate the hon the Minister—I do not do so lightly; I do not do it often from these benches!—on his appointment of Mr John Maree to this post in Escom. [Interjections.] I am sure that this is making a tremendous difference. I should like to recommend that the hon the Minister should think of using him in other areas of the energy supply network in this country as well, if he has the time and if it is humanly possible. I would, for instance, like to see him on the board of Soekor. I should like to see him playing a part in the Strategic Oil Fund and the Central Energy Fund because I think this man, with his private sector background, is fully aware of the constraints of a profit and loss system of which many people in the public sector are unaware. I cannot blame them for that …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: There is not a quorum present in this House. [Interjections.]

Quorum

The attention of the presiding officer having being called to the absence of a quorum, the division bells were rung.

A quorum being present, debate resumed.

Order! The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

The other worrying aspect of this report is that Mr McRae says:

We welcome that but I should like to ask the hon the Minister a question, and I hope he can answer it in his reply to this debate. Has this been achieved? Has parity been achieved? I ask this question, because looking further in the same report, one reads the following:

The fact that two categories of employees should be singled out makes me wonder whether parity has been achieved in all categories. However, I shall leave the matter of Escom at that.

The Bill now before the House is a result of a recent commission of inquiry. In fact, there were two commissions of inquiry, the first of which was held some considerable time ago. At that stage the present hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, as I recall, was charged with the particular job of looking after electricity supply generally. As a result of that first report nothing was done. I do not recall offhand the name of the person who headed that commission, but it was a commission which did a good job and made a number of good recommendations. However, by and large they were ignored by the hon the Minister at that stage. He cost us eight years in bringing about the situation which the Bill that we now have in front of us is bringing about.

One of the things that this Bill is achieving, which I welcome, is the parity in Escom charges throughout South Africa; in other words, a national electricity price. In the past this has not been the case. Every region had to stand on its own feet and charge its own price. Now we are not quite at parity because there is a small transmission charge made for different areas, but this Bill is nevertheless helping us to achieve parity. This is something that I certainly have been pleading for ever since the days when the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was in charge of this portfolio. I remember well his answer to me on this subject at that stage. He asked me why Escom should charge the same. He said that I was in the motor industry which charged different prices between the Reef and the coast. Well, I was able to tell him on that occasion that he was very out of date, because that had disappeared a long time ago. I think if the hon the Minister had listened at that stage we could have had a far better situation around the coastal areas of this country and we could have had a smaller concentration of industry in the Transvaal, particularly the Reef area, because that lower electricity price up there was a tremendous advantage that industries had which caused them to set up in that part of the world.

We therefore welcome the situation as regards the electricity price, but there is one clause in the Bill, I am afraid, which does bother me. We did amend it during the standing committee stage of this Bill and we amended it by putting in a proviso. This particular clause is clause 10 and it reads, inter alia, as follows:

This gave the hon the Minister the right to issue directives to local authorities. We amended it by the addition of the following proviso:

However, I must tell hon members that I am still unhappy with that amendment, because I would much prefer that proviso to read:

I believe that we should be transferring power downwards—and I am not talking about electrical power! I do not think we should give the hon the Minister the right to overrule the local authorities from central Government to the extent to which he is able to do so in terms of this Bill. In fact, representations were made by the United Municipal Executive of South Africa and this was tabled at the standing committee meeting. If I might just read it to the House:

They then quoted the Cape Town Municipality’s objections, which were the following, and I quote again:

Sir, I submit that the way in which we have amended this particular clause does not cover those objections because the autonomy is under real threat, since while the hon the Minister has to consult before issuing a directive, he is not bound, in terms of this Bill, by that consultation. It will give, for instance, the Cape Town Municipality the right to consult with him on the matter and to put their case to him, but in terms of the Bill the hon the Minister does not have to listen to their case; and as far as the decentralisation of power is concerned—which we understand from the many words of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is the policy of this Government—I submit that this clause does not comply with that policy of the decentralisation of power.

Sir, this is the one and only problem which we have with this Bill. For the rest, we believe it is good legislation. It is of course, to an extent, interim legislation in that all the recommendations of the recent commission will be brought before the House in a Bill, which, I understand, is to be tabled next year. Therefore, to that extent this is almost a temporary measure, so to speak, and I would plead seriously with the hon the Minister to consider the aspect of the decentralisation of power and the lack of decentralisation of power as witnessed in this Bill, with a view perhaps to bringing about a change in due course.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central really surprised us somewhat today. He made a positive speech. I do not believe I have heard a relatively positive speech from that hon member since I first came to this House. He gave a review of Escom’s history and said a number of things which may not be altogether unfair in certain respects.

I want to differ from the hon member, however, with reference to his opinion on clause 10 of the Bill, about which he expressed certain reservations. He referred to the objection raised by the Cape Town Municipality in this connection. I maintain that the amendment effected to this clause obviates that problem to a great extent, because if one wants to be fair, one must concede that what it amounts to is that there will be consultation with the people concerned. My standpoint therefore is that neither Escom as such, on the relevant Minister, will be so unfair as simply to act unfeelingly and to ignore a local authority without further ado when it has a good case and proves the merit of its standpoint. I am not worried, therefore, …

What if Jan Hoon were that Minister?

Impossible! That will never happen! [Interjections.]

How can you say that, Aubrey? How do you know it will not happen? Just wait, you will see! [Interjections.]

“Bang Jan onder die hoenders!” [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall rather not speculate about who will fill that post. I believe, however, that in the normal run of things there should be no serious problems for local authorities in cases of this nature. I believe in any case that the legislation in question has the hon member’s general support. I want to express my thanks to him for his positive attitude.

In his second reading speech the hon the Minister dealt very thoroughly with the changes this amending Bill is bringing about. For that reason I am not going to elaborate on it again. Besides, time does not allow me to do so.

I do want to maintain, however, that after food and water, electricity is probably one of the most important commodities in any modern community. The disruption a power cut causes householders as well as businessmen is conclusive proof of the key role played by electricity. The cost involved in this service is also considerable for all consumers of electricity. One’s electricity account sometimes gives one the same shock one would get if one touched a live wire! [Interjections.]

It is obvious, therefore, that the way in which this huge enterprise is run is of great importance to ensure optimal effectiveness and to supply electricity at the lowest possible tariff.

The Electricity Amendment Act, Act 50 of 1985, established a new Escom following upon the recommendations of the De Villiers Commission. A proper control structure was established. It is a democratic control structure which functions on a business basis and is made up out of members from the community, as the hon member said.

The amending Bill before us makes provision for the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs to increase the number of members in the Electricity Council.

The amending Bill will give the huge organisation further opportunity to manage the enterprise effectively on a business basis. This can now be done on a profit basis. It will also enable the organisation to effect a considerable decrease in the capital utilisation for Escom, because if the organisation can show a profit, it can also in part supply its own capital requirements.

The chairman of the Electricity Council envisages a considerable decrease in capital utilisation for Escom in future. This is also very important, because the interest that is applicable to loans and similar means of capital supply also entails considerable expenditure.

In addition there are various methods which can be used to save on the consumption of electricity and decrease the peak demand. This can bring about a considerable saving. I think that is also part of the important task this council will perform in future.

It is true that Escom’s image was not a very good one until quite recently. Whatever the cause or merit of this attitude may be, this organisation is a key industry, and one must guard against a further prejudiced attitude. In my opinion it is only right that this huge organisation be regarded in a more positive light since the establishment of this new structure.

The control and management are on a sound basis now and deserve everyone’s confidence and support. One is reminded of the old English saying, “give a dog a bad name and hang him”. We must not reflect that attitude in the case of this very important key industry. We should rather be positive and see how this large organisation develops into a proud industry in our country in future.

As far as clause 19 is concerned, this clause changes the accountability of the supplier in respect of damage or injury, in that absolute accountability is not regarded as a matter of course. There may be people who are concerned about this, but surely it is only fair to expect that they would be concerned. The onus is still on the supplier in that he must prove that the damage was not caused as a result of his negligence. In the past the supplier had no choice. It was simply accepted that when there was an injury or damage, the supplier was responsible for that problem.

Contradictory views are often heard about the economy. We also heard this today from the PFP, who are very concerned about Government spending. Despite that, they plead for the Government to accept certain tasks on a large scale. That is contradictory, of course.

I think Escom also plays a great part as far as industrial establishment is concerned, in that expenditure on electricity is an important factor to some of our industries. Since this will be managed on a sound basis, I think this organisation will also serve to stimulate those industries which have great expenses in respect of electricity.

If one takes into account that one large gold mine uses almost the same amount of electricity as a relatively large town, one has understanding for the attendant cost factor. That is why it is so important to place this very important organisation on a sound basis.

I want to pay the necessary tribute to the hon the Minister and his department because this matter has progressed this far since the report was received. The Electricity Council has now been put in a position in which it can manage Escom on a proper basis. I think the composition of the Electricity Council is such that it can definitely manage this organisation very successfully.

I do not think we should look back at the past. We know that the attitude to the management of Escom of many consumers of electricity—I am talking about farmers, householders and industrialists—was not very positive. As far as the future is concerned, however, I think we can look forward with greater confidence to this organisation’s being managed in an exceptionally good and effective way, which will be of great importance to our whole country and to all the consumers.

Mr Chairman, apart from one little point, I support what the hon member for Welkom said here this morning in respect of the amending Bill. In saying that, I also want to tell the hon the Minister that the CP supports this Bill.

Electricity supply in the RSA is a very important matter, since electricity is a very important commodity in the public sector, the private sector and every house in the whole community. There are very few things one uses even in a house today which do not need electricity in some way or another.

Because electricity is so important, it is also important to us that very good control be exercised over the supply of electricity. Naturally this does not mean that deficiencies will not continue to emerge and problems continue to be experienced. The fact that electricity is supplied does not immediately eliminate all deficiencies and problems that exist.

Apart from that, there is a particular hope we want to express now, which is that all these amendments, especially those relating to Escom, will enable this body to eliminate the shadow of uncertainty over and question-marks concerning it and which Escom perhaps brought upon itself to a great extent. We trust the new Electricity Council will succeed under good leadership in placing Escom on such a basis that all problems will be cleared up, all uncertainty will be eliminated and all question-marks still in people’s minds will disappear gradually. We accept that this will not happen overnight, but that it will be a gradual process. We want to express the confidence that this amendment will enable the management of Escom to rectify its side of the matter. Especially since Escom is now going to be managed on a business basis and since a profit and loss system will be applied, we hope Escom will be enabled to improve its own financial position.

When we look at this Bill, I personally think clause 7, which replaces section 16 of the principal Act, is a great improvement. According to this clause, Escom’s list of standard prices must also be published in the Gazette. This will give people the opportunity to lodge objections. What I find of particular importance, is that the Electricity Control Board is being given the function of hearing these objections and that this will be done in public. In this way there will be no question of any secrecy. Since these things will be done in public, the people will know what is going on and the opportunity for gossip-mongering about an institution as important as Escom, will be eliminated.

We introduced certain amendments last year and this year and I am not so sure that we are not going to do so again next year. Amendments to last year’s amendments have already been made. I wonder if the time has not come for the hon the Minister to consider submitting a completely new Electricity Act so that we can rectify the matter from the roots and can stop patching the legislation in all kinds of ways.

We have a slight objection to the fact that the Electricity Control Board and the Electricity Council are being extended again. Provision is now being made for the hon the Minister to appoint seven people instead of five to the Electricity Control Board. Despite the fact that more members may mean more knowledge, we do believe that the larger such a body, the clumsier and more expensive it becomes. One must be careful not to keep on enlarging these councils and committees. This means that more and more matters such as quorums will have to be reconsidered.

The Electricity Council is large already. In terms of last year’s amendment it already consists of 17 members. If the hon the Minister can now nominate another two additional members, it will be an even clumsier and more expensive body. We want to issue a word of warning, therefore, that one should be careful not to keep on enlarging such committees and boards.

With these few words we want to say once again that we support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like to associate myself with many of the remarks made by the hon member for Koedoespoort. I shall be dealing with most of them later on during the course of my speech.

One of the most important things that has happened during the past 12 months has been the complete change of image that Escom has portrayed to the country. All of us accept and welcome the steps that have been taken to improve its public relations. The fact that a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the whole structure of electricity supply in this country for many years brought with it many undesirable features and it is pleasing to note that the public now feels more confident that Escom’s affairs are being operated more openly and on a much more satisfactory basis. We also hope that the suspicions of the past will gradually disappear.

That this has come about is largely due to a completely new approach to Escom’s whole structure, and one cannot but pay tribute to the new thinking that the chairman of the Electricity Council, Mr John Maree, has brought into the entire operation. The efforts of Escom’s senior general manager, Mr McRae, must also not be overlooked. I think that the combined team at leadership level has gone a long way towards removing many of the doubts and questions of the past.

Another factor in this team’s favour is the fact that recent increased tariffs, although hurtful, have not aroused the violent reaction that such increases have aroused in the past and this can be attributed to the manner in which such increases have been presented to the public. One gains the impression now that Escom is being run on far more businesslike lines than was the case in the past.

Furthermore, the assurance that every endeavour will be made to keep future increases in tariffs to 2% to 3% below the inflation rate is something that we consider to be extremely positive.

One also notes in the Escom annual report that it is necessary for Escom to make provision for the building up of a reserve fund for its capital development.

Hear, hear!

This has become necessary because capital suppliers now require that Escom provide 30% of its capital requirements.

The R1,3 billion cut in expenditure over the next three years is also a very positive feature.

I turn now to the Bill itself. It is pleasing to note that the drastic amendments made to the Electricity Act last year are being continued in this legislation. The fact that the hon the Minister has seen fit to bring amendments before this House again is an obvious testimony to his earnestness to implement many aspects and recommendations of the De Villiers report.

The separation of policy-making and managerial functions is now bearing fruit, and we support it.

One can appreciate the necessity of defining a “local authority” in clause 1 in order to expand the base relative to the supply of electricity to a local authority.

Unlike the hon member for Koedoespoort, we have no objection to the clause which empowers the hon the Minister to increase the number of members on the Electricity Council and Electricity Control Board.

We want to know who they are.

We would also be interested to know who they are, and I have no doubt that the hon the Minister will give us those names in due course.

We certainly do not want ex-Nats there. We do not want the old Nats on everything again.

What about Corlett Drive?

Escom has also been empowered to negotiate directly with the bodies supplying electricity. Another positive feature is that it is no longer necessary to obtain a licence to do so from the Electricity Control Board.

Generally speaking, we in these benches have no hesitation in supporting this Bill. We see it as a further improvement to existing legislation.

Mr Chairman, the HNP also supports this Electricity Amendment Bill but we should very much like absolute certainty on one matter. In clause 22 the expression “local authority” is substituted for the expression “urban local authority”. This is being done to enable Black local authorities and councils of whatever nature also to become involved in Escom.

How are these Black local authorities to collect electricity fees under present conditions? It is an enormous new problem to which there is no reference in the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech. We now want to relate it to the abolition of the requirement that Escom undertakings be operated at no profit or loss. I assume this means that Escom will now, with the reputation it has and will not soon shake off, have to strive very hard to show a profit too, especially if it wishes to shake off this reputation and prove itself a successful enterprise. Now it is faced with this entire new problem situation, however, as regards the collection of electricity fees by Black local authorities.

We shall support this Bill but with a very serious proviso. For this reason we want to know of the Government—we should be grateful of a reply to this question from the hon the Minister—whether Escom or the Government will not now be tempted to absorb the moneys which cannot be collected as an item of loss through which heavier taxation or higher levies will be imposed on other people or other organisations by other means or the tariffs have to be increased to carry other consumers of Escom’s power to make it possible for Escom to show a profit. This is a question of deadly import to which the hon the Minister must reply today.

He need not tell us about all the problems—we know what they are—but we want to know how Escom, with the new right it now has, is to make a profit and handle the moneys in its accounting which it cannot collect from Blacks. Will this be clearly indicated? Will we be able to see annually to what extent Blacks have not fulfilled their obligation to Escom? The hon the Minister also owes it to Coloureds, Indians and Black people to tell us this here.

We support the amending Bill with this proviso.

Mr Chairman, it does not surprise me that a little politics even has to be dragged into electricity by the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.] It is totally incomprehensible how that hon member can concern himself in this enlightened century because people of another colour now actually have to obtain electricity.

He did not say that.

I wish to ask the hon member whether his implication was that power should not be supplied to Black people in their houses. Does he want us to make them use coal until the end of this century or forever?

I did not say that.

So why did he attach a connotation to Black people? Does one not perhaps experience the same problem with White people who do not pay for their electricity? Why is the hon member not concerned about that? [Interjections.] I think it disgraceful that the hon member for Sasolburg should arrive here with this type of question in mind.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, before lunch I was reacting to the speech of the hon member for Sasolburg who insinuated that when Black people obtained electricity in their residential areas they would perhaps not want to pay that account. I want to tell the hon member that when he is placed in such a situation and when the CP is too ignorant to speak on technical legislation, he should not be tempted into standing in for them in that position. Unfortunately he then reveals his own ignorance on this subject. [Interjections.] The hon member need only look at the Escom report in which it is explained that 33% of Escom’s bulk consumers are city councils. I hope that on reaching the year 2000 we shall have electrified all the Black urban areas because we shall then be able to increase that number of consumers of electricity considerably which will mean that those people will be able to assist us in redeeming the capital Escom has to expend. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sasolburg had better view the bright side of the contribution which will come from Black people instead of the dark spot he always occupies. I want to tell that hon member he is sitting too near that dark spot; he will be lost in it. [Interjections.]

I wish to explain to the hon member—I hope he and his friends sitting next to him will then be able to understand what it is about—that Escom supplies power to bulk consumers in contrast to the hon member’s idea. City and town councils are bulk consumers. If such a city council does not pay its electricity account, the power supply will be discontinued just as to the small consumer.[Interjections.] The power supply will therefore merely be discontinued.

Surely the hon member is aware that the power supply to White people is discontinued, even in their own towns, if they do not pay their electricity accounts. We have had the problem for years in White city councils that large amounts of money cannot be recovered. Does the hon member want to tell me this is because of Black people? It is not the case.

It is a pity that when we are dealing with technical legislation these hon members come to the House with this type of argument; it is evidence of their ignorance. I think the Free State members should take note of this fact and tell the people in Sasolburg what type of member they have sent to the House of Assembly. How could they have sent that member here? Firstly, he does not know much about what transpires in city councils and, secondly, he knows nothing about what takes place at Escom.

I want to tell the hon member that this applies to all people in this country if they do not pay. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member this is why we have an able and expert electrotechnical engineer in the person of the hon Minister dealing with this portfolio. [Interjections.] He knows what he is doing. I wish to tell the hon member that Escom is already working on the problem that hon member has in the back of his mind … [Interjections.]

Order! There are some hon members giving a running commentary. That is quite unnecessary.

Escom is already examining that matter and I am convinced that there will soon be an announcement in this country that South Africa is once more the forerunner in yet another invention and has developed an electrotechnical way of meter reading. We are on the threshold of a breakthrough in this connection. I am pleased to be able to say that those engineers are from my constituency. They come from the Transvaal and they will prove to us that the problems foreseen by that hon member have been receiving attention for a long time.

Why is this the case? Once again it is because we have a man like the present State President who chooses his Cabinet members. The followers of his party do not see the dark side of life; they work on what South Africa requires. They see a new opportunity in every problem which arises. It is such a pity that members of the HNP do not recognise this, that they are always scratching about in remote corners and are afraid that one will do something for Black people. [Interjections.]

It is such a pity that hon CP members do not see their way open to participating in a debate of a technical nature like this one. No, they chose to make tracks to Pretoria today. [Interjections.] I shall not permit myself to be tempted away any further by hon members, however, as I wish to revert to the legislation.

The amendments before us are most acceptable to me. As another hon member said, they arise from the report of the De Villiers Commission. This legislation will enable the Electricity Council to introduce and implement practical improvements. In my opinion it will enable Escom to function more efficiently and it is important that we relinquish the basis of no profit or loss, as referred to in the legislation, on which Escom has furnished power up to the present. [Interjections.]

Escom cannot be privatised at this stage so Parliament has already decided to give the private sector a say at management level. I think there is only one way in which the service may be provided efficiently and continuously. We should permit Escom to make a profit because it will then have to invest that money in capital expenditure. This is something else one may tell the hon member for Sasolburg.

It is the largest organisation supplying power in Africa and we should keep it there and expand it. That is why we should give it the opportunity of generating capital so that it may continue furnishing that power realistically and in the cheapest way.

The object of the legislation is inter alia to institute a uniform tariff structure as hon members have already indicated. To my mind this is an exceptionally favourable principle which is laid down here. My experience is that leaving the fixing of tariffs in the hands of individual distributors—I have already mentioned city councils in this regard—is often to the disadvantage of the private sector and the private sector consumer. It was my experience as a city councillor that one encountered such vast differences between the tariffs of one city council and the next that two owners of the same type of factory paid different rates for their power. One man’s production costs were therefore much higher than those of the other and this places two people with factories in neighbouring towns in an extremely unfavourable position to compete in the market. I am therefore looking forward to having that change carried out. As the distribution of power can become a function of regional services councils, I think it is important that we should have a uniform tariff structure.

A further proposal with which I am in agreement is that the hon the Minister now receives certain powers. I have already referred to his competence. I think he should receive those powers to be able to use his discretion in certain cases. I think the hon the Minister has been involved in putting these matters right for a long time and I believe we are leaving them in good hands.

As the hon the Minister is to order a further inquiry, I wish to suggest to him now that in process of this his department also examine ways of saving energy. The hon the Minister opened the debate on energy conservation we held here two or three years ago and I wish to tell him that there are many ways in which we could do this and which we should examine. I think we did not pay enough attention after that debate to various aspects mentioned in it. One of those aspects is something in which Americans have already achieved great progress and I should like to bring it to the hon the Minister’s attention. I do not believe he could do anything about it but he might be able to talk to his colleague the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry because the SABS falls under that hon Minister’s portfolio.

I believe we should investigate the power consumption of domestic electrical appliances. In America one finds, for instance, that when an electric refrigerator is put on the market, the manufacturer of that product has to indicate on the name plate on the back how much power that refrigerator uses so that the consumer may know whether he is buying a good product. He may therefore compare one product with another and know whether one is better than the other. This has effected incredible savings and, as we are a country which will ultimately have a large population, I believe one should investigate this because it is hoped that every household in this country will have a refrigerator or a washing machine or something of that nature one day. One then wishes to ensure that it is an efficient product.

I should like to bring a further aspect to the hon the Minister’s notice. Years ago I worked in a design division where I had to design transformers and that type of apparatus. I want to tell the hon the Minister that unfortunately it is the case in our country, which is a small one, that there are few manufacturers and the manufacturers of that apparatus are the only people with the knowledge of how to test and operate it. That is why I feel there is a vacuum in that field.

We should perhaps appoint someone through the SABS to visit such factories regularly where transformers are manufactured so that a visual test may be carried out into power loss originating in transformers. If one were to instal those transformers nationwide and add these power losses, one could have an enormous loss of generated power which was not produced productively. That is why I believe such an investigation should be held to improve our hold on that sector somewhat.

Before closing, I want to remind the hon the Minister of the debate we held on these matters on a previous occasion.

His voltage has gone up! [Interjections.]

So I see.

I wish to remind the hon the Minister that at the time we spoke on streetlighting in that debate. We pointed out that a city like Cape Town had succeeded brilliantly in reducing its streetlighting costs. According to Escom’s annual report, streetlighting comprises only something like 1,5% of its sales. I do not believe that it is really an accurate figure because I think a large part of it is hidden in the purchase figure of bulk consumers of electricity—the city councils.

That is the reason I wish to tell the hon the Minister I think we should also examine what accomplished about in Cape Town. We have a fine streetlighting system here and the rest of the country would definitely be able to benefit by using a similar system. This may be the case particularly in the new Black cities and towns which will spring up in our country and where streetlighting will have to be installed.

I can do no other than tell the hon the Minister that my constituency and I welcome this legislation. We on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Boksburg said this afternoon that the CP did not see its way clear to participating in this debate which was of a technical nature because some of our members had already left for Pretoria. Many of our members are in Pretoria already and we are all going there. We intend celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Republic of South Africa in a fitting way there tomorrow. [Interjections.]

We are going to watch the All Blacks!

The hon member for Boksburg says he is going to watch the All Blacks. Let him do that; we shall celebrate this festive occasion of the Republic. [Interjections.]

The hon member said some of our members had left for Pretoria but when we started this debate there was not a quorum of his party present in the House. The bells had to be rung for the sixth time this year to have a quorum out of a party with 126 members in Parliament! [Interjections.]

When the Manpower Vote was discussed in the House earlier this week, there was not a single Minister present. [Interjections.] It was supposed to be the hon the Minister of Manpower. That party seems to me to be a party containing men but a party without power! [Interjections.] If the hon member for Boksburg therefore says the CP does not want to participate in a debate, he is making a big mistake.

The hon member’s speech also reminded me a great deal of that made here by the hon member for Stilfontein the other evening. It was also a disgraceful attack on people and in this case an attack on those supporting the Bill! The CP said in the words of the hon member for Koedoespoort that we supported the Bill. Nevertheless the hon member for Boksburg made use of the opportunity to launch a disgraceful attack on the CP and to disseminate a shocking distortion of facts on the theme that the CP and the HNP begrudged Black people electricity in their residential areas. I think that hon member should be ashamed of himself for broadcasting such untruths! [Interjections.] The CP and the HNP are not opposed to everyone in South Africa, be he Black, Brown or Indian, having electricity in his house but we say those receiving electricity should pay for it. [Interjections.] If the State President says we are committed to equal opportunities, equal treatment and justice for all, we say the Whites of South Africa have to pay for their electricity otherwise it is discontinued. If a White does not pay his electricity account monthly within his local authority area, the supply is cut off. If the Government therefore stands for equal treatment and justice for all, we are merely asking whether Black people’s power will also be cut off, as that of Whites is cut off, when they do not pay. That is all the hon member for Sasolburg asked of the hon Minister.

Clause 22 of the Bill provides that Escom may supply a local authority with power but what is to happen if Black people refuse to pay for the services furnished them? We do not think the hon member for Boksburg is capable of supplying the answer but we have regard for the hon the Minister and we hope he will give us a reply to this without attempting to turn it into politics. All in this House are aware that the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning has appropriated R169 million this year for seven development boards which were incapable of recovering service fees from those community councils where revolts and clashes take place and the UDF exercises effective control. The Government had to make R169 million available from its Budget to development boards. According to the Supplementary Estimate, the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning requested R23 million in interim capital this year which has to be made available to assist Black community councils to be able to furnish services. We are aware that those services are not being supplied. In Cradock the Black local authorities do not pay their service charges; they pay them to the UDF which is in effective control of those authorities. Hon members can ask the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare about this.

Yes, that is the story they tell you.

Clause 22 of this Bill now provides that Escom may supply power to a local authority. If these people are not going to pay for these services, who is? The hon member for Boksburg said the supply of power would become a function of regional services councils. The Regional Services Councils Act has been before Parliament three times already. It was introduced in 1984, subsequently in 1985 when it was agreed to and when Black people were also involved in regional services councils and it has already come to our attention that the Regional Services Councils Act is to be amended again—the very body which is to exercise control over the supply of electricity. Since the inception of the new dispensation, not a single regional services council has been established in South Africa.

Where did you find that in the Bill?

The hon member for Boksburg said, however, that regional services councils would now be responsible for this but there is not a single regional services council in South Africa yet to furnish this service. [Interjections.] In addition the hon member said the Government was effective, knew what it was doing and seized opportunities. It is a Government without power or vigour and we are grateful that at least Escom is there to supply light in the dark future which the NP is building in South Africa. [Interjections.]

To revert to clause 22 of the Bill, which refers to local authorities. We are in the process of debating Black local authorities in the House but in his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had the following to say on Black local authorities:

This hon Minister has introduced legislation which provides that he is now placed in a position regarding these Black local authorities which are being instituted to recover that money which is owing much earlier than has been the case up to the present. At the moment, however, this powerless Government, with all its available instruments, is unable to collect a cent of those service fees which are payable.

Yes, would you believe it! [Interjections.]

He has introduced legislation providing that those moneys be collected sooner but he is so powerless that he cannot accomplish it regardless of his legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have to mention something to you. At every National Party meeting there are 250 to 300 policemen now who come to arrest people if they dare to make even a single interjection at that meeting.

But that is absolute nonsense you are uttering! [Interjections.]

Nevertheless the Government is unable to control those Black residential areas properly which now have to receive Escom power and restore law and order there so that those service fees which are payable may be collected. [Interjections.] Yes, but the Government has between 250 and 300 policemen at every meeting …

I tell you that is untrue!

I am telling that hon member it is true! [Interjections.]

Where did you hear it?

Mr Chairman, last night at Uitenhage … [Interjections.] Of course! Last night there was a large number of policemen present at Uitenhage. They were summoned there; they even arrived there with dogs. The other day they even drove round and round the town hall at Warden in Casspirs. [Interjections.] Policemen have to guard the National Party at its own meetings while Black residential areas in the country are on fire and this powerless Government is not even capable of collecting the money owing for the use of electricity. [Interjections.]

The whole Cabinet must resign!

Mr Chairman, in saying the Government is powerless, I want to support my words by quoting the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

See how powerless Piet Badenhorst is over there!

That hon Deputy Minister said in this House that one of the most important reasons why need for interim finance had arisen was the uneconomic rent al and service charges against which development boards and Black local authorities were powerless. He himself used the word “powerless”, Mr Chairman.

He did not use the word without cause!

The Government is simply powerless against this as the inhabitants of Black residential areas are up in arms immediately the slightest increase in rental and service charges is mooted. The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said that himself in the House, Mr Chairman.

Yes, would you believe jt! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, this hon Deputy Minister admitted they were powerless to collect the money owing. That is why he requested supplementary financing to make good the deficit which arose in consequence of that.

What clause are you discussing now; Jan?

Look out, he will soon be in Welkom! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we of the Conservative Party support the legislation before us but I wish to refer briefly to clause 11 of the Bill which deals with Escom as a supplier of Escom power. In this regard I should like to address the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs directly. For the sake of my part of the world in the North Western Cape—a vast expanse of land bordering on South West Africa and Botswana—I should like to make an appeal here today. I want to request that, when Escom reviews its tariffs, it should attempt to establish whether it is possible to supply those remote areas with electricity so that the people who are there now guarding the borders in the interests of our fatherland may obtain electricity at a reasonable tariff. It is of paramount importance that the borders of South Africa be inhabited. In the vicinity of Vanzylsrus and Askam farmers live very far from one another; they have to travel great distances to reach their schools, shops and churches; those people have to use very poor roads. You, Mr Chairman, who frequently visit relatives in the vicinity of Vanzylsrus will agree with me when I say those people have to use very poor roads. Consequently I should like to request the hon the Minister and Escom today to examine this with great compassion in order to establish the possibility of supplying Escom power to the Kalahari and the areas of Kuruman up to Vanzylsrus and beyond to Askam, as well as all the areas bordering on Botswana. It is essential that farmers in those parts of the country also obtain this commodity at a price they can afford, a price making it possible to enjoy certain facilities on their farms, for instance an electric water pump, an electric stove, an electric refrigerator, an electric freezer and obviously a television set too.

I wish to request the hon the Minister to approach these representations with great compassion. Vanzylsrus in particular is a beautiful little village on the Kuruman River among the Kalahari sand dunes. Those people specifically asked us to request the hon the Minister and Escom to determine Escom tariffs in such a way that it would also be possible for Vanzylsrus and for farmers in the Kalahari just as it is in Cape Town, in Soweto and in the areas of Black local authorities … [Interjections.] … that Afrikaner farmers of the Kalahari might also be enabled merely to press a switch to use electric power just as it was made possible for the Black people of Langa, Nyanga, Guguletu and Soweto … [Interjections.]

You are a racist!

No, I am no racist. The hon the Deputy Minister says I am a racist, Sir.

Yes, you have become a racist!

The hon the Deputy Minister says I am a racist but I am only appealing on behalf of the White farming community of South Africa. [Interjections.]

You are a disgrace.

Order! I have to point out to the hon the Deputy Minister that we cannot permit these continuous comments during speeches. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not hold this against the hon the Deputy Minister because, if I were the National Party MP for Oudtshoorn, I should be nervous too. [Interjections.] I should be even more nervous than the hon the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.]

There is a large Coloured community at Mier in the Kalahari too. If Escom can provide those people with power, I shall support it too. Perhaps that will satisfy the hon the Deputy Minister.

Sir, on a point of order: Is that hon member permitted to address the Chairman throughout while Mr Speaker is in the Chair? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

Mr Chairman, that was the longest speech that hon member has ever made in the House of Assembly so please do not reply to him on it. [Interjections.]

As I was saying, Sir, if Escom can also supply electricity at Mier, a Coloured community in the Kalahari, and if it is possible for those inhabitants to pay for that power, we request the hon the Minister to supply them with it. If Escom is able to supply electricity to Bophuthatswana, one of our neighbouring states, and if those people are able to pay their electricity accounts, we say those people should pay that account. When the CP rises in this House, however, to appeal on behalf of the White farmers of South Africa, the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning calls us racists. I think he should be ashamed of himself. [Interjections.] He and the hon member for Stilfontein should be ashamed of the remarks they make in this House.

You are a disgrace! You should be ashamed of yourself!

I have nothing to be ashamed of. [Interjections.] If that hon Deputy Minister is too feeble to fight for the interests of the White people of this country, he should not hold it against us if we fight for their interests. We shall honestly not be shouted down by hon members like him. We in the Kalahari do not permit ourselves to be shouted down by people like the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon members sitting behind him. [Interjections.] No, I can tell the hon the Deputy Minister we do not permit people like him to shout us down. We shall fight for the interests of Whites in South Africa where necessary. [Interjections.]

In consequence I request the hon the Minister today to see to our people in the Kalahari. We want Escom power. The hon the Minister need only enable us to afford it.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member who advised the CP members not to speak on a technical subject actually gave them very good counsel because what went on here today was really not even amusing. I shall tell hon members what happened.

I do not begrudge the hon member for Kuruman’s appealing for electricity for his farmers.

But you no longer do it! [Interjections.]

Nevertheless I can tell hon members this: It was not I who said in this House that farmers asking for a higher maize price were a joke. The hon member for Langlaagte said that so those hon members had better leave the farmers and me out of this. [Interjections.]

I want to return to the hon member for Kuruman, however. That hon member made one very bad mistake this afternoon. He permitted the hon member for Koedoespoort— they seem to remain among the Ks—to give him advice by telling him that in appealing for electricity for the Kuruman farmers he should link up with clause 11 of the Bill. Clause 11 has nothing to do with the supply of power. [Interjections.] Clause 11 deals with restrictions imposed on people in supplying power to others. [Interjections.] Clause 11 provides that power may be supplied to other people only under certain conditions. Escom supplies power in terms of clause 6 which licenses it to supply power to the country. It has nothing to do with clause 11. [Interjections.] That is the hon members’ problem. They should realise our country is progressing because our industries and electricity supply are proceeding successfully. That is the foundation of our prosperity and not this airy-fairy talking. The hon member for Sasolburg also made a fuss here in front of me this afternoon and said the supply to Black authorities would create a problem. He need only look at the clause. I just want to see which clause it is. I think it is …

You shouldn’t think; you should know in this place.

Clause 13. [Interjections.]

If the hon member reads the legislation, he will see provision has been made for different authorities and different classes of consumer to be assessed separately. [Interjections.]

Before you become technical, tell us which clause it is. [Interjections.]

If hon members keep asking that, I can always look it up.

Order! I request hon members of the CP who are turning their backs to me and making continuous comments to stop doing that. The hon member may proceed.

There is a further aspect concerning the problem among Black customers which is also attached to this matter. There are losses which have already been suffered for which no payment has been made—these are the service fees already referred to. When this legislation becomes operative, this problem will already exist so its implementation will not alter an existing situation. So what is the problem?

The amendments already made to the original Electricity Act—last year’s Act 50 of 1985 for instance—and this year’s Bill indicate concern that Escom’s affairs were perhaps not managed as they should have been in the past. I want to say that it was basically a problem of communication. There was insufficient communication from the top to the bottom within Escom and there was insufficient communication between Escom and the various installations. This matter is being addressed in the new legislation, especially as all the consumers of Escom power serving on the council have to see that the council itself does not disadvantage individual consumers. This should reassure the hon member for Sasolburg that consumers serving on the council will not agree willy-nilly to a certain consumer’s not paying for the power he uses. He also has that assurance in the Bill we are now discussing.

Which clause is that? [Interjections.]

We could easily say that Escom’s achievements had not been as desired here and there …

That is a euphemism.

… and we could also easily call Escom bad. Some of the biggest mistakes Escom made were also made by us in Parliament. I should like to refer in this respect to what was said in 1979 and again in 1981. In 1979 the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central pointed out that Escom had withdrawn too much capital from the domestic capital market instead of borrowing more capital overseas and that the problem should be addressed. One of Escom’s problems was that it borrowed too much foreign capital over the past few years so Escom made the same mistake as we did. That is why we as members of Parliament should not simply disparage everyone now. [Interjections.] In 1981 the Opposition launched a tirade against the Government and said the planning worked on for the growth in the demand for electricity was altogether too low. [Interjections.] What happened then was that, when Mr Wim de Villiers investigated the matter, he said there was surplus capacity for the supply of electricity to the country.

Opposition parties in this Parliament therefore again made the same mistake as Escom. There were reasonable grounds for this because we had experienced an unprecedented upswing of the economy in the preceding 14 years. When the upsurge in Western countries petered out in the early seventies, we could maintain our growth thanks to the enormous escalation in the gold price.

In consequence, I should like to take up the cudgels on behalf of Escom today. I want to tell the people who have left Escom that we all make mistakes. We realise we shall continue to depend on Escom in future.

I should like to put a question to the hon the Minister this afternoon. Clause 3 of the amending Bill inserts a new section 6 in terms of which Escom is authorised to supply electricity within the RSA. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether this does not mean a fundamental change for Escom. Is it not going to become like the Railways in that it simply has to supply electricity to everyone? I should be grateful if the hon the Minister would enlarge on this point a little.

Didn’t your study group discuss this?

I should also be grateful if the hon the Minister would say something more on its responsibilities during states of emergency.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to thank all the hon members for supporting this Bill. I think some very excellent speeches, remarks and suggestions were made which we will follow up.

As far as the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is concerned, I would like to thank him for highlighting the situation that irrespective of the tariff increases over the past 18 months we still have the lowest electricity tariffs in the world. I want to stress the fact that I think these increases are a pity and we only approved them because financial circumstances forced us to do so. I thank the hon member for highlighting the situation.

Some of the hon members’ introductory remarks are quite valid but I would suggest that we discuss them in more detail under my Budget Vote which will be discussed shortly. I also want to thank the hon member for his very kind words directed towards Mr Maree and Mr Ian Macrae and their teams. I feel they deserve it as they have already produced tangible results in the few months since they took over control. I think they form an excellent team and I would like Mr Oosthuizen and Mr Stofberg who are here today to convey to their colleagues the feeling of appreciation towards those teams expressed by almost every speaker here for their achievements in a very short period.

As far as parity in tariffs is concerned I do not want to be rude but I do feel that the hon member did not read the Kleu Report. The hon member gave the impression that the Kleu Report had already recommended a unitary tariff.

No!

Is that the wrong impression?

Yes. I did not mean to give that impression.

Then I withdraw it. The essence of the Kleu Report was that the tariff structure should remain regional as was the case in the past. I feel that that was one of the basic shortcomings of the Kleu Report.

As far as clause 10 is concerned I feel that the hon member is missing the boat completely. Clause 10 has absolutely nothing to do with the autonomy of a local authority to decide on the level of its own tariffs. At the moment they do not have full autonomy because their tariffs have to be approved by the provincial administration. All we are doing now is allowing them a little more autonomy because we do not have to approve their tariffs. Clause 10 only empowers us to lay down guidelines in this regard.

I think it is in the national interest that we should have a say in regard to peak demand and tariff structures. We will not determine the level of tariffs. The autonomy of local authorities in this respect is, therefore, not affected by this clause at all.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to this Bill as an interim Bill. I would rather describe it as the second step in a phasing in process. The hon member concluded by saying that we should consolidate the principal Act. I quite agree with him, and I can inform him that a consolidation Bill is in the final stages of drafting and will be tabled early in 1987. It will rationalise the legislation totally. I would like the hon member for Koedoespoort, who spoke about the same issue, also to take note of this.

*I want to thank the hon member for Welkom for his support. He referred to the autonomy of the local authorities as far as the determination of tariffs was concerned. I have explained the matter to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, and I have nothing to add to that.

The hon member mentioned another very important aspect, namely that the reconstituted Electricity Board actually consists of nominated consumer-orientated representatives, who will protect the interests of the consumer at the place where the decisions are taken. I think that what the hon member was trying to say may be expressed as follows: The new Electricity Board is drawn from the ranks of the consumer, intended to serve the consumer and orientated towards the consumer; in other words, the consumer plays the decisive role from beginning to end. Because he foots the bill, he is the most important person in the determination of the tariff structures. I thank the hon member for his explanation of this matter.

Mr Chairman, when a local authority supplies Escom power to particular sectors of the economy—for instance farmers—should it not do so at the same rates as those which Escom would charge if it supplied that power directly? There are sectors of the economy to which Escom supplies power at rates which are advantageous, but if a member of that sector happens to be situated in a local authority area, the authority might not charge the same rate as Escom does.

I did not quite understand what the hon member meant, but local authorities have specific supply areas within which they apply their own tariff structures.

[Inaudible.]

I hope I interpret the hon member correctly. In future we will be able to lay down guidelines as to what local authorities’ tariff structure should look like, especially regarding the possibility of effecting savings, for instance by cutting off peak loads. We will see if it is possible to achieve uniformity of tariff structures whether electricity is supplied by Escom or the local authority, but the authority has the autonomy to decide on its own tariff levels.

May I just explain, Mr Chairman? One has, for instance, a dairy farmer here who is being charged through the local authority and is paying a much higher tariff than the dairy farmer just five miles down the road.

When a local authority is licensed to supply electricity in a specific area, I am afraid nothing can be done about that. If the dairy farmer falls within the municipal boundary, he will have to pay the tariff of the local authority which has been licensed to supply electricity there. If the dairy farmer is part of a farm reticulation system supplied by Escom, that farmer will pay Escom tariffs. I am afraid we cannot do anything about that unless Escom decides to take all reticulation networks under its wing. I do not think that is possible. It is not Escom’s function to reticulate electricity. Escom’s function is to generate, transmit and distribute electricity, and local authorities and other licensed authorities are responsible for the reticulation, except in the case of farms. We want to supply the cheapest possible electricity to our farmers producing the agricultural products in our country. So, I do not think we can change that situation.

*We also thank the hon member for Welkom, who pointed out the importance of a healthy balance between own capital and loan capital. I want to put it as follows. Escom is a major borrower of money, and when people lend money to Escom, they look at two things. They look at a healthy balance between own capital and loan capital. That is important. The hon member for Mooi River also made the point that there is a balance of about 30% own capital and 70% loan capital. It is important to them that there should be a healthy balance. The second important aspect is that Escom’s tariff structure must be such that it is able to service the loans it has obtained—in other words, to pay the interest and redemption.

If Escom were to require a reputation for not being able to service its loans, it would not be able to borrow any more money.’ We have reason to be grateful for the fact that up to now, Escom has always been able to meet its loan commitments in full. I thank the hon member for having emphasised the importance of this, and I also thank the hon member for Mooi River for having put it in perspective.

I thank the hon member for Welkom, too, for the good wishes he conveyed to the new management of Escom and to the department. They are present here and have taken cognisance of his good wishes, and I hope they will convey them to the others.

I think the hon member for Koedoespoort made a very interesting speech. He mentioned some very important points, and I thank him for supporting the legislation. The hon member made a very important point which serves to distinguish his speech from that of the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.] The hon member made the important point that the availability of electricity improved one’s quality of life, because it enabled one to make use of facilities which are simply indispensable in modern life. It does not matter to me whether electricity is supplied to Soweto, Eersterus, Laudium or Pretoria. The supply of electricity improves people’s quality of life. That is a very important point, and I thank him for making it.

Another important point which he made was that the tariff structure of electricity supply had a very important effect on the total economy of the country; not only on the economy of Pretoria or Cape Town, but on the entire economy. The hon member made this point and I thank him for doing so.

The hon member made yet another very important point, namely that we have begun

What do you say, Sakkie?

The hon member had better be quiet for a while.

First there was the Wim de Villiers Commission’s report. Then we had to decide which one of two alternatives we wanted to implement. On the one hand, we could decide to study that report and to go through the Act from beginning to end and effect changes and then, after two or three years, to introduce a single new consolidated measure. The second alternative was to introduce the most important amendments immediately, and that is what we have decided to do. I think the hon member will concede to me—he readily conceded it in his speech— that the decision to improve the management was a wise one. Now we are also improving the controls that are to a certain extent external to Escom.

The hon member also made inquiries in this connection, and I may as well tell him that the consolidated draft legislation has already been prepared. Mr Oosthuizen has it with him. We are in the process of finalising it, and it will soon be available for submission to the standing committee. I thank the hon member for the support he has given us in this connection as well.

Hon members know that that hon member is a clergyman. I like it when a clergyman preaches about love, but he should preach about sin as well. He should have more to say about love than about sin, however. Now, the hon member had a few words to say about sin towards the end of his speech. Then he said that we should not make these control boards too big.

But surely you also disapprove of sin, Daantjie?

I do, but I am not so keen to preach about sin. I would rather preach about love.

It may be a good thing that the hon member has focused our attention on this. The hon member for Mooi River also said that he had nothing against the increase of the membership of the board, but he would like to know who the members are. The hon member for Koedoespoort said that he was opposed to it. I believe that if I were to tell the hon member which bodies, not which individuals, are going to serve on the board, the hon member would agree with me that it was a good amendment. I think I may confidently assert that we do not simply introduce changes arbitrarily and then, after having introduced those changes, decide what we want to do with them. We decide what we want to do with the changes before introducing them.

†I want to tell the hon member for Mooi River that the purpose of the two additional members is to include a nominee of the professional engineering family and a representative of the Consumer Council. Those are the two bodies which are not represented on this council at the moment and I think they need to be represented there. It is a technical institution and for that reason the engineers should be represented there. I think the consumers should also be represented there because they are the people who write out the cheques at the end of every month.

*I thank the hon member for Koedoespoort for his contribution. I shall come back presently to the speech made by the hon member for Kuruman.

†I also want to thank the hon member for Mooi River very much for the kind words he expressed towards Mr Maree and Mr Mcrae. I have already dealt with that aspect. I have also dealt with the balance between own capital and loan capital. I have also replied to the question which he put that he would like to know who those new representatives on the board will be.

*I want to thank the hon member for Sasolburg for his support. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon member for Sasolburg, but really, when one is discussing legislation of this nature, one must make sure that one’s statements are in accordance with the spirit of the Act and are technically correct. Let us be frank with one another. Escom is not going to supply the power in the Black areas. That is going to be done by someone else. We do not know who the licensee is going to be, but it is going to be a licensee.

The licensee has to pay!

The licensee has to receive payment of the electricity accounts. Escom is going to supply power in bulk to a licensee, which may be a local authority. Whether it be a Coloured, Indian, Black or White local authority, Escom supplies the power in bulk. [Interjections.] If that bulk consumer does not pay its account, Escom simply cuts off the supply. No money, no power. [Interjections.] It is as simple as that. Therefore the important question is not whether Escom is going to ensure that those fees are collected. That is not Escom’s function. It is the function of the local authority which is going to obtain a licence from the control board for which provision is now being made in this Bill.

I think the hon member should get his facts straight, therefore. It has nothing to do with Escom. [Interjections.] The hon member said that I should give the assurance that Escom would see to it that those charges are collected. That is not Escom’s function, however. The hon member should get his facts straight. I think the hon member for Boksburg was quite correct in his approach.

The other point which the hon member made was that Escom should not incur any losses now. However, Escom made a profit last year. He has only to read the report, then he will see that with its new management techniques, its new management structure and its new accounting system—it has not even been approved by law and provision must still be made for it, but it is already being implemented—Escom in fact made a profit last year. It will do so again in future, as it has to a large extent done in the past.

We must accept one thing: In the past, Escom’s management team was subject to many legal constraints as a result of the accounting system which was prescribed to it by law. This is now being changed, and this will enable Escom to simplify its accounting system as well, so that even I may understand it. This is all I have to say in this connection, and I thank the hon member sincerely for his support of the legislation.

The hon member for Boksburg also spoke about the privatisation of Escom. I hope we shall soon be able to discuss the whole question of the privatisation of Escom. Mr John Maree is working on it, and I think he has already completed his work. It has been put in writing, and we shall announce Escom’s approach to privatisation in due course, so as to put the matter beyond all doubt.

The hon member also referred to energy conservation. I think this is important. It forms part of that clause in the Bill to which the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central also referred. The hon member said that the Cape Town City Council did not like that clause and that he did not like it either. The UME has accepted it, however, and the Association of Municipal Electrical Undertakings has also accepted it in its entirety. In fact, they suggested the amendment which we accepted. It has been accepted, therefore. The purpose of that clause is precisely what the hon member for Boksburg referred to, namely to enable us to consider techniques which will make it possible for us to exercise some degree of control over economising and the effective utilisation of electricity in future. It is very important for us to use electricity productively in South Africa. We cannot simply build power stations to generate electricity and then waste that power. We must use it productively, and that is why that clause is very important.

The hon member mentioned examples of where the SABS could look at household elements. I have taken cognisance of that. I have also taken cognisance of the question of the loss of copper and iron from transformers and motors. I think this is a very important subject, and we shall give serious attention to it in future.

As far as the hon member for Kuruman is concerned, he and I no longer see eye to eye politically. [Interjections.] However, the hon member for Kuruman addressed a plea to me, so I have to react to him. Unfortunately, the hon member for Kuruman walked straight into the trap laid for him by the hon member for Boksburg, who said that they participated, but did not know what they were talking about.

This is best illustrated by their approach to clause 11. The hon member for Kuruman made a plea on behalf of the people of Vanzylsrus. I support his plea, and I shall ask Escom to look into the circumstances at Vanzylsrus, but this has nothing to do with clause 11, for the simple reason that in terms of clause 3, to which the hon member for Heilbron referred, Escom no longer requires a licence to supply electricity. [Interjections.] Clause 11 deals with licences. Escom no longer needs them, but I just want to tell the hon member that we shall ask Escom to investigate the supply of electricity to Vanzylsrus.

I now wish to mention a matter to which the hon member for Kuruman also referred. Escom supplies electricity to all who are prepared to pay their accounts.

That is exactly what I said! [Interjections.]

This is important. There is no need for the hon member for Sasolburg to make such a fuss! I have already said, as far as Escom is concerned, that it supplies power, but when someone fails to pay his account, his supply is simply cut off.

The hon member for Kuruman created the impression that we were doing nothing for the farming community. Surely this is not true.

No, that is not true!

I must make it quite clear that this is not true. There were interjections such as “You are not pleading for the farmers” and “You hate the farmers”. [Interjections.] Let us consider what the Government has done for the farmers of South Africa during the past 15 months.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I just want to tell the hon the Minister that he is now putting words into my mouth. I never said …

Order! That is not a point of order, but the hon member for Kuruman has made his point. The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

I shall rephrase it, Sir. I am sorry, but I am not going to leave the matter at that. While the hon the Deputy Minister was speaking, an hon member interjected by shouting that we were doing nothing for the farmers. [Interjections.] While the hon member for Heilbron was speaking, these specific remarks were made: “You are not pleading for the farmers!” and “You are no longer pleading for the farmers.” These remarks were made by the hon member for Rissik.

But you are replying to me now, and I did not make those remarks.

Very well, I apologise. The hon member for Rissik made those remarks. I withdraw it.

However, to put the matter in perspective, let us consider what the Government has done for the farmers recently. When the farmers were in trouble during the drought, my department completely abolished their extension fees for more than a year—for 18 months. The Government did this of its own accord; no-one asked us to do it.

I come now to the hon member’s representations, for which I do have a great deal of sympathy; make no mistake. The hon member has addressed well-founded representations to the department. It is a pity, though, that he kicked up a bit of a fuss before he came to his representations.

He is trying to emulate Terre’Blanche!

I do not wish to discuss the position in the border areas now, because my colleague, the Deputy Minister of Agricultural Economics and Water Affairs, is going to make an announcement in about an hour and a half. The capital cost of all the schemes in the north-western Transvaal area up to 1 April … No, I must not say it; we are going to make an announcement in this connection, and hon members will be surprised to hear what it entails. What I can say, though, is that it proves the sympathy we have with the farmers. [Interjections.] Sir, I do not want those hon members to create the impression outside this House that the Government and this party are doing nothing for the farmers. I want to state categorically that that is not true. I could adduce many other proofs in support of what I am saying. [Interjections.]

Nevertheless, I thank the hon member for Kuruman for having brought that matter to our attention. We shall ask Escom to investigate the position at Vanzylrus. They are indicating that it will be done. They have already been asked to do it, therefore! We shall inform the hon member of what will be done. [Interjections.] However, the principle remains that if a man cannot pay, he cannot have power. That is Escom’s policy. [Interjections.]

I want to thank the hon member for Heilbron for his support. He also pointed out the importance of own capital versus loan capital. We also thank him for his kind words to Escom.

I have already dealt with clause 3 of the Bill. The gist of it is that nothing is going to change with regard to the recipients of Escom power. It is done on an economic basis. This is not going to change. All that clause 3 provides is that the principal Act will henceforth authorise Escom to be the primary supplier of electricity in South Africa. Clause 3 merely provides that it will no longer need a license from the Electricity Control Board to supply power.

That is what clause 11 provides.

No, clause 11 deals with the transfer of power consumption; it has nothing to do with Escom.

Of course!

The hon member had better read the Bill again.

Could the hon member for Heilbron just tell me what the last section of the Bill was concerning which he asked a question? [Interjections.]

It is a clause.

The legal term is “section”.

It was clause 15.

It is the clause dealing with the holder of a licence, therefore.

I just want to know, with reference to clause 15, whether it is possible for the Electricity Control Board to go back to a customer at any stage of electricity supply, as regulated by it, and change the conditions on which the permit was granted. Will they be changed in that case? Is such a person without any remedy? I should be glad if the hon the Minister would clarify this matter.

In terms of the amending Bill it will be possible to go back under specific circumstances and to adjust or amend the conditions on which the holder of a licence may supply electricity.

I convey my sincere thanks to hon members once again for their support and their very interesting speeches. I think I have reacted to all the hon members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

time.

The prime objectives of this Bill are to rationalise existing legislation relating to control of the diamond industry of the RSA and to establish a more effective control structure in the diamond industry. It is a fact that this is a industry that lends itself to suspicion and malpractices and it is for this reason that over the past 13 years the Government has found it necessary to order no fewer than three formal and informal investigations into one facet or another of the diamond industry.

The gist of the findings of all these commissions and committees of inquiry was that there was essentially nothing wrong with the functioning of the diamond industry as a whole, and that with the necessary vigilance on the part of the Government the industry could be of great benefit to the country. However the investigations of these commissions and committees have also highlighted certain problem areas. One such problem area is divided control among Government institutions, as well as the unco-ordinated governmental decision-making and actions in respect of the diamond industry. I might just mention that three state departments, viz Mineral and Energy Affairs, Police and Finance, are at present vested with statutory authority in respect of one facet or another of the Republic’s diamond industry. The apparent unreasonable or lop-sided financial burdening of the diamond industry is probably one of the consequences of such uncoordinated government action.

Another problem area is the lack of knowledge on the part of the authorities as regards the value at which uncut diamonds in particular are marketed. Malpractices such as tax evasion and transfer pricing are encouraged thereby. This creates a serious problem because the government is not in a position to determine whether the State is being deprived of income and foreign currency. I might just mention that in the past this problem also occured with regard to polished diamonds. However the Government’s knowledge of the market value of polished diamonds has improved to such an extent since the establishment of the Diamond Cutting Board in 1979 that the Government is now in a position to ensure that polished diamonds are marketed at reasonable prices.

Another problem area is the lack of reliable statistics and information in relation to the diamond industry’s real achievements, its problems, marketing strategies, etc, particularly in regard to the uncommitted producers and diamond dealers. This in itself was the underlying reason for the need to order periodic inquiries into the industry.

The logical point of departure to be adopted in order to eliminate divided Government control, build up an authoritative and reliable system of information with regard to the industry, combat malpractices and, in general, to evaluate the industry with regard, too, to the imposition of taxes or tax relief and to provide stimulation where necessary, is to rationalise as far as possible all the legislation bearing on the industry and consolidate it in one Act. The Diamonds Bill seeks to establish such a framework within which, amongst other things, the utilisation, beneficiation, import and export of and trade in diamonds, both polished and unpolished, can take place.

The primary objective of the legislation is the establishment of a representative statutory body of control to which the regulation of the industry will be entrusted. Hon members will note that an additional statutory control body is not being established, but that the existing Diamond Cutting Board— established under the Diamond Cutting Act of 1979, which is being repealed in toto—is being converted into a Diamond Board vested with wider powers. This authoritative body will be able to advise the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the Government on a continuous basis with regard to policies to be followed, to identify bottlenecks and problems in good time and, in general, to ensure that the Republic’s diamond resources are utilised and developed to a maximum extent, particularly by local processors. Hon members will note that ample provision is made for private sector representation in the composition of the envisaged Diamond Board. It is necessary to ensure that the interests of all groups in the industry is taken into account when decisions affecting them are taken. It directly involves the private sector in the regulation of the industry and makes them directly responsible for decisions taken in respect of the industry. However, mechanisms are built into the Bill to ensure that decisions taken by the Board are in the national interest.

Hon members will also observe that both the State and interest groups in the private sector are responsible for the financing of the proposed Board. However I want to give hon members the assurance that the major share will be contributed by the private sector and that government expenditure incurred in this connection will be relatively small, particularly if it is borne in mind that the budget of the proposed Board is expected to be only about half a million rands per annum at present money values.

As far as the issue of the State contribution to the financing of the proposed board is concerned, I want to point out to hon members that there are sound reasons for incurring state expenditure for this purpose, particularly in view of the findings of the Committee of Inquiry into Exchange Control and Tax Malpractices—the Browne Committee—to the effect that, and I quote: “Millions of rands in the form of tax and foreign currency are involved.” [Interjections.] The committee in question made this finding with specific reference to practices such as transfer pricing and artificial pricing in the exporting of diamonds.

†All interest groups in the private and public sectors have been consulted. I am pleased to say that they are all in agreement with the principles contained in the Bill. There are only a few minor matters on which agreement could not be reached. These are, however, not really important. The Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, as well as the Department of Finance and the Police are aware of problem areas and malpractices in the diamond industry, but are convinced—after deliberation and careful consideration—that solutions to these problems and malpractices should not be sought in isolation or on an ad hoc basis. Such an approach would cause problems or create the opportunity for malpractices in other areas.

All the different components of the diamond industry of the Republic function as an integral part of an international system. Any adjustment in one area, eg the abolition of or reduction in import duty on polished diamonds, should take into consideration the possible effect it may have in other areas. These departments therefore welcome the establishment of the proposed Diamond Board to monitor the industry on a continuous basis and to advise on any such adjustments.

*Mr Chairman, I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon members of the standing committee for the outstanding work they have done in considering this Bill.

Mr Chairman, two things are said about diamonds. One is that they are a girl’s best friend and another is that they are forever. There can be no doubt that diamonds are certainly among the best friends of South Africa, because it is an incredibly important industry for South Africa, and the amount that it brings in regularly in foreign currency is very, very important to our foreign exchange situation and, as such, we have to be very careful of the way in which we handle the diamond industry in this country.

The Bill which we have before this House today is in fact the definitive Bill in regard to diamonds. There is no Bill on our Statute Book that is more important than this Bill in terms of the diamond industry. I have only served on the Standing Committee for Mineral and Energy Affairs for a short period of time, but I must tell hon members that I was surprised at the speed with which they handle legislation of this nature. I am also somewhat surprised at the relationship between the standing committee and the officials from the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I am not sure that what is happening makes for the best possible legislation, because I do have a quarrel with the department— and I have had this quarrel for some considerable time. That is that I do not think that they properly observe the Government’s plea for free enterprise in this country, privatisation, etc. 1 believe that within the department there is a lack of commitment to the free-enterprise ethic in South Africa. That, Sir, concerns me. I just want to quote two examples of this. One, Sir, was the Coal Bill of last year, which we on this side of the House fought long and hard because we believed it imposed too much control by the department and by the Government.

The success of that Coal Bill is now measured by the degree to which the department is running away from the measures created in that Bill. The hon the Minister must concede that in the past two months there have been a number of measures announced which are removing control from the coal industry—control which, as a result of the Coal Bill, was recently brought about.

The Coal Bill is not under discussion now.

I know we are not discussing the Coal Bill now, Sir. I am merely giving an example of the lack of commitment to private enterprise by the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

This is exactly the proof of the department’s commitment!

Mr Chairman, I submit that this is an indication that it is running away from it, which is certainly a heartening thing to witness.

Secondly, however, there is another thing which bothers me considerably. That is the control over petrol, and particularly the efforts on the part of the Government to prevent retailers of petrol selling at below the controlled price. To fix a minimum price, Sir, I believe is another …

Which clause of the Bill are you discussing now? [Interjections.]

I am giving examples of the lack of commitment to private enterprise on the part of this department, Sir.

Danie, why are you so sensitive?

I am not at all sensitive! [Interjections.]

I am motivating a point which I have made, Sir. I believe this department, more than any other department, has shown this lack of commitment to Government policy. I want to refer to the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech. I am not sure in which House he delivered it. In that speech the hon the Minister gives as one of the reasons for introducing this Bill, and I quote:

Again, Sir, it is clear that a more effective control is what the hon the Minister really wants. That, Sir, might be right or wrong in this particular instance, but again it concerns me that this whole situation of effective control is always brought up by this department.

This Bill before us has quite a long history in that, I think, there were something like three or four drafts of the Bill, which were prepared. There was also consultation— proper consultation—between the department and particularly, of course, the De Beers Company, which is the company that has obviously most to do with diamonds. They were sent a draft Bill and then they registered their objections to that draft Bill with the department, after which they were sent another draft Bill. So the thing went backward and forward, Sir, until eventually the Bill which we have before us in this House today was prepared. De Beers sent this Bill to their legal advisers, and we received back, from the legal advisers, a memorandum on the Bill which runs into seven foolscap pages. There were a number of objections which De Beers had to various clauses in the Bill. There was, for instance, the fact that the State could dominate the Diamond Board which is being set up in terms of this measure. I will, however, deal with that particular point later. Then they also raised another objection, and I quote:

Now, Sir, these are important points which they have raised and, as 1 have said, there are seven pages of these. I cannot read them all out now.

What type of diamonds are they referring to?

They talk about the export duty on diamonds.

Yes, but what type of diamonds?

They refer to uncut diamonds. They predominantly refer here to uncut diamonds.

Not predominantly— only!

Right. It is uncut diamonds to which they are referring here, Sir. They are talking about export duty on uncut diamonds. Now, Sir, these objections were really hardly discussed in the standing committee and, during the course of the discussion, it became apparent that De Beers had requested the standing committee to hear oral evidence from De Beers themselves. Sir, this was discussed in the standing committee and, to my utter astonishment, the standing committee decided not to allow De Beers to give oral evidence to the Standing Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs in respect of this definitive Bill in the diamond industry. I found that an extraordinary decision. Only three people voted in favour of allowing them to give evidence. They were the hon member for Edenvale, one of the hon members in the House of Representatives, and myself. I think that decision was very short-sighted indeed because the situation is such that on the one hand there are the officials of the department who have one viewpoint, while on the other hand there are De Beers who have another viewpoint. The department, however, is represented by officials who are present at the standing committee meetings. Through these officials the department is able to react to what goes on in the standing committee and to answer questions that may arise. De Beers, however, do not have that privilege because they are not allowed to give oral evidence.

I must say, I wondered from time to time just who were the legislators—whether it was the department or whether it was the standing committee. On one occasion, for instance, I heard one of the officials say that the department was prepared to allow a particular amendment. Surely it is the standing committee that allows amendments, not the department.

I think it is very wrong that private undertakings, particularly private undertakings of the size of De Beers that wish to give evidence and wish to argue with the standing committee in respect of a particular Bill, are not allowed to do so. I think it was a bad decision not to allow De Beers to give evidence, and I hope the Standing Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs will not indulge in that type of decision in future.

Do you want money from them?

I beg the hon member’s pardon?

Do you want money from them? [Interjections.]

That is of course a rubbishy question, Sir.

We did, to an extent, address some of the problems of De Beers and we did in fact pass an amendment which will have the effect, we hope, of creating a situation in which the public sector will no longer have a majority on the SA Diamond Board. I think this was a good thing to do.

Are you referring to the present composition of the board?

Yes, that is correct. I am referring to the present board and to the amendment that we in the standing committee brought about to this Bill that is before the House.

Which I accepted.

Yes, which the hon the Minister accepted and for which we thank him. The amendment, I was saying, provides for the appointment of a member of the SA Jewellery Board to the SA Diamond Board. This lends another interesting facet to this matter. My colleague, the hon member for Edenvale, could actually have spoken about this facet much more knowledgeably than I can because he has made a study of jewellery, in particular, in South Africa and has discovered that it is in fact cheaper to import gold jewellery from Italy and sell it here than it is to buy our own South African-made product. This is because of excessive taxation and control …

Inside this country.

Inside this country, yes …

On the finished product.

On the finished product, right. I think it is important that South Africa become a mecca for the purchase of gold and diamond jewellery.

I agree.

Ideally, one of the objectives of tourists who come here from all over the world should be to buy our diamond and gold jewellery. Obviously, it is our own home-grown produce, if one likes to put it that way. Obviously we have the raw materials in profusion in this country. If, therefore, we can create a situation for our jewellers whereby they can sell this type of jewellery at a lower price than it could be obtained elsewhere in the world, then we will have done South Africa a great favour. We will have encouraged job creation. For instance, we will have created jobs in polishing, in cutting, in jewellery design and jewellery manufacture. Truly, we will have created a tremendous number of jobs.

I do not know whether the hon the Minister saw the article that was published in the Scala magazine that was sent out recently by the German Embassy. The article focused on a little village in Bavaria called Forsheim, I think. This whole village relied on jewellery manufacture. In the light of this Bill, that article was very interesting to read. So I think that anything the SA Diamond Board and the hon the Minister can do to encourage such a situation will be well worth the while.

In closing, I want to say that, in my view, De Beers made a very serious mistake in submitting their memorandum to us. At the end of their seven pages—in an attempt, I think, to be positive—they said:

That is what the standing committee grabbed on to in order to say it really was not necessary to see them because they had acknowledged that it was an improvement. However, one must not forget that they said at the beginning: “Apart from the comments and reservations expressed …”. Those comments and those reservations have not been answered by the one amendment that has been effected by the standing committee. Nevertheless, one has to take note of the fact that they are of the opinion that this Bill represents an improvement and, seeing that the private sector so agrees, who are we in the Official Opposition to disagree? We therefore will be supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central certainly made a few unpleasant remarks and insinuations, especially during the first part of his speech. He spoke about—I made a note of it—the “relationship between the officials of the department and the members of the standing committee”. He insinuated that there was some or other unholy understanding between the officials of the department and the standing committee. I think that is a rather shameful remark. I also attended the sittings of the standing committee and I think the co-operation there is wonderful. The officials of the department give their full co-operation, and it is their duty to do so. Does the hon member want the department to fight the standing committee, or should they co-operate? I think that was an ugly insinuation, and one he could have omitted. He also spoke about “the oral evidence” of De Beers. The standing committee had thorough discussions on the matter and on what De Beers wanted to say. De Beers simply wanted to debate what they had already said and did not want to give any new evidence.

How do you know?

There was also the possibility that if De Beers came to give evidence, the other witnesses about the matters on which De Beers had already stated their case, would have had to give evidence as well. What was interesting was that that standing committee voted on the matter, and if I am correct—the hon member can rectify me if I am wrong—the hon member was the only member in the standing committee who voted against this. I am talking about hon members in all the parties of all three separate Houses.

No! No!

Am I wrong in saying that? Who else voted against it? I think it was only the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central who did so.

About De Beers being heard? There were Mr Goodall, Mr Louw of the House of Representatives, and I.

All right. There were three of you. I think Mr Goodall is a very intelligent person. That lends a bit more weight to the matter. [Interjections.] It was still a small minority of a small minority party who voted against it. There is another matter the hon member did not take into account, and which he did not discuss, but I grant the hon member that one does not always have the opportunity to discuss everything. Since there was so much consensus about the Bill, and since even De Beers thought it was a very good Bill, the standing committee felt it would make more sense if the Bill was agreed to. After implementing it for a period of two years for example, De Beers and all the other people can be asked for their commentary as to how things have worked in practice. Then we shall be able to see whether there have been any problems in practice. The standing committee did not say De Beers could not give evidence, therefore, and that that was the end of the story. They said we should implement the legislation, and then ask those people in perhaps two years’ time—or 18 months—to give evidence before us and tell us how it works in practice. I therefore think the standing committee acted very positively and did its work very well. Perhaps the standing committee would have been a little more successful if I had been able to take the hon member’s place in it!

Mr Speaker, I have a slight problem since I do not think I may put direct questions to the hon the Minister. Perhaps I should ask the hon the Minister through the Chair whether a Second Reading speech made by him in another House is reported in the House of Assembly’s Hansard.

No!

That is rather a pity, since I have only ten minutes at my disposal, and I cannot repeat the hon the Minister’s speech now. It would be a great pity if this Second Reading speech did not appear in Hansard, since it gives a fine and short and concise explanation of what this Bill is all about.

†In the publication South Africa’s Mineral Industry of August 1985—it is a publication of the Mineral Bureau of South Africa in Johannesburg—we find on pages 13 to 16 a very good summary of the diamond industry in South Africa and all matters concerning it.

*I do not have the time to elaborate on that now, but the summary points out how the discovery of diamonds at Hopetown in 1867—some sources say it was 1866—led to the development of the diamond industry in Kimberley and vicinity. This discovery is referred to as “the first major injection of overseas capital into South Africa’s mineral industry”, and it is pointed out how the money generated there contributed greatly to the establishment and development of the gold industry in Johannesburg 16 years later. The effect it had on the whole of industry in South Africa, as well as on the Railways and everything associated with it, is pointed out. The diamond industry has therefore been an extremely important industry in South Africa from those days until today.

The hon the Minister gave his reasons for co-ordination in his explanation. Problems arise because we have three separate departments with statutory powers, and the co-ordination between them is not good. I want to give only one example of this. According to the SA Police, the Republic’s export of uncut diamonds amounted to R884,7 million in 1985. One must keep in mind that tax of 15% had to be paid on this. According to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, only R56,7 million was paid in tax. According to my calculations, an amount of R132 million should really have been paid in tax. Where does the problem lie?

I concede that certain mines are exempt from that 15% tax, but surely that could not have changed the amount of R132 million to R56 million. There seem to be problems with the statistics, therefore. Are the figures of the SA Police correct or are they based on other things? Is there a slip betwixt cup and lip? All these problems must be inquired into properly, and I think this legislation lends itself to that very well.

A document written by the department in motivation of this Bill, gives a good explanation of the motives for introducing it. I should now like to make certain remarks about that document. In the first place there is the question that malpractices must be eliminated. Time will not allow me to elaborate, but I should have liked to have talked about that for an hour. I shall put it shortly and concisely, therefore.

As far as theft is concerned, we must start at the first link of the chain. No one smuggles diamonds which have not been extracted from the soil or the sea. We must spend money right where the diamonds are produced and stolen. I therefore ask for a shift in emphasis, and I think this is an important task for the new Diamond Board. In addition I think the system of police-traps—I know some of my colleagues differ from me on that point—is an immoral and unethical system. A man is tempted with State-owned diamonds until in the end he buys them. The Police therefore do not catch a man with stolen diamonds, but with state-owned diamonds.

Mr Speaker, I know that perhaps you will tell me that falls under the Police. I know that, and therefore I shall not go into any more detail on the matter. I simply want to say I think we should shift the emphasis and stop spending money on this immoral and unethical system. I personally know good people who have ended up in jail after efforts had been made for a long time to sell them diamonds. I think we must think about this system again and go back to the root of the evil, the place where the diamonds are extracted.

Order! It is always a good thing if an hon member can say: “Stop me or I shall stop myself!” [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, in all honesty I must refer to the speech made by the hon the Minister, in which he said, and I quote from page 7 of the typed copy:

Etcetera. The hon the Minister did have serious discussions with the Police before this Bill was drawn up. The fact that administrative functions in respect of licences, permits and so on, are being taken away from the Police, is a great improvement. In future the Police will do only police work. The hon the Minister should have more discussions with them, however.

Too few incentives are offered to the cutting industry in South Africa by the diamond industry. I do not want to say much about that. There should be more incentives. The total diamond production in 1985 was 10 203 000 carats, of which only 656 000 carats was sold locally. Almost 10 million carats was sold abroad, therefore, which is a great mistake. When we export our diamonds, a levy of 15% is placed on them. When the same diamonds are imported again, we have to pay 35% ad valorem and 12% GST on them. The learned people tell me this amounts to an effective tax of 51%. I can therefore buy our diamonds in Antwerp very much more cheaply than I can buy them in my own country. That is unacceptable, and in addition it gives rise to smuggling.

Someone told me that if we buy diamonds abroad, I must smuggle them in. I do not think it is right in respect of our own country and people, for a South African diamond to be much cheaper abroad than it is here. Attention should be given to this matter.

This legislation is introducing central control, and certain clauses provide that the South African Diamond Board will advise the hon the Minister on policy inter alia, which I think is a good thing. We should also consider making our diamonds more available to our own people, however.

I have a wonderful book here about Scotty Smith, containing tales about the mystery and drama of our diamond industry. Some of the stories are not nice ones, like the one about Dr Jameson. When smallpox broke out in the Kimberley diamond fields, they were so busy making money that Dr Jameson refused to admit that the people were dying of smallpox. He did not want production to stop. When people died, he said it was merely chickenpox or some such. He acted completely unethically, and that is one of the great medical scandals in South Africa’s history. The diamond industry has a very attractive side, therefore, but also a less attractive side.

This Bill puts all the existing legislation and bodies in one package. The consensus that was reached on it proves that it is a fine piece of legislation. I have not the slightest doubt that we shall improve both the diamond industry and our own knowledge.

In doing that we shall ensure that our people—including the State—will get their rightful share of the diamonds which really belong to South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to react directly to everything the hon member Dr Vilonel said. I shall associate myself with some of his ideas as I go along. Nor do I wish to repeat what has already been said.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister to speak to the hon member for Boksburg in private. It becomes very difficult for an opposition party that would like to support a Bill, and that does in fact express its support for the measure, and then has to listen to a stupid and belligerent attack against hon opposition members who support the Bill from a person who does not understand what it is all about. It then becomes a little difficult for one to continue to support the Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member is referring to me, and I have not participated in the discussion on this Bill at all.

He was referring to the previous one! You should have known that!

In spite of the hon member for Boksburg, I wish to inform the hon the Minister that the CP is going to support this Bill.

We are dealing here with a new Bill, which encompasses and deals with the whole diamond industry. We welcome it. In the first place we welcome the fact that a Diamond Board is going to be established, which has to accept full responsibility for the diamond industry. I had the old problem, with which the hon Minister is acquainted by now, of a body that is too large. We recommended on the standing committee that one of the two people who may be nominated in terms of clause 5(l)(k), shall be a member of the Jewellery Council of South Africa, and the hon the Minister accepted that.

Now I understand that the previous holders of diggers’ certificates which were not transferable, have apparently formed a kind of diggers’ company, which is not represented on the Diamond Board. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister to consider nominating a representative of that diggers’ company as the second member. All the other parties involved are represented, namely cutters, the employees of cutters, etc. Now I simply want to ask the hon the Minister whether those diggers cannot be taken into consideration?

Clause 5(l)(f) makes provision for them.

Are they included entirely in it? Those old diggers as well?

Yes.

Oh. I also wish to refer to clause 5(l)(c) which provides that the SA Police may also be represented on the Diamond Board by a member nominated by the Commissioner of the South African Police. I, and we on this side of the House, welcome the representation of the SA Police on the Diamond Board. In the past—Sir, I hope you do not stop me, but I now wish to associate myself with the hon member Dr Vilonel—it was mainly the South African Police who were burdened with the combating of illicit diamond dealing. These people had to think of methods and devise plans to counter this illicit diamond dealing. One of the methods they used was the decoy system, with which some people—for various reasons—had many problems. I think the situation is somewhat different now under this Bill.

The Diamond Board as such, on which the SA Police now has representation, will certainly try to provide the SA Police with a little guidance and direction in devising methods of combatting this illicit diamond dealing. Now it will not rest entirely upon the shoulders of the police, and the Diamond Board, which deals with the entire diamond industry will be able to make a contribution here. I think that they will avert a lot of the blame which was laid on the police in the past, and this will help the whole situation. I think the Diamond Board will be able to think of methods and advise the police so that they can better discharge their obligation in respect of the combating of illicit diamond dealing.

We are particularly glad that certain amendments were effected by the standing committee, which the hon the Minister accepted. In particular I wish to refer to the original clause 13(b), which deals with loans. It was an unacceptable matter to us, and the hon the Minister conceded to that paragraph being deleted from the clause. We wish to thank him very much for that.

We now are dealing with new legislation, which has to be tested in practice. It is legislation which will deal with the whole question of licences, permits, diamond exchanges and the handling of various types of diamonds. It had to be ensured that the clauses were worded in such a way and that there was inherent protection that enabled the State to acquire its rightful share in respect of the whole question of the diamond trade, and that there was less opportunity for the State to incur losses, especially in respect of uncut diamonds which are valued and leave the country. It now seems to me we have built-in protection against that, and that the Diamond Board will have a say in the valuation of diamonds. There will be a 15% levy, and all these things—all these clauses and all these measures which are being adopted in this amendment Bill—will contribute to the State’s interests being protected and promoted, and that the State will acquire its actual fair share of the whole diamond industry. We probably have good reason to say that the State has not always received its fair share of it in the past.

Certain offences are now being written into this legislation, as well as the penalties for those offences. In this connection one must be strict. When it is possible for an offence to be committed, one must be strict. A diamond is a desirable object, and not everybody has the financial means to be able to purchase and own diamonds. That is why it is so inevitably tempting not to allow an opportunity—if one can get one’s hands on a diamond and it is perhaps in one’s nature— of enriching oneself to slip. That is why it is good that we should protect the weaker ones in society against themselves, in this sense that we must clearly define the offences— and I believe it has been done well enough here—and that we apply such punitive measures which will deter and prevent one from seizing the opportunity of enriching oneself illegally in that way.

We on this side of the House are content with those few observations.

In conclusion I merely wish to say that I have been informed that the first diamond that was found here and which is called the Eureka diamond, was kept here in Parliament for many years. I do not know whether it is still so, but I understand that it was the case, and that it has now presumably been moved to some Oppenheimer museum or other, or something of that nature. Whether it is still here, I do not know, but I would merely like confirmation of the fact that that diamond is kept here in Parliament.

With these few remarks the CP support this amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, diamonds and gold were always the pivot on which the Wild West hinged. Because all towns in the Wild West, for example, Silent Creek, had a sheriff, hon members saw fit to equip me with the necessary instruments of authority. I received them today. They were addressed to Sheriff Cunningham, Stillwaters, Fountain Country. I just want to tell the hon member Dr Vilonel that if in future he cannot stop himself, I may be able to do so with the instruments of authority I have received.

I want to get back to the speech by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, particularly to one aspect he mentioned, namely his objection regarding the request he addressed that De Beers should appear before the committee. This organisation was consulted frequently, long hours were spent with them, all their objections were listened to, and if I remember correctly, most of their objections to the legislation were eliminated. To tell you the truth, the legislation was rewritten quite a number of times to accommodate their objections to it. All they were still asking concerned the many aspects we did not include in the legislation. That is what they wanted to give evidence before the committee in person about.

We discussed this for approximately half an hour as a committee, and by far the majority of the committee members decided that it would serve no purpose, and that it would actually be absurd to ask the people to appear before us if they were only going to tell us precisely what they had said to us in the memorandum submitted to us. That is why we decided not to have them appear before us—not because we were indifferent to the organisation, but because we knew that this would waste both the committee’s time and the company’s time.

Diamonds have a great fascination for women, as an hon member has already mentioned. But they also have a fascination for men, particularly when it comes to uncut diamonds. This is now becoming a very expensive hobby because this Bill makes provision for a fine of R50 000 or ten years imprisonment, or both, in the case of a conviction. [Interjections.]

In the past our people adopted the attitude that diamond smuggling was not really a sin or a crime. They maintained that if they got the chance they would probably do so too, because according to them it was not really a criminal offence. According to them all the State was doing was protecting the large companies which were mining diamonds. That is what the people say. The State is allegedly only protecting Mr Oppenheimer. [Interjections.]

But I want to tell them, seeing that I am now the sheriff of the Wild West, that we really cannot allow that. [Interjections.] If we were to allow diamond smuggling simply to continue, the State could also incur losses. The State could incur very big losses if the matter got out of control. That is also the reason for the severe fines contained in the Bill.

Diamond smuggling is nothing new. Many people will probably try it in the future too. I know of an old lady who bought a diamond one evening. She slammed the door shut very quickly when the Police arrived to see her. When she opened the door again, she invited the Police in and they searched the entire house. But they could not find the diamond, and years later the detective asked her: “Auntie, where was that diamond? We know you had it.” Then she said: “Sir, you stood holding it in your hand all evening.” He immediately said that was impossible, to which she replied: “Yes, do you remember that candlestick I gave you. I put it in the candlestick under the candle, and you walked through the entire house with that candle; that is why you did not find the diamond.” Brilliant attempts like these were made to smuggle diamonds and conceal diamonds.

To get back to the Bill—it now meets a very great need, namely to consolidate all the existing laws—a number of unconnected laws and subsections of other laws—in one piece of legislation. Departments now know precisely what they can do. This also places the control of diamonds under one department, which in my opinion is absolutely essential. We are also making provision for a Diamond Board, and there will also be representatives from the private sector on that board.

I consider it another important aspect that we are giving the private sector a say to tell us what they think, how they see production and how they see marketing. Consequently the State and the private sector are going to work together very closely. Consequently there is a partial privatisation of this entire matter.

Probably the most important facet is that the State, in accordance with the recommendations of the Brown Committee, will in future be able to keep abreast of precisely what is going on with regard to all the various facets of the diamond industry. What is more the State now has the ability to ensure extremely effectively that it gets its rightful share as far as taxes are concerned. Particularly in the case of diamonds which were exported, the value of those diamonds was underassessed and the State consequently did not collect the full export duty.

I would be neglecting my duty if I did not ask the hon the Minister briefly today please to give attention—perhaps through the Diamond Board or through the Standing Committee on Finance—to the problem being experienced by the jewellery industry. Reference has already been made to this, but the most important facet of this problem is the fact that ad valorem duty must be paid on the jeweller’s labour.

We do not mind paying ad valorem plus 12% tax on the value of the stone. But that jeweller must convert it into a ring or a bracelet, which results in labour costs, and then a further 45% ad valorem duty is also levied on his labour. This is one of the reasons why South African diamonds cost far more inside the country than they do abroad. I am asking the hon the Minister for us to consider addressing the Department of Finance on this. We do not want to abolish ad valorem duty. All we are asking is that it should not apply to the labour.

I think that this legislation really clamps down on the problem we are experiencing with the respective departments to protect the diamond industry and to enforce legislation. Frequently the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. Because this legislation combines everything, it is a great privilege for me to support it.

Mr Speaker, it is quite clear that a great deal of preparation has been put into this Bill which is before us this afternoon. When one studies it, one realises that, in many respects, there have been many deficiencies within the diamond industry. The object of this Bill is rationalisation and it is an attempt to bring about a more effective control structure within the diamond industry itself.

As the hon the Minister noted in his Second Reading speech, it has been necessary to appoint three commissions of inquiry into various aspects of the diamond industry over the past 13 years. I think that fact alone speaks for itself.

While I am on this point, I do not want to associate myself with the points that were made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. I think what has not been mentioned is the fact that this is either the third or the fourth draft of this particular Bill—I am open to correction—which is an indication in itself that since this Bill was first drafted, comment has been received regularly from De Beers. It is quite clear that the department itself has gone out of its way to incorporate many of the recommendations which were made by De Beers. For that reason, I could not see any reason for procrastinating any further in regard to bringing this Bill before Parliament.

It is quite clear that sufficient evidence was available to justify action being taken to regularise the many shortcomings that existed in the purchase, sale and processing of diamonds. There is little doubt too that many anomalies have existed in the past, particularly in regard to the export of unpolished diamonds. This has given rise to queries as to whether the State has received the dues to which it has been entitled. Consequently, the envisaged powers given to the proposed board to gather information is also an important facet of its functions.

The role of the diamond industry—I think this has been stated previously in this debate—is very much part and parcel of the South African economy. That is something which we respect. Overseas interest in the jewellery sector over the past year or two has revitalised the industry in this country and it is playing a more important role now in improving the country’s balance of payments situation. It is quite obvious that stability is a vital factor in the diamond industry in this country and it is logical, therefore, that a Bill of this nature is required to make this possible.

If I may comment briefly on the composition of the board, I would like to say that I think representation of the private sector is well accommodated and that it is also an important factor that an attempt has been made to accommodate all sectors of the industry. There can be few complaints to the effect that any main sector has been left out in the composition of the board.

To my mind one of the most important aspects relative to the legislation is the power given to the board in regard to the issue of licences to the various segments of the industry. This is a means of ensuring effective control throughout and we particularly welcome the steps concerning the control on the production and marketing of unpolished diamonds. Every effort must be made to promote and encourage local benefication and refinement of our own diamond resources to ensure that the country enjoys maximum benefit from this magnificent natural resource with which we in this country are blessed.

Mr Speaker, in the previous debate I tried my very best not to turn the matter into a political issue. I did not succeed, however, because of a lack of goodwill on the part of the hon member for Boksburg. What is more he took the hon the Minister in tow and instead of remaining a perfectly normal matter concerning only the technical aspect it degenerated into a political debate. However, I did support that Bill, but my party cannot support the present Bill. Despite that I wish to express the hope from the outset that we shall be able to deal very consisely with the few points that I am going to make, because I think it will be the first time that such an approach to the diamond industry is presented in this House, and that the hon the Minister, if at all possible, will express his considered opinion. At some point in the future we should like to return to this subject.

Firstly we reject this legislation in its entirety because we are not confident that the State is receiving its rightful share in respect of income tax and foreign exchange returns from diamonds. Firstly I shall mention just one reason for this. The Diamond Board’s total staff at present consists of two female clerks, two male pensioners, a manager and a State diamond valuer in Kimberley with an assistant, who are in part remunerated by De Beers. [Interjections.] Nearly 12 million carats of diamonds are exported annually. The sale amount totals R2 billion.

That is our first serious problem and objection. As far as this and other similar objections are concerned there has always been a suspicion of diamond matters in the public mind. This afternoon I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the public has never considered the illegal possession of diamonds to be a criminal offence—in comparison with other offences. The view has been that it is the one offence which should be put in a category by itself, because people had a certain idea about this—even though it is no longer the case. Among a lot more people there is already an established suspicion today because they say that legislation has in the past not succeeded in producing the desired results. Therefore the view exists that one should think about diamonds, and especially about offences in this regard, in a different way to offences in other cases. [Interjections.]

A second matter which has a bearing on this, is that it is our fundamental standpoint—to which the hon the Minister should listen carefully—that no diamond, cut or uncut, may leave the country without the contents of a consignment being ascertained by State sorters and State valuers, under the supervision of the Police. We say that this is the point of departure. Nothing should leave the country without those arrangements having been made. We find no indication in this legislation of the hon the Minister causing the sorting and determination of the value to be carried out prior to export. We find therefore in this legislation no satisfaction of the fundamental standpoint which we postulate here. The cost of such a permanent operation will, according to a very fair estimation, be at most R1 million per year. According to our view it is worth the effort, when one notes the ease with which fraudulent diamond transactions occur.

It is interesting to note, Mr Chairman, that emeralds are in fact being dealt with in such a way by the Mineral Bureau that fraudulent transactions can be restricted to a minimum. Now we ask why diamonds cannot also be dealt with in such a way. Unless we receive a guarantee in regard to the absolute control by means of regulation—and I do not think I am going to get that from the hon the Minister today—we cannot support this Bill. We cannot support it because it is not in the interests of the tax and foreign currency position of the country. We are therefore putting the country’s interests first, and not those of De Beers. That everyone should understand very well now.

Then, Mr Chairman, as far as the Police are concerned, we do not feel that their law enforcement efforts should be concentrated on uncut diamonds. We feel that there should be a completely new departure from the pattern of the past. The Diamond Branch of the Police costs the taxpayer of South Africa R6 million per year, and the money which is spent on this effort, is used to the benefit of De Beers in Kimberley. In fact there are indications—note my choice of words—that payments for these recovered diamonds are completely unrealistic. The protection of diamonds against theft is De Beers’ affair, and not that of the taxpayer. De Beers must pay, Mr Chairman, for the loss and theft of diamonds. It is not a burden which should be shouldered by the South African taxpayer. The entire so-called IDB system—I am now just using the English because it is more generally known than the Afrikaans term—is obsolete and meaningless because throughout the whole world the trade in uncut diamonds is completely free of all interference. It is only here in South Africa that it is different; where we have the De Beers organisation. We say that with regard to this matter South Africa’s practice must be brought into line with what is done in the rest of the world. The hon the Minister will in fact have to explain to me why it cannot happen.

The last point which I wish to make, relates to clause 70 of the present Bill. Clause 70 reads as follows:

Now, to my absolute amazement, Mr Chairman, I have only taken cognisance of this recently—I did not know previously—that when one travels abroad, and one’s wife has a diamond ring in her possession, that diamond must be registered. Our standpoint on this is that this is a totally unacceptable and unnecessary regulation. To expect every traveller to register every little stone in a ring, we think, is really not worth the effort. It is ridiculous, and this provision, we think, must be deleted.

Mr Chairman, would the hon member please inform us whether he is aware of it that people are able to take very expensive and valuable rings out of the country in that way, and in so doing can deprive the country of valuable foreign exchange?

Mr Chairman, it was for that very reason that I stated our fundamental standpoints in advance. I am merely indicating our fundamental standpoints. This is quite a different approach which is being followed here, however. At this stage I am not interested in particulars. Even as far as particulars are concerned, hon members must still bear in mind what my party’s standpoint is. We believe that the State should not be harmed. I could not care less about the damage caused to De Beers. They are strong and rich enough to look after themselves—just like every other entrepreneur in this country should be able to look after himself.

I conclude, Mr Chairman, by making the statement that we are in favour that only registered exporters of diamonds be required to do this, but not a young couple who are either in love or engaged or newly married, and who are travelling abroad with only one or two little stones. That is therefore our standpoint.

Should the hon member for Pretoria East want to put a question to me he is free to do so.

Mr Chairman, could the hon member tell us who prepared his speech for him? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am delighted that the hon member has put that question to me. The points which I have raised today here, were all introduced at our congresses over the years. Over the years they were discussed—at times thoroughly, at other times less thoroughly—and what I have recounted here to the House today— the hon member can take a look at my notes—has its origin there. I shall concede this point to the hon member. I am not an expert on diamonds. I never have been. So far, in fact, my wife has only one diamond ring, and there is another one which she received from her mother. [Interjections.] Then there was another one which was stolen. [Interjections.] The hon member need not feel sorry for me, but I want to tell him—and I am therefore very glad he asked that question—I am not an expert on the complications of diamonds, but I think what I have said to him here, demonstrates that in past years, at our congresses—soon we shall be dealing with the gold industry—we went into this matter very seriously. At times these were among the most interesting discussions at our congresses. And here I briefly gave him a summary of the main points of the HNP’s policy in regard to the diamond trade and industry. There the member has it!

The hon member is quite right. If my speech made me sound like an expert, I wish to assure him that I am not one. [Interjections.] What I do know something about, however, is what was said and what happened over the years at our congresses. Apart from that I was an attorney—for approximately 15 years if I remember correctly—and on one or two occasions I had to deal with this sort of thing. I was also a reporter at Die Burger, and among the most interesting stories always dealt with unlawful possession of diamonds. I wish therefore to inform the hon member that it is from that angle that I became acquainted with the facet of the whole question of diamonds in South Africa. Many books have been written about diamonds, and many are still going to be written. I do want to suggest today that South Africa adopt a new approach to our diamonds in future.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon members sincerely for their support for this Bill. Various hon members on all sides of the House pointed out that it was an extremely important Bill, and that it had been in the planning stage for many years. It is not a Bill which originated overnight; it is the product of a very long investigation. As one of the hon members pointed out to us, 13 years was spent on its preparation. An investigation was first carried out by the Browne Committee, another one by the Van Wyk Committee, and subsequently another by Mr Bindeman. As hon members can see, Mr Bindeman is sitting over there, below the Press gallery. He is an absolute expert on the diamond industry. I will not say that he knows everything about all the facets of the diamond industry, but if there is a person in South Africa who knows a great deal about the diamond industry, it is Mr Bindeman. I wish to convey our great appreciation to him.

I was pleased Mr Bindeman was present when the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central—he is not here at the moment, but he did in fact apologise for his absence because he had other appointments to keep— expressed his appreciation for the speed, the competence and the efficiency with which this department deals with legislation. Our men are sitting over there, and I hope they took cognisance of what was paid. Personally I am also very pleased that the hon member told me this. On my part, too, I can testify to the efficiency and the expertise with which this Bill was drawn up. A great deal of trouble was taken in its preparation. For example, it was not a matter of consultation with a single organisation only. No, repeated talks were held and opinions were changed before consensus on the final product was reached. I should therefore like to associate myself with the praise which the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central meted out in this connection.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central also alleged that this department was not interested in the free market system. He then used the Coal Act as an example. The Coal Act is in fact a wonderful example of how intimately involved we are in the establishment of the free market system. If I may deviate for a moment, Sir, 1 should like to point out that during the discussion of the Coal Amendment Bill that hon member in fact objected to the clause authorising the Minister to investigate and apply the free market system. That was their major objection, but we applied it nevertheless and now he is bragging about the results of the department and saying that we do not support the free market system.

The reason why we do not support some aspects of the free market system at this stage—the hon member even went so far as to mention the petrol price—is not because we do not like it, but because there are specific strategic considerations as to why we cannot allow this now. That is the only reason, and I should like to content myself with what I have just said. Other hon members reacted to the hon member’s speech on the standing committee, and I do not want to express an opinion in that regard.

In this matter, however, I want to associate myself with the hon member and say that there is no real reason—perhaps there were reasons in the past—why South Africa cannot become the jewel Mecca of the world. That was also the theme in the other two Houses and some of the hon members in this House also mentioned it. I want to give all the hon members who spoke about this matter the assurance that this is one of the aspects to which we as a department are giving attention, together with the jewellery industry, which is involved. We are getting all the people together so that we can meet around a conference table and scrutinise the future of the jewellery industry. I agree with the hon member that we simply must develop the jewellery industry in South Africa into the finest industry in the country.

Dawie agrees.

My hon colleague agrees and he will participate in the negotiating process.

This afternoon we are really debating lightning and stars. The lightning has been disposed of because we have dealt with the Electricity Amendment Bill and now we are dealing with the stars, with diamonds.

The hon member Dr Vilonel put a question in regard to the Second Reading of my speech. It is probably not my function as a Minister to reply to him, but the fact remains that all Second Reading speeches, whether they are made in a joint sitting or in any of the three Houses, are included in the Hansard of all three Houses. Here I have an example in which it is stated precisely where and when the speech was made, and the speech is then reported in full.

Several hon members, including the hon member Dr Vilonel, referred to police traps. I do not want to express an opinion on police traps and the system of police traps to combat illicit diamond dealing. I held long talks with police officers involved in this matter. If the system is applied in practice the way it was devised, there is really nothing wrong with it. Unfortunately we are all human and that is why malpractices arise and why the kind of thing to which the hon member Dr Vilonel referred happens. If the police trap system is applied as it stands on paper, it is an effective way of combating illicit diamond dealing. The hon member also referred to the diamond industry, and I agree with him that it is a very important and wonderful industry. I shall refer to this matter further during the course of my speech when I reply to other hon members.

I want to thank the hon member for Koedoespoort for his support and the support of his party for this legislation. He made a very good speech and raised very interesting points. He referred to the representation of the old diggers. I reacted very quickly by pointing clause 5(l)(f) out to him which makes provision for unaffiliated diggers. The hon member asked whether we could not consider giving the old diggers representation under clause 5(l)(k). I suspect that clause 5(l)(f) can make provision for that— the officials of my department are nodding their heads and saying that we shall be able to do so. Nevertheless we shall also see whether we cannot make provision for them under clause 5(l)(k). I think the hon member made a very good point.

The hon member also referred to the combating of illicit diamond dealing, and to police traps. This is actually the domain of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, but I think it is a good method provided we make certain that it is applied correctly. I do not think my colleague and his senior officers have any intention of not applying the system correctly. Consequently I should like to let that suffice.

The hon member said that the Diamond Board could possibly make a contribution to developing methods or making recommendations for combating illicit diamond buying. I think I am correct if I understood him to have said that. We must not simply create the impression that the Diamond Board should now take over the task of tracking down illicit diamond buying from the police. If we understand one another correctly on this point there are no problems. I do not think there is any reason why the Diamond Board should not make its inputs as well on how these malpractices can be combated. One must not mean by it though that the Diamond Board should take over this task, because I do not think that is its function. If that is not the intention, I agree with the hon member that there is no reason why the Diamond Board should not also make its inputs in this regard.

The hon member replied very effectively to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central on the reasons why we should now have a Diamond Board. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central saw it as intervention in the private sector and as a mechanism for the State to ensure that it received its rightful share. As I said in my Second Reading speech on this Bill, and as investigations have shown, the State did not always receive its rightful share. The hon member was quite correct.

The hon member for Sasolburg would do well to read the speech made by the hon member for Koedoespoort, for then he will receive almost all the replies to his questions which he stated here so fluently. [Interjections.]

It is correct that the Eureka diamond was kept at Parliament for years, but as a result of its intrinsic value and security arrangements I have been informed that it was really not possible to exhibit the diamond here for people to come and have a look at. There were negotiations with the De Beers company, and the Eureka diamond is now being exhibited in the museum in Kimberley.

The undertaking was given that they would make a replica of the Eureka diamond and that they would donate it, together with a display cabinet, to Parliament so that it could be permanently displayed here. The original Eureka diamond remains the property of Parliament; it is only in Kimberley for the purpose of exhibition. I think this is an excellent arrangement, and I thank the hon member for having raised the matter, for now we all know what the situation is. We did not know this before and someone came across to whisper in my ear what the real situation was. It is a very interesting point which the hon member raised.

I want to thank the hon member for Stilfontein for a very interesting speech. I also thank him for emphasising that this Bill has specific objectives in regard to the elimination of malpractices. In the past these malpractices were identified by experts in the diamond world, examined and defined in the form of an Act. Thank you very much for that contribution.

The hon member also referred to the jewellery industry. I think I have reacted to that, and I am in full agreement with the hon member.

†The hon member for Mooi River made a very “mooi” speech. He reacted very satisfactorily to the points made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central with whom he did not agree. I thank him for reacting to the points made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central especially insofar as CDM’s objections in the document are concerned.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central was kind enough to give me a copy of the document and I have had a brief look through it. I must agree with the hon member that most of the points raised by CDM have been accommodated in the Bill before the House. I therefore do not know why the hon member made the point that CDM objected, but I thank him for bringing this document to my notice.

The hon member also said that we should look at the beneficiation of our jewellery industry. This was also mentioned by other hon members. I fully agree with him, and I thank him for supporting that concept.

He also highlighted the importance of diamonds as a foreign exchange earner. He added that this aspect of the diamond trade could bring stability to the industry in South Africa. I agree with him and thank him for making those points.

*I now want to refer to the speech by the hon member for Sasolburg. Really, Sir! First of all, let me say this: I do not allow myself to be taken in tow by anyone, neither by the hon member for Boksburg nor the hon member for Sasolburg. I am therefore going to ignore that remark of his. I think I have enough knowledge of this subject not to allow myself to be taken in tow, but in my speech I demonstrated very clearly to the hon member how wrong he was.

The hon member made a statement on the policy of his party here, on congresses of the year, on how the problems of the diamond industry in the past did not receive proper attention from the State, and on other malpractices. Good heavens! It seems to me the hon member really did not read the Bill.

I am saying this with utter conviction, because every point the hon member made in speech, is addressed in the Bill—every single point! The Bill was in fact drawn up to address the problems which were identified during the HNP congresses and which were now presented to us here by the hon member.

A very good example of this is clause 65. The hon member said we should not rely solely on the State Valuator, half of whose salary is paid by CDM and half by the State. We should also have an independent valuation system to make certain that the value of the packets of diamonds that are exported, is correct. The hon member must read clause 65! It says that we can even make regulations in this regard. He says glibly, for outside consumption, that he will not receive a reply from the hon the Minister on the regulations.

The hon member did not take the trouble to study the Bill properly. If he had done that, he would have found an answer to each one of his arguments.

I am certain that what I am now saying cannot be refuted. The hon member did not write that speech; he received it from elsewhere. I do not mind, however, because I also make such speeches, but at least I make certain that the facts in the speech correspond with those in the Bill. I now want to put a friendly request to the hon member. He must go and read the Hansard of the hon member for Koedoespoort, for even in that speech he will find the answers to all his problems. [Interjections.]

The hon member said we should delete clause 70, and I am astonished that the word “Draconian” did not occur in his description of the clause. If my wife and I want to go overseas, she may not, according to the hon member even wear her diamond ring on her finger. Good grief! I can assure this House that no hon member’s wife, who accompanied him on an overseas tour, ever had to make a statement about her diamond ring. The hon member then came forward with sob stories about married couples on honeymoon, and how the poor little bride … Good heavens! Are we really incapable of confining ourselves to the facts and the contents of a Bill without casting suspicion on it with such nonsense and such emotional arguments? I really cannot accept it. We must not play that kind of political game.

He then said that he did not support the legislation. What he is actually telling this House, is that he does not support the findings which offer a solution to the findings of his congress. That is precisely what he said today in this House and I think Sasolburg should take cognisance of this. [Interjections.] They made their findings and I agree with them. I have no fault to find with those findings. They are 100% on target and correct, and this Bill addresses each one of them. Now the hon member tells this House, however, that he does not support this Bill because the Bill does not address their problems. Good heavens, Sir, I really think we should try to be more positive than that.

What was more the hon member concluded by creating the impression that the De Beers is the only diamond producer in South Africa. Surely that is not true. The State is also a major diamond producer. There are also many big private diamond producers. [Interjections.] Yes, De Beers is not the only diamond producers. That is why we have a diamond producers’ association, in which the big producers convene to look after the industry in South Africa. Now, there is one statement I want to make. Whether the hon member likes De Beers or not, the work that De Beers have done in stabilising the diamond industry not only in South Africa but all over the world is enough to fill several volumes. As regards the stabilisation of the diamond industry, the De Beers Company and the Diamond Trading Corporation and Association in London has made a tremendous contribution. One should not merely be critical because one does not like an organisation. One must first acquaint oneself with the facts.

With that, then, I sincerely thank the hon members who supported this Bill.

Question agreed to (Herstigte Nasionale Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Precious Stones Act, 1964, makes provision for the regulation and control of prospecting for, exploitation of and trade in precious stones and matters incidental thereto.

Due to the introduction of the Diamonds Bill—the one we have just disposed of—during the present session, whereby the control in respect of the trade in polished and unpolished diamonds as well as certain other provisions at present regulated by the Precious Stones Act were transferred to the Diamond Board which was established in terms of that legislation, it has become necessary to effect certain amendments to this Act. In this regard I refer to Sections 1, 28, 90 and 117 that are being amended and several sections that are being repealed.

Over the years the SA Police have done outstanding work with regard to the combating of illicit diamond buying. However we are of the opinion that the statutory role that the Police perform in this regard does not fit in with the traditional activities of a police force, and in view of the establishment of the Diamond Board, to which I have already referred and which will in future take over the administration of some of the relevant provisions, it has become necessary to amend the Act to provide for the transfer of certain powers to the Commissioner of Mines and the proposed Diamond Board. However the SA Police will still have a role to play and in these provisions the chief of the diamond branch is now being replaced by the Commissioner of the SA Police.

At present it is not possible to transfer prospecting leases for precious stones, whereas it is indeed possible to transfer similar rights granted in terms of the mineral laws. Section 4 of the Act is now being amended to make this possible.

†The restrictions on the granting of diggers’ certificates to certain population groups is abolished so that applications from members of all population groups, if they conform to certain requirements, will in future be considered on an equal footing for the issuing of diggers’ certificates.

*The present statutory position is that the holder of a diggers’ certificate for digging purposes is only entitled to peg six claims on any proclaimed alluvial digging. Due to improved methods of exploitation, claims on alluvial diggings are mined more rapidly and efficiently. The demand for claims per individual is therefore greater than the number of claims which may at present be obtained in terms of the Act by way of pegging and transfer. It is therefore being proposed that the relevant provisions be amended to permit individual diggers to obtain more claims.

I might just explain that diggers are not permitted to peg an unlimited number of claims since proclaimed diamondiferous ground is very limited and wealthy diggers might peg a large number of claims with the result that other, less wealthy, diggers will not have land to peg and exploit.

†As the Act does not at present provide for the delegation of his powers and the assignment of his functions or duties by the Mining Commissioner where it is appropriate for practical reasons, these deficiencies are now eliminated. All the other amendments are either of a consequential nature or bring the relevant provisions into conformity with existing legislation.

*In conclusion I wish to point out to hon members that the Precious Stones Act of 1964 has been amended several times since its inception. It is the intention in the near future to revise the Precious Stones Act entirely in order to adapt it to today’s circumstances and to delete or amend obsolete concepts.

Mr Speaker, to some extent this Bill is connected with the one we have just discussed and which we supported, and we will be supporting this one as well.

There are three positive features in this Bill which we would like to welcome. The first and most important one, from our point of view, being the making available of permits to potential diggers from all race groups. This is an important step forward and will create job opportunities and minor entrepreneurial opportunities for a wider spectrum of South Africans. We must note in passing the irony that although we have lifted the restrictions on diggers as such, one still bumps up against other apartheid laws in respect of the control of land, and two of the amendments that have been proposed have become necessary because of group areas and own affairs legislation. That is an irony, but to the extent that this Bill does lift racial restrictions on certain categories of work-seekers, we welcome it.

Secondly, on the basis of the principles of free enterprise, we welcome the fact that this Bill will now permit the transferability of prospecting leases. It is an oddity that this has not been provided for in the past, but we welcome the fact that the capital value of prospecting leases is now recognised and that these can now be transferred.

Thirdly, we accept that modern technology and retrieval methods have improved. This Bill recognises that development and we fully support the concept of an individual being able to hold 12 claims instead of six. That is a positive development in that it recognises reality. However, the original principle of not allowing an individual to control too much prospecting land at the expense of other individuals still has merit in our view.

Lastly, we welcome the hon the Minister’s announcement that a consolidated Bill will be introduced at some future stage. The legislation is becoming a little untidy and we therefore welcome that assurance. Finally, I should like to support the hon the Minister’s appeal as well as his intention to lend the Government’s and the department’s weight to the concept of building up South Africa as a mecca for jewellery of various kinds.

The area of precious stones is possibly an easier one to develop on a widespread basis for the purpose of casual tourism than gemstones. In the case of diamonds and the more expensive gemstones, it is more difficult to promote these on a widespread, popular basis. We shall therefore support moves the department may make in this direction. It would be a positive step as far as job creation is concerned and from the point of view of tourism. It will also be a positive step as far as South Africa’s prestige is concerned. For all these reasons, we shall support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member for Constantia for supporting this Bill. We on this side of the House will also be supporting it and basically, as the hon member said, it is consequential to the Bill which has just been passed.

The most important point to note, is that it is in line with the stated Government policy of removing all racial connotations from legislation. This is precisely what it is doing. I shall refer to that a little later.

It also brings into line various discrepancies between Acts such as the rights under the Mines and Works Act and other rights such as rights of transfer leases, subject to the hon the Minister’s consent. Furthermore, with modern equipment and technology, the old provision of allowing only six claims per digger is outdated and unrealistic. The new provision allows for a further six claims, bringing the total up to 12.

It is interesting to note that in the old Act, Act No 44 of 1927, a claim was 45 feet by 45 feet. We have now simply divided that by three and made it 15 metres by 15 metres. I wonder whether there is a historical context to the size of a claim or whether it is for some unknown reason, because one may well wonder, in view of the fact that the number of claims that may be held has been increased, whether the size of the claim should not be increased. I mention that point merely in passing.

The original Act was only amended in 1964 and again in 1982, and one wonders whether the amendments are sufficient for the day. I am glad to see—as the hon member for Constantia has mentioned—that the hon the Minister is going to update the legislation at some future stage. Speaking of the original Act, it has some very interesting aspects which I believe deserve a certain amount of attention. It just goes to show that the wheel has turned almost full circle. The original Act, Act 44 of 1927, was the first Act to cover the whole of the Republic and was assented to on 12 November 1927. Under section 52 which pertains to licence moneys, the following appears:

Today, in the present legislation, the cost of a claim licence is only R1. In other words, in 59 years the cost of a claim licence has only really been increased by some 50 cents to the present value of R1.

Another interesting fact emerges in section 24 of the original Act which pertains to special conditions applicable to Native locations. In this regard, I should just like to refer to what it was like in those days. The Act states the following:

It then goes on to describe the retention of rights in respect of the grazing of stock, the protection of dwellings and water supply etc. Under subsection (4)(a) the following is stated:

This is a good one—

What is interesting—and why I say that the wheel has turned almost full circle—is the situation in respect of land for residence of a claim holder and his family. In section 61 no reference whatsoever is made to colour. In 1964 it was amended, and we are now amending it again. I am thus just making the point that it goes to show that the Government is keeping its word, and is removing colour connotations from as much legislation as possible.

I understand from the hon member for Koedoespoort that the CP will be opposing the legislation because it contains the removal of references to persons of colour.

I see you are attacking us in advance!

Yes, that is right! That was why I asked the hon member about this earlier on, and he confirmed it! [Interjections.]

It is interesting that they are going to oppose this legislation because of the colour connotation in it. I believe that is a sad thing because it is indicative of the troubled times in which we live. It also underscores the fact that racialism is alive and well in certain right-wing quarters. We on this side of the House are talking of reconciliation and of the sharing of political responsibility.

And integration.

Unfortunately, the CP is bedevilling the situation by turning a blind eye to the right-wing thuggery. The fact that they do not condemn this violence leads one to assume that they condone it. We may even say they appear to welcome the breaking up of meetings as a means to an end. [Interjections.] If the CP thinks violence can be harnessed to achieve responsible political ends, they are mistaken. It has been tried before, and has failed miserably.

One would also think that if the CP was so sure of its case, it would welcome the democratic process of allowing the other side to put its case without interruption. However, that is not the position. They have resorted to violence to prevent the other point of view from being heard.

Order! We have been sailing on very calm waters the whole afternoon. I would not like the hon member for South Coast to interfere with that. [Interjections.] Let us stick to the question before the House. The hon member for South Coast may continue.

I take your point, Sir.

Tell us about the precious stones on the South Coast!

There are many precious stones on the South Coast. That is why the CP is working so hard down there. However, I want to tell the hon member for Brakpan that they are not going to find the precious stone of a seat there for which they are hoping! I can tell him that right now.

Sir, since you have asked me to call it a day, I should like to finish off by saying that the amendment before us is going to be amended again in the near future. I firmly believe that when it is considered again, even more improvements will be made and that the whole matter will be approached from a new point of view because when one looks at the size of the claims—this is something I have mentioned before—and one looks at the modern technology which is being used today in alluvial and other diggings, and at the concept of the modern technology of mining, I think that the hon the Minister and the department may well consider whether there is any possibility of increasing the size of the claim or whether there are particular reasons for keeping the claim the same size.

With those few words, we support the Bill from this side of the House.

Mr Speaker, fortunately, you called the hon member for South Coast to order, otherwise the devil would undoubtedly have been let loose in the House!

You are the devil! [Interjections.]

Up to now it has already been too peaceful and calm for my liking today.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member for Primrose to say to the hon member for Koedoespoort that he is the devil. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think that is very nice! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, because the hon member for Koedoespoort said that he was going to let the devil loose, I thought he was going to let himself loose! Seeing that he did not do so, I shall withdraw that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Koedoespoort may proceed.

It was almost third time lucky for the hon the Minister but now I must unfortunately disappoint him. This afternoon the CP is not going to give him plain sailing with regard to this Bill. I was starting to get worried, because one of the former leaders of the old National Party once said that one must be careful, because if the opposition praises you too much, there is something wrong with you!

Before we adjourn this afternoon, I must consequently first restore my image. Since this morning I have been placed on a pedestal and praised quite a bit, and I assume that after this the hon the Minister will get up and disparage all his appreciation until there is nothing left of me. But my image will then be restored.

Obviously the CP will not support this Bill. Of course we are not dissatisfied with all the amendments contained in the Bill, but let me say at once that this is, in fact, our problem with the new system. When a lot of amendments like these are effected by a Bill, there are sometimes a large number of amendments which we have no trouble supporting.

For example we have no fault to find with clause 2 of the Bill which provides that the returns from diamonds found in the Coloured areas must go to the Coloureds. That is quite correct. We also have no problems with the restrictions inserted by clause 3, such as 100 metres instead of the existing 95 metres. Nor do we have any problems with clause 4 which concerns the transfer of prospecting leases. We do not have problems either with clause 5 which provides that the mining commissioner is taking over certain functions from the SA Police. Nor do we have problems with clauses …

You need not read all of them.

The hon member for Boksburg must not provoke me now, because I am on the point of letting loose that little devil if he continues to provoke me. [Interjections.]

Nor do we have any fault to find with clauses 13 and 14 regarding the increase in the number of claims per person or with clause 15 regarding the distance of claims from roads. I can carry on like this.

But we do have problems with the fact that the colour connotation—the racial connotation, as the hon member for South Coast said—in clauses 7, 9, 10, 17 and 18 …

Can the hon member please repeat the last clauses.

They are clauses 7, 9, 10, 17 and 18.

This concerns what the chairman of the standing committee said, namely that these statutory amendments make the Act colourless. That is our problem. We cannot accept that. We cannot accept racial connotation being removed from all laws under the cloak of discrimination. We stand by the standpoint that racial differences exist, and that we must differentiate with regard to the population of the Republic of South Africa.

I do not want to turn this into a long political debate.

I am merely stating our standpoint clearly that for those reasons we can unfortunately not support the Bill. I shall content myself with this.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in supporting the Bill. The hon member for Koedoespoort said that he would let the devil loose, but he is a tame little devil. Hon members know that the Devil is proverbially afraid of holy water. Well, then the hon member for Koedoespoort is probably far more afraid of a Zulu than he is of holy water. [Interjections.]

That hon member is actually a very silent member of our standing committee. This afternoon he made a few good speeches in the House, and I am referring to the first two on the Bills. Thus far in the standing committee he has not made much of a contribution, except to give his support for something on occasion.

The hon member spoke about the legislation and said he was opposed to it. I just want to draw the attention of hon members briefly to what it deals with. It deals with the amendment of the Precious Stones Act, which deals mainly with prospecting, mining for and dealing in precious stones. It deals mainly with alluvial diggings.

With reference to precious stones a definition is given in the principal Act which reads:

The total value of the diamonds produced in the Republic at present is approximately R1 billion, whereas the production value of all other precious stones totals approximately R1 million per year. Consequently we speak of diamonds as a precious stone the value of which is one thousand times greater than that of all the other precious stones combined. Consequently this means that the measure under discussion deals mainly with the mining of diamonds seen from the value point of view, and probably also—and this concerns the greater part of the legislation— the State alluvial diggings.

In accordance with the previous measure, as the hon the Minister indeed indicated, the South African Diamond Board is now being established, and it is also provided that in future the Police will no longer perform certain functions. A further provision in this measures states that all population groups will be treated equally in future. In the past a Black man or an Indian could not be a digger. He could not obtain a digger’s certificate. That provision is now being removed. In the past only a White or a Coloured could get a digger’s certificate.

Now I just want to explain to hon members what kind of requirements are set when a digger’s certificate is issued to a person. That person must be of good character. This is provided in clause 7 of the measure under discussion. He must also be a fit and proper person to be placed in possession of such a certificate. Not all people simply acquire digger’s certificates.

When a person wants to live at a State digging he must—in terms of clause 9—be of good character, and genuinely interested in working. It must also be clearly apparent to the mining commissioner that the relevant man must reside on the digging. Consequently the characters of persons working at a State digging are taken into consideration. Not just anyone can simply go and reside or work there.

In clause 12 it is provided that any person convicted of illicit dealing in diamonds may not at any time within a period of 15 years after the date of such conviction visit any diggings. Consequently it is clear that a digger’s certificate or a residence permit are not simply issued to anyone.

We on this side of the House believe that if those provisions apply, the restriction with regard to race or colour is totally unnecessary. We cannot understand why a Black man or an Indian who would like to be a digger cannot be allowed to become one.

The hon member for Koedoespoort expressed himself against the removal from the legislation of the reference to Black people and Indians, as well as to Coloureds, as far as the matter of acquiring residence at a State digging is concerned. In passing I just want to mention, Sir, that neither the hon members of the CP nor the hon members of the PFP were interested last year in participating in the tour to the diggings, when we paid them a visit as a standing committee.

But when we consider what a digging actually is, it appears that it is an orderly community, where there are no problems with regard to inter-group relations. Usually it is a temporary community—not a permanent settlement, like an irrigation scheme. It is a temporary community which is settled there while the digging is in progress. As soon as the diamonds in a specific area are exhausted, that community shifts to another digging area. Probably no new diggings will be established in our country either.

As I have already said, strict provisions apply with regard to persons who may reside or work there. In any case the provisions of the Group Areas Act also apply to diggings as regards residence. The fact that the reference to Blacks, Coloureds, Indians or Whites is being removed from certain provisions, certainly does not mean that other measures which are on the Statute Book will not be applicable to diggings. I feel it is also wrong to debate the provisions of the Group Areas Act when legislation on precious stones is being discussed here in the House.

We on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting the Bill under discussion.

Mr Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Pretoria East. He speaks with considerable knowledge, and I must say I found his speech very interesting and informative.

As the hon member for South Coast indicated, the contents of this Bill are really consequential amendments in order to incorporate certain aspects of the Diamonds Bill which has just been passed. We welcome the initiatives in this Bill for the removal of race discrimination in the granting of prospecting leases. We also see it as logical that certain minor duties which have hitherto been carried out by the SA Police are now being transferred to the control of the mining commissioner. This is understandable because it is not the duty of the Police to carry out certain administrative and supervisory functions. Clause 9(e) is significant because it empowers the mining commissioner to grant written permission for a person to occupy and reside on alluvial diggings for a period of three months, subject to consultation with the SA Police. We also very much welcome the fact that a person can obtain approval from the mining commissioner to hold 12 claims. We also accept the fact that the number of claims that can be transferred has now been increased to 24. The authority given to the mining commissioner to delegate certain powers subject to the approval of the Director-General of Mineral and Energy Affairs is also a practical step, and one appreciates that any decisions taken by a designee can be overridden by the mining commissioner.

Finally, in supporting this Bill I want to raise just one point. Environmental factors tend to be overlooked when digging leases are issued and I would strongly suggest that more attention should be given to this particular factor.

We have very much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we have no objection to most of the amendments, excepting those in which the matter of colour is at issue and in which references to colour are being removed. But I shall not elaborate further on this, because I feel that the hon member for Koedoespoort has already stated the standpoint which we in essence can endorse. I just want to emphasise very clearly that we do not agree with the tenor of the legislation in its entirety, but that is not at issue now and we reserve the right to state our standpoint on this later on.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Constantia. Unfortunately he cannot be here this afternoon and he has asked to be excused. I want to thank him for supporting the Bill. He said that this Bill could lead to the creation of many job opportunities but I do not think that is true. I do not think that many job opportunities can flow from the acceptance of this Bill because its provisions are mainly consequential.

I also want to thank the hon member for South Coast for supporting this Bill. He asked why the claim zones measure only 15 metres by 15 metres. I have been informed that the reason for this is mainly historic. Perhaps the reason can be found in the fact that the claims were on proclaimed ground where the availability of diamonds had already been established. It is therefore not for prospecting purposes but for mining and digging purposes as diamonds will definitely be found. It is therefore not necessary to allocate large areas for prospecting. It is interesting to note that the size of a gold claim is 400 feet by 150 feet.

*I thank the hon member for Koedoespoort because he did at least listen to my advice. I said a good Minister should preach more about love than about sin. The hon member quoted long passages from the clauses which he supported, and only a brief reference to what he did not support—that is to say, the sins. I am pleased that it has been recorded in Hansard that the CP supports some of the clauses, but for a while I want to discuss with the hon member those he did not support.

The fact that the hon member opposes clauses 17, 18 and 19, therefore means that he does not support the status quo. It was always the case that any race group could obtain permission to live on the diggings, and the principal Act provided that various bodies had to consider and issue the residential permits. The only difference now is that these different functions are being placed under the jurisdiction of one man, namely the mining commissioner. Consequently nothing has changed in principle; that is why I cannot quite understand why the hon member does not support these clauses.

A change in principle has come about. It is now being done in a unitary state, with one …

That is not true. The hon member is making an inference which is totally incorrect now. In view of his party’s policy, however, I can understand that the hon member does not support clause 7, but I do want to ask him to consider certain information.

Proclaimed land on which the presence of diamonds has been proven, is not increasing. To tell the truth, virtually all of it has been taken up by claims. According to my information there were 12 to 15 applications during the past two years in the Klerksdorp area. That land is not increasing. What is the difference? Not everyone is going to receive a prospecting licence. Everyone can in fact receive a digger’s licence, but to be able to dig one has to go through the whole rigmarole. One has to obtain the necessary clearance from the Police, one must have the necessary capital, etc. He must therefore go through the whole rigmarole for land which is not increasing, and which is virtually completely occupied. That is partly my reply, too, to the hon member for Constantia who imagines that many job opportunities are now going to be created there. That is not true.

As far as unproclaimed land is concerned, a person who wants to search for diamonds, must first obtain prospecting rights. Before he can obtain prospecting rights, however, he must first ask the owner of the mineral rights for permission to make use of some of that person’s mineral rights. Once he has done so, he must reach an agreement with the owner of the land in order to go prospecting there. Only then can he apply for a licence to go prospecting on unproclaimed land. I should like the hon member to cogitate these facts for a while. Perhaps he will then preach on love only, and omit that little sin as well.

No, he remains unconvertible.

I want to thank the hon member for Mooi River for his speech, and especially for his reference to the environmental position. That is being attended to very, very seriously at this stage. I fully agree that there were no regulations before 1982 as far as rehabilitation was concerned. Since 1982 there has been a regulation, and we are trying to see whether we cannot restore the environmental situation by some means or other. I want to thank the hon member for that remark.

*At least the hon member for Sasolburg was consistent. I understand now that he was unable to support the previous Bill, because he was unable to support this one. There is only one contradiction, however, in what the hon member said. He said, just like the hon member for Koedoespoort, he supported certain clauses, but in his concluding remarks he then said that he was opposed in principle to the entire measure. His argument is therefore a little contradictory, and I cannot thank him for supporting those clauses, for which I thanked the hon member for Koedoespoort.

I want to make one final remark with reference to hon members who expressed the hope that a consolidated Bill would eventuate. I said during my Second Reading speech, and I want to repeat it for consideration by the hon members for Sasolburg and Koedoespoort, that if we do not pass this Bill, it means that we are undoing many of the things that were accepted in the previous Bill. In the amendment Bill we have just passed, we deleted certain sections in this principal Act. In this amendment Bill sections are being deleted which are contained in the principal Act, and which were amended by the legislation we have just passed. It is therefore a dual set of measures, and the one is consequential to the other. What is important in fact is that in the amending Bill we have already passed we deleted a total of five Acts. The result is that whereas the diamond trade was in the past controlled by six laws, there will now be only one consolidated law.

Apart from this fact, I want to point out that we are deleting more or less 33 sections in various other Acts. It would be interesting to have this placed on record in Hansard, because the two amendment Bills are related. We are deleting approximately 33 sections contained in the following Acts: The Finance Act, the Revenue Laws Amendment Act, the General Law Amendment Act, as well as sections in the Precious Stones Act, which we are now discussing. We are therefore cancelling a whole series of sections in a diversity of acts, so as to have a consolidated act. As a result we must also effect amendments to the Precious Stones Act in order to comply with the requirements of the Amendment Bill we have already passed.

The members of the department and the law advisers have really worked very hard, and I want to thank them for it. The members of the standing committee had to consider these two amending Bills on short notice. Because we had to work so hard on these two amending Bills, we were not able to make them available to members of the standing committee long before the time, so that they would be able to study them intensively. We were only able to utilise the stipulated time. I should like to thank members of the standing committee very sincerely for having dealt so thoroughly with these amending Bills on short notice. I am convinced that with these amending Bills we are laying the foundation for placing the diamond industry on a sound footing in future.

There is just one more point I want to make, it is something to which the hon member for Constantia referred, and with that I wish to conclude. The hon member for Constantia referred to the jewellery industry. I mentioned this in my previous speech, but there is one thing we should have no doubt about, and that is that the jewellery industry in South Africa, whatever its nature, is not in the hands of the Government, and the Government has no control over it. On the part of the State I can assure hon members that we shall join hands with the private sector in an attempt to support them or to develop incentives for them so that they can in turn develop the jewellery industry. We shall do everything in our power to cause the jewellery industry to function as smoothly as possible, but we cannot guarantee that this will happen because the private sector will have to take the initiative. We are prepared to support them as far as practicable.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party and Herstigte Nasionale Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, on a Friday afternoon this is perhaps an appropriate time to move: