I move—

Mr. Speaker, on various occasions last year this House discussed the question of raising minimum wages. Hon. members opposite initiated those discussions particularly after the riots at Langa and Sharpeville. They said that low wages was one of the most important reasons for those riots. Hon. members tried in different ways to place the responsibility for those low wages on the shoulders of the Government. Even outside this House a cry for higher wages was raised. Before and during the riots non-White concerns spoke about a minimum wage of R2 per day. We also had the so-called “Association for the Improvement of Wages and Productivity of Bantu Workers ”. This association had done good work and I should like to pay tribute to what they have done, but I want to point out at once that to-day they are singing their tune in a lower key than last year. I notice that they are asking for a minimum wage of R30 per month in towns and cities with more than 7,000 inhabitants, and they exclude agriculture and mining. In some cases a wage of R30 per month has already been exceeded. Some industries already pay their workers more than R30 per month, thanks to the good work done by the Wage Board. Well, I expect this plea for higher wages and possibly for a minimum wage to be repeated during this Session and because of that I think we should have a discussion on this subject so that we from this side of the House may have an opportunity of stating our side of the question. In the meantime the hon. the Prime Minister made a statement, as well as the hon. the Minister of Labour, towards the end of last year, in which he informed the country what the Government’s policy was in respect of an increase in minimum wages. It appeared from that statement that the Government was very sympathetically inclined towards the Bantu worker and wanted to help to raise their standard of living. In the statement of the Minister of Labour, which followed that of the Prime Minister’s, he said the following—

That in brief, Sir, is the policy of the Government as enunciated in this statement. As I have said, I thought it would be just as well that we discussed this matter in this House because it may have a soothing effect on the mind of the Bantu, more especially if we can convince him that the Government is sympathetically inclined towards this question of raising his standard of living and increasing his wages and if we can emphasize and convey to the public what has already been done in order to help the lowly paid Bantu worker. At the same time we have to point out how dangerous and how untenable the position will become if the propaganda which some people make in South Africa for a so-called national minimum wage of R2 per day or more were to become reality.

The maintenance of our industrial development in this country at a consistent level depends on various factors and I want to mention two of the most important ones. The one is increasing the wages of the lower income groups so that their purchasing power may be increased and so that they will create a bigger internal market. The other factor is our export market. The Government is striving to obtain bigger export markets for our goods. These two factors are, however, dependent on one another and have a reciprocal effect on one another. If wages were suddenly to be increased out of all proportion it may increase the production costs of our industries to such an extent that we may be pushed out of some of our export markets. In that case it may have the opposite effect from the one envisaged. Those people who plead for a national minimum wage emphasize in particular the question of extending our markets but it may have the opposite effect if the wages were raised too rapidly, and that may lead to a shrinkage in our economy, in a lowering of the standard of living of the nation and to unemployment. That is why I say that an increase in wages should be in proportion to the increase in productivity, so that our products can compete on external markets. I accept, however, that an increase in wages is an important element in the development and expansion of our industries and I should first of all like to deal with the possibility of laying down a national minimum wage level. I believe, however, that everybody who has considered this matter seriously will agree with me that it is impracticable to lay down such a national minimum wage and that it will not be possible to carry it out in South Africa.

In the first place, such a national minimum wage should be worth while. It cannot be fixed at a level where it will not have any effect because then it will not mean anything. It should be a wage which will raise the income and standard of living of the workers, otherwise it will mean nothing. That is why I say it is important that we know what such a national minimum wage should be, otherwise it may have an adverse effect on the promotion of the standard of living of those workers, it may even cause a delay in that promotion because the employers will adhere to the fixed minimum wage.

I think any sane person will admit that it is impossible to have a national minimum wage scale for the whole country. Standards of living and consequently wage demands differ in our country geographically. The standard of living in the highly industrialized areas, in our big cities, where they have better housing facilities, where longer distances have to be travelled, and where the cultural possibilities are greater, is higher for example than in the bigger towns, and in the bigger towns again it is higher than in the smaller towns and on the farms. So it will not be such an easy matter to fix a minimum wage level. You first have to determine in respect of which area you want to fix such a minimum wage. Furthermore, the labour market differs in our country. In Natal we have a concentration of Asiatics. There is a concentration of Coloureds in the Western Province, whereas in the rest of the country there is a concentration of Bantu workers, particularly in the cities. These people have different standards of living and that has to be taken into account in determining what the minimum wage should be.

There are also practical difficulties, for example, in some industries and in many areas wages are augmented in the form of free housing, food and clothing, something which must also be considered in determining a minimum wage. I have already said that the Association for the Improvement of Wages and Productivity accepts this position and that is why they only propose a minimum wage in respect of certain areas. As I have already said they propose a minimum wage of R30 in the cities and towns with more than 7,000 inhabitants and they exclude from that the mining industry and agriculture. What will be the result of the proposal by this Association? In the first instance, the effect will be that there will be a greater influx of Bantu workers to the cities than to-day; that will be an additional attraction. If you only increase wages in the big cities it will mean that you will attract greater numbers of Bantu to those big cities and you will aggravate and complicate the problem there. In addition, it will be a drain on farm labour and the labour working in platteland industries, with the result that those people will eventually also be forced to increase their wages.

I want to mention further objections to a national minimum wage. It must be remembered that the wage structure of every industry or every trade is founded on the lowest wage, that is to say the wage of the unskilled labourer. If a national minimum wage scale were laid down it will mean a change in the entire wage structure of the three sectors of our economy in this country. If the minimum wage is increased those groups immediately above that level will gradually make demands for wage increases for their own groups. They will try to maintain the difference which existed before the minimum wage was laid down. In other words, in considering the effects a minimum wage will have on our economy you must consider not only what expenditure such a minimum wage will mean to the country from the economic point of view but you must also consider the resultant and consequential wage increases that will follow. There are approximately 1,000,000 unskilled workers in our country to-day. If a national minimum wage meant an increase of at least R20 per month per worker, each worker will, over a period of a year, have an additional income of R240, that is to say, the wage bill of the country will immediately increase by R240,000,000 per annum and if this increase led to an upward trend in the wage structure of the whole country or a large portion of the country, the expenditure will assume proportions which are difficult to determine in advance, but which will probably be once or twice as much as the basic increase of R240,000,000. I say that South Africa will not be able to adapt itself to this position without something happening. Instead of having the industrial peace which we have had during the past few years, the demands that will be made for eventual and resultant increases in the wage structure will assume greater proportions than we realize and it can easily lead to great industrial unrest in the country instead of creating the envisaged ideal of industrial peace. Let me put it this way. In 1958-9 our national net income had increased by R82,000,000. In other words, the proposed increase in wages, say an increase of R20 per month, will mean that the entire increase in our national net income will be consumed in a particular year so that no other sector of the economy will make any progress. It will consume the growth which has taken place in the other sectors of our economy. It will have no beneficial effect on the other factors in our economic development, such as capital for example, and in that way it will hamper the growth of all the other sectors of our economy for that year and perhaps the succeeding few years. It may have the effect that less capital will come to the country. It does not help to concentrate on one side of the picture and to say that by increasing the minimum wages you will stimulate consumption. If the productivity of labour does not increase more or less in proportion to the running costs in the country, it will have various adverse effects on our economy. In the first place, it will lead to an increase in prices which may possibly bring about an inflationary tendency in our economy and that in turn will mean that the benefits which the worker would have derived from this wage increase will be completely neutralized and it may even mean that the standard of living of that section of the population which did not receive a wage increase will drop because that section will have to pay increased prices for their requirements. There is also the fact that the profits of the various branches of industry will decrease and that it will discourage capital investment in and capital influx to South Africa. It may also affect another very important factor in our economic development, namely export. The Government wants to stimulate export in this country and is doing its best to do so by sending missions overseas to expand those markets, but if our production costs were to rise in South Africa, it would mean that it would be impossible for us to compete on overseas markets.

Mr. Speaker, I have shown that the Association for the Advancement of Bantu Wages and Productivity has excluded two branches of industry from their proposal, namely mining and agriculture. If the mining industry were included and if the existing price of gold remained constant where it is, it will simply mean that the production costs of the mines will increase to such an extent that many more mines will have to close down, something which will affect the workers adversely; but also in the case of agriculture, which is one of the greatest exporters to the world market, the position is that if such a minimum wage were laid down it may have a very bad effect on our agriculture. Furthermore, such an increase in production costs would discourage the establishment of new industries and factories. In the past industries were attracted to South Africa mainly by our cheap labour, and that attraction will disappear and it will jeopardize the continued existence of existing factories and industries which are producing on a small margin of profit. Everybody knows that there is a given time in the economic life of a country when certain branches of industry experience difficult times and when others flourish. They do not all flourish at the same level or at the same time, and it will hit those branches of industry which are experiencing difficulty, exceptionally hard. For example, I want to show that recently the Wage Board received instructions to recommend a wage determination in respect of the basket-manufacturing industry. I am informed that the Wage Board did not see its way clear to recommend to the Minister that there should be a wage increase in that particular industry because at that particular time the basket-manufacturing industry found itself in difficulty. Had the board recommended the current minimum wage for the basket-manufacturing industry in South Africa the entire basket-manufacturing industry would have been faced with bankruptcy and the recommended wage increase would have forced a great number of workers out of the labour market. That is why I say that when you consider this matter you have to be practical and consider all the various factors and results that may flow from it.

Let me reply to a few other practical questions. The first question is this: On what basis should a minimum wage be calculated? Should it be calculated on the basis of the ability of the industry to pay, which is really the basis on which the Wage Board determines its wage determinations to-day? If that were the basis those factories which operate on the lowest margin of profit will really be the factories which will determine the minimum wage and in that case I believe that the minimum wage will be no higher than that proposed by the Association to which I referred a moment ago, namely R30 per month. We can expect the effect to be that those factories which produce at a low profit margin to be pushed out of production. Another question which I want to ask is this: Must such a minimum wage be considered in terms of the needs of an unskilled worker in order to make a reasonable living? Many people, for example the Institute of Race Relations, advocate a wage which, according to them, should be sufficient to meet the needs of the workers. They talk about R46 per month. Such a determination is very arbitrary. You do not really know whether a basis can be found. Let me give this example: Are you going to take as basis the needs of an unmarried Bantu worker, or the needs of a Bantu worker with a family of one child or the needs of a Bantu worker with a family of ten children? Where are you going to draw the line in order to determine what the requirements are of a family in order to make a living? Practical experience has taught us that one family can live on a certain income whereas another identical family cannot live on the same income. That is why we say that also for those reasons a minimum wage is impracticable. Another practical question is this: If the standard of living of the workers in the cities is taken into account, will such a minimum wage do justice to all workers? As I said a moment ago, such a minimum wage will drain the industries on the platteland and the farms of their labour. If, on the other hand, we took the minimum wage required on the platteland as basis, the workers in the cities will say that they cannot make a living on that wage and they will agitate for an increase in the minimum wage and overthrow that determination. There is another danger and it is this: Once you have fixed such a minimum wage it will be such a shock to the economy of the country that no Government—because it will have to be a Government determination—will dare to increase that minimum wage too often, and where our wage board and our industrial council system introduces a measure of elasticity in the increases, gradual and selective, it may put a stop to those increases because the employers will adhere to that minimum wage standard as laid down by the Government. I think it is quite clear that if, for example, we had a minimum wage in 1940 it would have been completely obsolete after the war in 1946; and if, for example, we had a minimum wage in 1950 it would have been obsolete in 1955 because of the rise in the cost of living and in the standard of living. That is why I say that if you lay down a national minimum wage no democratic Government will be able to do so and to increase it frequently.

Mr. Speaker, we have already crossed swords in this House over the principle of self-government in industry. Such a system where the Government can lay down a national minimum wage level is in conflict with the whole concept of self-government in industry. It can wreck the whole concept and it can wreck the whole industrial system in the country. If the Government were to force industries to pay a certain wage nothing will be left of collective bargaining and then you wreck the entire concept of self-government and you may ruin the industrial council system in South Africa. What is more, the idea of a minimum wage level is foreign to the capitalist system which South Africa practises. Therefore, it is foreign to the whole basis of our economy in this country.

My seconder will deal with the steps which the Government have already taken in order to increase the wages of the unskilled labourers or to have their wage increased and I do not wish to say much about that; I want to leave that field to him. But I do wish to point out that our wage laws provide that there should not be discrimination on the basis of race or colour. In other words when minimum wages are fixed it affects the Bantu worker in certain industries but it also affects the Asiatic and the Coloured person and the White person in other industries. The wage standards which those groups maintain are taken into consideration and it is hardly possible to fix such a minimum wage.

Then I just want to refer to the limited powers of the Minister to act. As far as the Wage Board is concerned the Minister may accept or reject a recommendation. He cannot prescribe to the Wage Board what it should recommend. In other words, the Minister’s power to increase wages on his own initiative is limited. One is grateful for the action which the Government and the Minister have taken within the confines of their limited power, in order to do what they could to raise the standard of living of the unskilled worker. I understand that it is the policy of the Minister of Labour to-day not to approve of any industrial council agreement if the minimum wage provided for in it does not conform with the minimum wage which the Wage Board considers as the current minimum wage at that specific time. In other words, if any industrial council agreement should provide for a minimum wage which is lower than the current minimum wage recommended by the Wage Board, the Minister does not approve of it. In this way the Minister ensures that the minimum wage is based on the scientific investigations conducted by the Wage Board from time to time in the various industries and that there is progress over a wide field throughout our economy. It must be clearly understood, however, that the primary responsibility of improving the lot of the unskilled worker in this country rests with the employers of that labour themselves. They are the people who have to decide of what value such labour is to them in rand and cents. There are two ways in particular in which the employers can contribute towards increasing the wages of the lowly paid workers without causing a rise in prices or without causing the profit margin to drop dangerously low. Firstly by improving their methods of management and by increasing productivity. On various occasions the Government and certain industrial leaders have appealed to employers to try to increase the productivity of their labour, and I think we should associate ourselves today in this debate with that appeal and ask employers to do everything in their power to make better use of their labour by improving their managerial methods. However, there is another way open to the employers and this is coupled with the increase in the productivity of the workers. In this respect little has been done so far through the joint efforts of employers. In the highly industrialized countries such as Britain and America particular attention has been given after the recent world war to this question of increasing the productivity of labour. Labour is expensive in those countries and that was why this question received attention. In England, for example, they have the British Productivity Council. During the years after the war this body and a similar body in America exchanged student groups to exchange views. In South Africa the National Development Foundation have already held a number of conferences but to my mind they have not produced anything sensational or tangible. That is why I feel that we too should establish a body similar to those in Britain and America, a body vÿhich will not merely seek the co-operation of employers in order to increase the productivity of the workers, but which will also seek the cooperation of the trade union organizations. The experience in England has been that no progress was made in regard to increasing productivity until they obtained the co-operation of the trade unions. At the outset they were sceptical and did not want to co-operate. It was only after they had obtained the co-operation of the trade unions that progress was made in Britain in this respect. The attempts made in Britain to tackle this problem merely from the angle of the employers failed and it only succeeded when they started with the workers in the factories themselves—the man and the woman who do the work on the floor of the factory. Only then did they succeed. That is why I say that this is not something that must be forced on to the workers from the top; it should rather come from the bottom, than be forced on to them from the top.

As I have said, my seconder will deal with what has already been achieved. However, I want to mention a few points. I wish to say that the action of the National Government to promote and to expand our economy and to have the wages of the Bantu increased, has contributed a great deal towards increasing the standard of living of the Bantu in South Africa. I have an article here which was written as a result of a study made by Prof. H. J. J. Reynders and Dr. M. van den Berg of the Pretoria University in which they support this contention. They give the following important figures in this article entitled “ The Impact of the Bantu on Consumer Markets and Purchasing Power ” which appeared in the journal of Volkskas. Finance and Trade Review of December 1960. They point out that in the year 1946-7 R278,000,000 of our national net income went to the Bantu: while in the year 1958-9 the huge amount of R916,000,000 of the national net income went to the Bantu in the shape of earnings, an increase of 229 per cent, while the Bantu population itself had not increased by 100 per cent. I also have a report of a speech by Mr. Lulofs, President of the Transvaal Chamber of Industries, in which he points out that to-day the wages of the Bantu amount to £192,000,000 per annum. Another important figure which I want to give to the House is that since 1956 up to the end of 1960, 541,852 Bantu workers had received wage increases. Half a million Bantu workers have benefited during the past five years as a result of wage increases in this country. That is why we are experiencing this industrial peace which we have experienced during the past few years. Let me give the following facts in order to show the House what industrial peace there has been amongst the Bantu workers. In 1958 there were 36 strikes which led to a cessation of work and where Bantu workers were concerned. In 1960 there were only 33 such strikes. When we consider the thousands of industrial and business concerns which exist in the Union, this is indeed an achievement. Only 14 of the strikes which occurred in 1960 were concerned with wage increases; there were other reasons for the other strikes as, for example, dissatisfaction with working hours, discharge of fellow-employees’, the tightening of discipline, dissatisfaction in regard to leave arrangements and pay, overtime pay, remuneration for work done on public holidays, etc. In other words only the small number of 14 strikes were concerned with wage increases in respect of Bantu workers in 1960. What is even more striking is the fact that only 2,199 Bantu workers were concerned in these 33 strikes.

I want to say a few words about the recognition of Native trade unions which has been advocated, particularly by the Progressive Party —that is their policy to-day—and it is obvious that the United Party is moving along the same road, namely, towards recognizing Bantu trade unions. The fact that we have enjoyed such a great measure of industrial peace in this country during the past few years proves the effectiveness of the machinery which was created in 1953, which provided for the Central Native Labour Board and the regional committees which were established under that board, regional committees consisting of Bantu workers in the various factories. Fortunately we can say to-day that the prejudice against that legislation is dying down and that the workers and the employers are realizing to-day that it is in their own interests to co-operate with the Department and with the Central Native Labour Board in order to look after the interests of the Bantu worker in an unselfish and just manner.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make the statement that if Bantu trade unions had been recognized and allowed to participate in collective bargaining during the past years they would have achieved no more for the Bantu worker than the Central Native Labour Board had obtained for the Bantu and that there would have been much greater industrial unrest and dislocation in South Africa than there had been, which would have been to the detriment of the worker and the economy of the country. That is why we are adamant in our attitude of not recognizing Native trade unions. In the first place the Native who has to adapt himself to the urban economy is still ignorant as far as the economic processes of the capitalist system are concerned and he is easily incited and misled by all sorts of emotional promises about material benefits, promises which are made by agitators whose only object is self-gain. Because the Native worker has made such little progress along the road of civilization, he easily falls prey to reckless and irresponsible elements without realizing that it can only be to his own detriment. In addition to that there are not sufficient leaders amongst the Bantu. The Central Native Labour Board which is trying to establish regional committees in the various factories to act between the Bantu workers and the employers, find it difficult to-day to find suitable Bantu workers with the necessary knowledge and experience to serve on those regional committees. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) laughs, but that has been the practical experience of the Central Native Labour Board over the past six to seven years. That is why the Bantu have in the past fallen such easy prey to professional agitators who, in most cases, do not have the interests of the Bantu worker at heart, but who have other motives for organizing the Bantu worker. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that I think the Government is on the right road. Had the Government acceded to the emotional appeals made to it last year for a wage of, say, R2 per day, it would certainly have led to the disruption of our economy, something which would not have had a soothing effect on the feelings of the people but which would undoubtedly have led to great unrest. We would have been placing a dangerous weapon in the hands of the Bantu, to admit to them that if they resorted to rioting, their wages would immediately be increased. A Government which is strong can never place such a weapon in the hands of the Bantu. That is why I think that the right policy to follow is that increases should take place on an evolutionary basis. Gradual and selective wage increases give industry an opportunity to adapt itself and to absorb the shock without disruption to industry. I am convinced that evolutionary wage increases at shorter intervals, as the Minister and the Wage Board are trying to do to-day, can take place, whereas a national minimum wage spells great danger and may lead to stagnation. Mr. Speaker, the motion therefore asks the Government to continue with its policy of increasing wages on an evolutionary and selective basis according to the progress made in the economic field, the progress which determines the ability of industry to pay those wages.

I second the motion. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) has submitted his case very capably. He normally does so, but I could not help noticing that the hon. member did so this morning with a romantic smile on his face. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will permit me in congratulating the hon. member on his speech, also to congratulate him on his marital status.

There are in the main four methods by which wage increases can be brought about in South Africa, viz.:

1. (1) The increases which the State grants its own officials, which at the same time also set an example and act as an incentive to other employers;
2. (2) Any employer can grant his employees wage increases of his own free will;
3. (3) By means of the provisions of the Wage Act, by which the State has created the machinery to provide for the unorganized, unskilled workers; and
4. (4) By means of the machinery of the Industrial Conciliation Act, by which the employees are given the right of collective bargaining.

Except as far as its own officials are concerned, it is therefore not the task of the State to fix wages.

Allow me to commence with the last aspect I have mentioned, namely the Industrial Council machinery. In the case of Industrial Council agreements the wages are fixed through negotiations between employers and employees. On the one hand there is the pressure which is exercised by organized labour, and on the other hand there is the employer who tries to resist such pressure with the assistance of the law of supply and demand for labour. Most Bantu wages are controlled by Industrial Council agreements to-day. There are approximately 80 Industrial Council agreements which cover 20,000 employers and 300,000 Bantu workers.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) has referred to the Central Native Labour Board which was also established in 1953 by legislation of this Government, and which acts as the mouthpiece of the unskilled Bantu worker of South Africa. Mainly as a result of the activities of this Board the wages of approximately 200,000 Bantu workers have been improved by means of Industrial Council agreements at a cost of thousands of pounds to the employers concerned. When an Industrial Council agreement affecting Bantu workers is submitted to the Minister, the Central Native Labour Board must also recommend it. As far as the Industrial Council agreements are concerned, the employers are therefore given every opportunity to provide for the interests of their Bantu workers. In addition, the employers have the opportunity to further those interests at frequent intervals because Industrial Council agreements are valid for a period of at most three years, and sometimes for only two years, and in certain instances even for only one year.

As regards the machinery of the Wage Act, I want to say that because the Government realized that the Wage Board was working too slowly, legislation was passed in 1957 dividing the Wage Board into two sections so that the work could be accelerated and recommendations dealing with minimum wages submitted to the Minister more expeditiously and at shorter intervals. The following figures prove that the work of the Wage Board has been considerably expedited by the 1957 legislation: During the period 1950 to 1957 an average of five first reports, four first recommendations, four second reports and four second recommendations were submitted. As against that, after the division of the Wage Board into two sections, an average of 15 first reports, 14.7 first recommendations, 12 second reports and 10 second recommendations were submitted during the period 1958 to 1960.

Before dealing with the work of the Wage Board in recent years, I want to indicate briefly what the main considerations are which the Wage Board takes into account in respect of investigations and recommendations dealing with minimum wages. In the first place it is the task of the Wage Board to fix minimum wages and when it does so it does not compel any employer only to pay the minimum wage. The employer has every right to pay wages which are considerably higher than the prescribed minimum wage. In the second place the Wage Board must also fix wages which are in line with the productivity of the worker. In other words, it must ensure that a fair wage is paid to the worker who deserves that wage and who is entitled to it. But in the third place, and this we must never forget, the Wage Board must fix a wage which the industry, the employer, is able to pay. If it does not bear that aspect in mind, the result will simply be that such an industry will be unable to continue its operations with resultant unemployment amongst its employees. These are the three main considerations which the Wage Board bears in mind in fulfilling its function of fixing minimum wages.

The hon. the Minister last year issued an invitation to all interested parties to say whether the Wage Board was functioning on an incorrect basis. As far as I know, no one has submitted any acceptable proposals as to how the basis on which the Wage Board works should be changed. However, I can well imagine what the position would be if the Wage Board were to function on a different basis. The people who now have so many complaints about wages would be the first to accuse the Government of interfering improperly with private enterprise.

I want to confine myself briefly to the wage increases which the Wage Board has effected in recent years. Between I January 1958 and I January 1961, no less than 38 branches of industry were investigated and 38 determinations were made affecting 110,467 Bantu workers. The increases varied from centre to centre and from industry to industry. In Kimberley, for example, the increase represented 15.5 per cent, in Bloemfontein 30 per cent, in East London 38.5 per cent, in Durban it varied from 8.3 per cent to 46.2 per cent (the wages of the 10,465 municipal workers alone were increased by 26.1 per cent), in Pietermaritzburg it varied from 1.4 per cent to 80.8 per cent (the wages of the 1,970 municipal workers were increased by 32.5 per cent), on the Witwatersrand and in Pretoria the wages of 75.4 per cent of the employees of local authorities were increased by up to 30 per cent, while the wages of 21.4 per cent of the workers were increased by between 40 per cent and 50 per cent, and in other industries, apart from local authorities, wages were increased by from 6.5 per cent to 48.8 per cent. In other words, Bantu wages have been considerably improved. I have even seen an estimate which puts the total amount involved in the increases in Bantu wages over the past few years at as high a figure as R40,000,000. Mr. Harry Goldberg, chairman of the Committee for the Improvement of African Wages and Productivity, estimated in October 1959 that the increases which had been granted up to that time already totalled between R10,000,000 and R20,000,000, and since that time further determinations have been laid down. Towards the end of last year the Deputy Secretary for Labour (Mr. D. J. Geyser) said—

That is to say, for Bantu who fall under Industrial Council agreements as well as under determinations in terms of the Wage Act—

We have been told that similar increases will cost the oil industry an additional R1,000,000 per annum, while the Johannesburg City Council will also have to pay an additional R1,000,000 to its Bantu workers. I have also seen the following interesting comparison dealing with the Bantu in industry in a publication of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, namely that in 1930, 80,000 Bantu were working in our industries at a total wage bill of R6,000,000. The number has increased tremendously and by 1957 there were already 367,000 Bantu workers employed in industry at a total wage of R114,000,000. In other words, from 1930 to 1957 the average earnings of the Bantu workers in industry rose from R75 to R310 per annum, that is to say, by about 313 per cent. By 1960 the average earnings had already increased to R348 per annum, a further increase of 12 per cent.

I now want to confine myself to a paragraph which I have found in practically all the reports of the Wage Board in respect of productivity, an aspect to which the hon. member for Pretoria (West) has already referred. I am referring to the following paragraph—

In other words, here the Wage Board is expressing its conviction in the case of every investigation it has undertaken that the productivity of the unskilled worker in South Africa must be increased. That the productivity of the unskilled worker is suffering from serious shortcomings is indisputable. Mr. Bobby Burns, in his 1959 presidential address to the Congress of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, stated that a leading bank had instituted an investigation into the productivity of labour in South Africa and various other countries. The bank found that while the productivity of labour in Western Germany had increased over the period 1953 to 1958 by 26 per cent, in Japan by 21 per cent, in the United States of America by 15 per cent and in Great Britain by 13 per cent, in South Africa it had declined by 1 per cent. From time to time suggestions have already been made as to how the productivity of our unskilled worker can be increased. In the first place incentive bonuses have been suggested and that principle is being applied on a comparatively limited scale in South Africa. According to a recent sample survey, it has been found that only 19.4 per cent of the undertakings concerned apply one or other incentive bonus scheme, and on a further analysis it has been found that a large number of these bonus incentive schemes are merely systems whereby commissions or bonuses are paid on sales or profits. In actual fact there are few schemes in South Africa which can be described as genuine scientific incentive schemes.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) has also referred to the second suggestion, namely that of increased remuneration for managers so that they will not only organize labour more efficiently but also economize on labour costs. Apparently this is also what the Wage Board has in mind because it refers to “ the application of better selection, training and supervision of the workers ”. I can find no fault with this suggestion. Instead of repeated agitation for increased Bantu wages, a campaign should rather be launched aimed at increased managerial efficiency if this will result in increased efficiency and less wasteful utilization of Bantu labour.

In the third place, there is of course the method of paying higher wages which as the Wage Board says “ may stimulate the more efficient utilization of unskilled labour ”. I urged in this House last year that by introducing more efficient organization the employers could employ a smaller number of Bantu at higher wages to do the same work. On that occasion I quoted a person such as Mr. Regnier, the chairman of the Cape Chamber of Industries, who gave it as his conviction that if industry would place more emphasis on mechanization, industry would be able to make do with a far smaller labour corps. I also quoted the Standard Bank which expressed the opinion last year that South Africa’s industrial development was being hamstrung by the excessive employment of less productive unskilled workers, and which also stated that the disequilibrium between skilled labour and unskilled labour was steadily becoming ever greater. We find that the ratio of White labour to Bantu labour is really disquieting in certain industries: In manufacturing the ratio is one White to 1.75 Bantu; in the chemical industry 1 to 1.8; in the construction industry 1 to 3.7; in the non-metalliferous mineral products industry 1 to 6; in the leather industry, 1 to 7.3; and in mining, 1 to 8. The ratio of skilled to unskilled labour in South Africa is therefore different to and far less favourable than that prevailing in most European countries. Bantu labour is so cheap that the employer finds it easier to employ two such workers instead of ensuring that one of those workers becomes a more useful and efficient worker. We are making progress and in this regard there is very encouraging evidence that our big employers are fully aware of the position. Thus the Wage Board report states the following in respect of the Johannesburg City Council—

In the same way we also find that during an investigation undertaken last year the Schlesinger Organization found the following—

This is also the conviction of the Wage Board because at various places in the reports of the Wage Board it gives this as its conviction.

I think the hon. the Minister stated last year that labour saving would be investigated on a scientific basis. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Labour if progress has been made in that direction. Irrespective of whatever results Bantu wage increases may have, I should like to see labour saving in the case of unskilled labour tackled energetically. I want to make an earnest appeal that in cooperation with the Department of Bantu Administration and Development some form of control, over and above influx control, should be applied in our industrial centres so that the industries and large-scale employers of Bantu labour will only be allowed to employ essential labour in those centres. I am convinced that everything possible must be done to increase the productivity of the Bantu worker and if that is done, the problem of higher wages will solve itself. It will result in the number of Bantu workers in our urban areas being considerably reduced and in my opinion may make the greatest single contribution to the solution of our urban Bantu problem.

What are you going to do with the rest?

Before leaving the question of productivity, I just want to refer to the provision of food to workers. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Wage Board raised a very important matter last year when he referred to the provision of food by employers to their Bantu workers. Dr. Steenkamp said—

That is what Dr. Steenkamp has said. I now find in the Wage Board’s report on unskilled labour that the biggest employer, in Kimberley, for example, has testified that the Bantu workers lack stamina. In East London the Board has found that difficulty is sometimes experienced in finding workers who are able and prepared to undertake hard manual work. One asks oneself whether this is not largely due to a lack of adequate food. The Railways provide balanced rations to 30,000 of their Bantu workers in the compounds and on the sections. In reply to my question as to what effect this had had, I was told that they found that if they did not do so, the Bantu workers bought cool drinks and buns which were not very nutritious and they found that diseases resulting from malnutrition often occurred. Last year the hon. the Deputy Minister of Labour told the House that a large factory on the Rand had decided to provide food to its Bantu workers and that it had found that its production increased by 40 per cent over the period concerned. I would like to see the hon. the Minister and his Department giving serious consideration to the question of the provision of food. This applies to the Wage Board as well. It may be my ignorance, but I do find it strange that in reply to a request by the Council of Rand Municipalities the Wage Board replied that it did not recommend a feeding scheme. The Rand Municipalities had recommended that if a feeding scheme was recommended, the usual deduction of 3s. should be increased to 12s.

I now come to the third point which I want to submit, namely, that of increases granted by employers. A well-known businessman, Mr. Charles Marx, who is also chairman of the Cape Town branch of the Bantu Wage and Productivity Association, said last year that the responsibility for increased wages and greater productivity rested in the first place on the shoulders of the employers themselves. I agree with him wholeheartedly because the employers are the only people who can ensure that increased wages go hand in hand with improved training and consequently increased production as well. No legislation and no action by the State can assist in that regard. It seems as though many employers do not appreciate this fundamental duty which rests on them and are only too ready to lay the blame for everything at the door of the Government. The Wage Board states for example—

The employer provides employment; he is the one who must pay the wages; he is the one who knows what his industry can afford and that is why it is the employer more than anyone else who can do most to bring about wage increases and increased labour productivity.

As far as the Government is concerned, I have already indicated what the Government has done in recent years to improve and to expedite the wage determination machinery. The hon. the Minister has already set out very clearly on previous occasions the policy which the Government follows in respect of the approval it must give to Industrial Council agreements and in undertaking wage determinations. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) has correctly pointed out that the Minister does not approve of any Industrial Council agreement if it will result in wage reductions or in a worsening of conditions of service. The Minister does not make any wage determination in respect of Bantu wages if the Central Native Labour Board has not recommended it. The Government has never limited the right of the employer to pay wages exceeding the minimum wage. On the contrary, the Government has always welcomed and encouraged this, and has also done so by setting a good example by granting wage increases to its own officials. Thus the average earnings of a public servant increased over the period 1948 to 1961 from R717 to R1,270 per annum, an increase of 77 per cent, and similarly the average earnings of a White Railway official increased over the period 1948 to 1960 from R878 to R1,688 per annum, an increase of 92 per cent, and this does not include the present cost of living consolidation which will involve nearly R12,000,000. That is the example which the Government has set in respect of its own officials. This should serve as an encouragement and in many instances an essential encouragement to employers to improve and increase the wages of their own workers.

To conclude, what has been the net result, the net effect of all these steps on the wages and the purchasing power of Bantu? In the latest March issue of Volkshandel, Dr. Dawie Marais states that, according to an estimate of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, the annual purchasing power of the Bantu in South Africa totals approximately R1,000,000,000. The per capita income of the Bantu in South Africa is R105 which is higher than anywhere else in Africa. No wonder that Bantu are streaming from other African territories and the Protectorates into South Africa to seek a livelihood here. According to figures issued by the International Labour Organization the average wage per hour of Bantu workers in South Africa is 13 cents as compared with 4½ cents in Northern Rhodesia, 5 cents in Southern Rhodesia, 7 cents in Nigeria, 7¼ cents in Ghana and 8 cents in the Belgian Congo. Towards the end of 1959 Mr. Harry Goldberg estimated that if the income which a Bantu required to maintain an accepted standard of living was taken at 100, then the wages of the Bantu in the Union compared as follows with those of other African States: The Union of South Africa 55, French Central Africa 40, the Congo (Belgian) 38, Ghana 31, Southern Rhodesia 26, Kenya 26, and Tanganyika 22. And amongst these we find States who are always ready to criticize South Africa and to condemn her policies. Ghana and Nigeria were two of the States which made our position in the Commonwealth impossible. But our Eastern critics in the Commonwealth and at UNO as well, namely, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, should also rather sweep before their own doorsteps before accusing us. The per capita income of the Asian in South Africa to-day is R160, which is twice the figure for Ceylon, and four times the figure for India and Pakistan. These are facts which speak loudly and which I believe will speak ever more loudly to the world opinion which is so critical of South Africa to-day. I am firmly convinced that justice will eventually also triumph once again in the world.

Like the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) on the very sensible step he took during the recess. After having taken such an optimistic step, I was rather disappointed that he showed so little optimism on the topic he introduced in this hon. House to-day. His whole tone was so pessimistic and so passive that I can only hope that in the other life he has started he will not adopt the same attitude. Listening to the hon. members for Pretoria (West) and Bloemfontein (East), I was reminded of that description of economics as a dismal science, made by a great English humorist. That, I think, was a very apt description of the two speeches we have must listened to. They were rather dismal. The hon. members took up the attitude that in this matter which is of such vital importance to the ordinary worker in South Africa, and especially to the lower-income workers, the Government could do very little, that the Government was really a passive instrument. We on this side of the House differ entirely from that. We say that the Government can play a far more active role in bringing about adequate standards of living for all sections of the people, and for that reason we wish to move an amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Pretoria (West), as follows—

We say that this attitude that there is very little that the Government can do and that minimum wages, and wages generally—if I understood the hon. members correctly—is really a function of inscrutable economic laws about which the Government can do very little, is completely wrong. The modern concept is that in any modern Western State the prime responsibility for seeing that there are adequate minimum wage standards for all workers rests with the Government. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) said that this was the negation of capitalism, that if the Government starts interfering and fixing minimum wages it would be wrong. He said that in the capitalistic system this was the prime responsibility of the employer.

Do you not believe in private enterprise?

If the hon. member will give me a chance I will develop this argument. If, for instance, the hon. member believes in private enterprise, how is he going to bring about separate development in this country? It will require far more intervention on the part of the Government to bring that about. It will require action on the part of the government to raise minimum wages in this country. As a matter of fact, it is simply not true that the Government does not fix minimum wages. Take the greatest capitalistic state in the world, the United States of America. As far as I am aware they have fixed minimum wages for all industrial workers. So it is simply not correct to say that that is not the function of the State, to enter directly into this matter and fix adequate minimum wages for all sections of the population. That applies even in capitalistic states.

We on this side of the House agree, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Pretoria (West), that certain desirable social minima have been set out by organizations like the Institute of Race Relations, based on certain minimum standards. We agree that you cannot jump into this immediately; you cannot fix those wages immediately. That would have a tremendous inflationary effect on our economy as a whole. And, as the hon. member pointed out, quite correctly, what you give the worker in the way of increased wages will simply be taken away by the higher prices he will have to pay as a result of the higher cost of living and the way it will affect our export industries. But that should be a target to which the Government should work. If that is a long-term target to which the Government were to work it would be quite a practicable proposition here in South Africa. The Government should set some minimum wages for industry. I also agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) that you cannot set a minimum for all industries in all parts of South Africa. One must take into consideration the variations in the cost of living in different areas, and that approaches selective increases and the establishing of different minimum wages for different areas. That is quite correct. But the Government should work, over a certain period of time, to some social goal. That social goal could very well be this minimum wage that is suggested by the various institutions. If the Government were then also to suggest that they themselves would set the example by increasing wages by, say, 5 per cent a year for their own employees until that minimum standard is reached, and also, indirectly use their influence to increase minimum wages in industry to that level, that would be a practical policy. It would be a practical proposition to see to it that within a foreseeable period of, say, 20 years, all our industrial workers live according to accepted minimum Western standards.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) suggested that there were four instruments by which wages are increased. He said that first of all the State itself could directly pay increased wages to its employees. I want to deal with that very topic. Has the Government really set the example to industry? After all, it is accepted to-day that the Government in this country employs, directly or indirectly, between one-fifth and one-quarter of all the workers in this country. The Government itself could set a very important example to private industry by increasing the wages of their own employees. It is true, as both hon. speakers pointed out, that you must have increased productivity before you can pay higher wages. Surely, just as a normal employer must increase his productivity over a period of time in order to increase the wages paid, so the Government, and all the activities in which it is concerned, could increase productivity slowly and work, over a period of time, to a minimum wage standard. If one looks at the answer that was given in this House a little while ago by the hon. the Minister of Transport, I think it shows that the Government itself has lagged just as much as any private industrialist over the past 10 or 15 years in increasing wages. The question asked of the hon. the Minister of Transport was—

And the reply was—

A married man who was on the 47.5c level, in addition to that, received R5.77 cost-of-living allowance.

Mr. Speaker, these wages are far below what is regarded as minimum Western wages to live at minimum Western standards. That shows what tremendous scope there is for the Government itself to directly work to a programme of gradually increasing wages over a period of time to attain certain desirable social minima. It is true, of course, that in the end one cannot pay higher wages without increased productivity. The wages you can pay are very closely linked to your productivity. You cannot very well pay out, as a country, more than the country produced. But as far as the question of productivity itself is concerned the State can play such a very important role in increasing that productivity. But I am afraid that this Government follows so many different policies. The very figures that were quoted by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) show that whereas in all other Western countries such as Germany and other European countries, and in Japan, productivity per worker has been increasing rapidly, it has been remaining static in South Africa. And the hon. member seemed to imply that that was entirely the fault of the employer. But is that so? Is it not the social and statutory handicaps under which the employers must work that makes it impossible for them to increase the productivity of their workers. After all, in industry it is a primary fact that unless you have reasonable stability in labour, unless labour stays for a reasonable period in employment in one particular industry, you cannot increase productivity. But the whole policy of this Government is, in the end, based on the fact that all our labour will be migratory, and that makes it impossible to develop high productivity as far as labour is concerned. It is only by stabilizing your labour, and by achieving a permanent labour force in the big cities that one can achieve this rapid increase in productivity, as has been shown in these other countries. These other countries all have permanent labour and are not dependent upon migrant industrial labour. But as I read the policy of this Government, it is to have migrant labour. I do not say that that works out in practice, but what does happen in this country, for various social and other reasons which I would not like to go into now, is that we have one of the highest turnovers in industrial labour in the world. Unless we change our social policies so that we can cut down that terrific turnover in industry we will not get the increased productivity that is taking place everywhere else in the world.

This productivity, quite apart from the fact that wages ultimately depend upon productivity, is of far greater national importance than wages. In a world where productivity is increasing rapidly—as was shown by the figures quoted by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East)—-it is quite clear that if we do not set in motion a process whereby our labour productivity increases rapidly, we will price ourselves out of all the markets in the world. Because those countries that are most competitive to-day, whose exports are rising most rapidly, are the very ones whose productivity has increased most rapidly in the past few years. I refer particularly to Japan and Germany. In those two countries in the last 10 years we have seen the most rapid increase in productivity, and we have also seen the most rapid increase of exports in the world. Therefore these statistics quoted by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) are cardinal. They show, economically speaking, how sick our society really is; they show that over such a long period we are one of the few countries in the world which has had no increase in productivity by industrial workers. And that, again, is not largely the fault of the employer.

I again come back to the question that underlying this situation is the general social policy of this country, the general Government policy. The employer can only work in a certain social climate, in a certain given social context. And if that social context is against increasing productivity there is very little that we can do.

You are overstressing that point.

No, I am saying that he can only work in that sphere. The figures have shown that in fact the increase in productivity has not happened in South Africa. And I am afraid that what has happened in the last year or two has resulted in a cutting of the inflow of capital from overseas, which also means a reduction of your supply of technical knowledge, a reduction in your steady supply of know-how which had been coming in from overseas. Because we have to admit that we can still learn a tremendous lot from the highly industrialized countries of the world on productivity and on how to manufacture goods.

We are entering into a period where, for general economical reasons, we are cutting down that flow of capital and that flow of knowledge which should come to South Africa from the West all the time. If we want to advance rapidly economically, and increase our productivity, and our standards of living, we must have that. And there again it is something that is not within the control of the individual employer. This is being brought about as a result of the wider national policy.

Even with all these limitations; even though it is true that you cannot pay higher wages unless you have higher productivity, it is a fact—which was borne out by some of the quotations made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East)—that below a certain standard of living, and if your wages are so low that a person is simply not physically fit to do a full day’s work, the very fact of increasing his wage increases his productivity. The very fact that you pay him more so that he can do a full day’s work means that his productivity increases. That is the purport of the quotations given to this House by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East). There again the Government can surely play an active rôle. Where wages are below that level at which people can maintain themselves in good physical condition, the Government, by stepping in through the Wage Board and pushing up minima, would automatically increase productivity.

It is also an over-simplification to say that wages depend only on productivity. Wages and incomes also depend on how they are distributed over the country, and that again is a primary function of government in all civilized states. They must see that there is a fair and just distribution of income amongst all the groups of the people of their country. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) argued in many respects as if our position in South Africa as far as employers and employees are concerned, is entirely analogous to Western countries. But, of course, it is not analogous. After all, a very large percentage of all our workers—almost three-fifths of our Native industrial workers—are not allowed to enter into collective bargaining in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, in order to improve their wages. In a Western state it is the duty of the Government to protect the lowest income earners. Despite the fact that they are allowed to organize in trade unions, it is still regarded as a function of the Government— as for instance in the United States of America —to assist the lowest income groups by fixing minimum wages. That is also the attitude taken up in Australia. If that is true of those countries surely the case for this Government acting, so to speak, as the guardian of your lowest income group in this country, people who are not allowed to use the instrument for negotiating higher wages with their employers —the duty on the Government is far greater in a country like South Africa where you have such a large percentage of the workers who are not allowed to use the normal machinery of negotiation that you have in most Western countries. They are not allowed to act as an organized body against the employers, and the employers usually are organized. Surely, therefore, a greater duty devolves upon the Government to see that the minimum wage at least keeps pace with the cost of living.

Mr. Speaker, that is the one thing that has not happened in South Africa until recently. As was mentioned by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East), our Wage Board, because it was understaffed and because it was too small, simply could not keep up with the administrative work of reviewing wages in large sectors of our economy. The result was that the time lag was, in some cases …

Fifteen years.

Somebody suggests 15 years. I was told it was ten years in some cases. In a period of rapid inflation the Government simply did not create the machinery to see that minimum wages for our lowest paid workers kept pace with the cost of living. That is why such large increases were given, as quoted by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East). He quoted these figures to show how much the Government had done by increasing wages so considerably, but that came about because there was such a long time lag.

Too little, too late.

Well, I would not say it was too little too late, but it certainly was too late, and over a long period.

We on this side of the House therefore say that it is no use for hon. Ministers and hon. members on the Government side to pretend that this is not a prime responsibility of the Government, the responsibility of fixing adequate minimum wages for all sections of the people. It is a Government responsibility in all civilized states of the world.

But of course it is not. It is the responsibility of industry.

The hon. member makes that interjection. He will surely admit that whereas the Government always holds out that they are the guardians …

It is the employers’ prime responsibility to raise wages, not the Government. I am doing it in my case.

That is quite a novel theory. In all other civilized countries in the world it is a question of negotiation between organized labour and organized employers, with the Government stepping in to set minimum wages, wherever they feel that the workers are not sufficiently organized. And I say that that is all the more applicable in a country like South Africa where, by statute, a very large section of our workers are not allowed to organize in order to negotiate with organized employers. I know of no country in the world, except perhaps the communistic countries, where the employer dictates the wages entirely on his own, which is the proposition that this hon. gentleman is trying to make. In every other country in the world it is a question of bargaining between the employer and the employee. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I now move the amendment which I have already read out to the House.

I second the amendment moved by my hon. friend the member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). We have listened to a very interesting debate. I do not agree with all that has fallen from the hon. members on the Government benches, but the views they have expressed illustrate the fact that hon. members on the Government benches are awakening to the gravity of the situation which arises from one of the most important questions in the economic life of the Bantu workers, on whose behalf I wish to say a few words.

The statistics that have been quoted by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) do not prove anything. The fact remains that most of these Bantu workers receive wages that make it impossible for them to maintain a decent standard of living for themselves and their families. And that is the fundamental fact that lies at the root of all our troubles. I support the view put forward by the hon. member for Jeppes that a special responsibility rests upon the Government so far as these Bantu workers are concerned, for the simple reason that they are not allowed to use any workers’ organization under the Industrial Conciliation Act for the purpose of collective bargaining. Some organization, some form of trade union was recommended some years ago by the Botha Commission appointed by the present Government. But the Government rejected the recommendations of that Commission and so we find ourselves in this position to-day, that except for small workers’ committees the Natives have no form of collective bargaining in connection with wages or other disputes.

It is generally accepted, I think, that the fixing of minimum wages is the responsibility of the State in those circumstances. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has given reasons why Bantu trade unions should not be recognized. But whether we like it or not this attitude cannot be maintained indefinitely, and the Government will be forced by circumstances beyond their control to recognize these unions. In my opinion, the sooner this fact is faced the better. In these circumstances it is the duty of the State to take steps to ensure that workers of every race and colour should earn sufficient to enable them to provide themselves and their families with the decent necessaries of life.

I wish to pay a tribute to the Association for the Improvement of Bantu Wages and Productivity for obtaining the sympathetic cooperation of commerce and industry in regard to the needs of the Bantu workers. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) has correctly stated that as a result of these efforts Bantu wages have, during the past 12 months, been increased by R40,000,000. But that does not get away from the fact that the large majority of the Bantu families living in the urban areas are living below the breadline, and that in spite of the recent increase in wages most of these families do not earn sufficient to maintain a healthy existence. We have very little information in regard to family incomes and expenditure in the rural areas. We have certain information that was obtained by Prof. Hobart-Houghton of Rhodes University in 1949 as a result of a survey that he carried out in the Keiskammahoek District. He found at that time that the cash expenditure of a Bantu family of five amounted to £56 13s. per annum. The following year the Tomlinson Commission came to the conclusion that the average income of such a family was £40 net per annum. So even in the Bantu areas the position is worse than it is in the urban areas, and accounts very largely for the fact that the Natives are attracted to the towns in order to obtain better wages and better conditions.

As far as the urban areas are concerned, a number of reliable surveys have been carried out from time to time, both by the municipalities and by the research workers of the South African Institute of Race Relations. The result of these surveys indicates that although there are individual Bantu who earn comparatively high wages in the towns, the large majority of families cannot afford to maintain even what is called the poverty-datum line standard; that is the line below which health and decency cannot be maintained. In other words, that is the barest minimum upon which subsistence can be achieved without allowing anything for amusements and other amenities. The figures show that in every case where comparable income and expenditure figures are available, between 69 per cent and 78 per cent of the Bantu families in the cities have incomes below the minimum required to provide the barest essentials of living. And whilst the recent increases in wages contributed by commerce and industry have been much appreciated, the fact is that these increases are not commensurate with the rapid rise in cost of living and transport. And transport plays a very important part in the cost of living of the average Native.

In 1957 a cost and management consultant appointed by the Johannesburg Municipality carried out an exhaustive investigation in order to ascertain the least possible level below which a Bantu family income should not fall. He calculated that the barest minimum expenditure required to sustain a non-European family of five varied from £18 1s. 7d. to £23 13s. 8d. per month judged according to the locality in which the Natives were living. He found that the average income required to provide the barest essentials of existence is £21 a month. This was carried a step further by an investigation by the S.A. Institute of Race Relations in 1959, the fourth survey carried out by that body during the period from 1944 onwards. As a result of this later survey, they gave the total essential expenditure of a Bantu family of five at £24 5s. 8d. and the average family income at £17 7s. 8d., a monthly deficit of £6 18s. Where that £6 18s. is to come from is nobody’s business. It is a deficit which often has to be made good by illicit liquor dealing or other undesirable practices. This Johannesburg survey shows how the cost of living has increased since 1944. It practically doubled between 1944 and 1954, though between 1954 and 1959 the position was slightly improved. Between those years the average family income increased by 9 per cent, while the essential expenditure increased by 3 per cent, but the shortfall between income and expenditure was nevertheless equal to almost 40 per cent of the family income. The result is an alarming amount of malnutrition amongst our Natives and an alarming death rate among Bantu children and I would add that an underfed labour force which cannot withstand the strains of modern conditions has been the result. Investigations carried out by the Medical Faculty of the Natal University and by the National Advisory Committee for National Research in 1959 showed that one in three non-White babies died of malnutrition before reaching the age of one year. Of the survivors, a substantial number died before they were four years old, all due to the poverty of the parents who were not able to provide adequate food for these children. Wage levels have increased but they have not kept pace with the phenomenal increase in the cost of living, and the increased taxation upon the Bantu introduced by this Government last year has further aggravated the position. It is therefore of the utmost important that urgent steps should be taken to raise the living standards of our Bantu workers, but it is quite wrong to suppose that the result can be achieved merely by raising wages. That is a step which must go hand in hand with the capacity of the industry concerned to pay the additional cost and it depends on increased productivity on the part of the worker. In order to bring that about the great need is to provide our unskilled Bantu workers with skills to increase our industrial production. Unless you can do that, you cannot induce employers to raise wages to a much higher level. Unfortunately in most centres the necessary training facilities in various skills are not available to the Bantu workers, and that is the weak point in our whole system of industrial labour. Added to that is the policy of job reservation which limits occupations which a Native may lawfully undertake.....

Order! Job reservation is not under discussion now.

I have here a report from King William’s Town which I should like to refer to and which illustrates the need for better training facilities and the success that can be achieved by providing those training facilities to the Bantu workers. I refer to the Good Hope Textile Corporation (Pty.) Ltd., started under the United Party Government in a Native reserve outside King William’s Town. Production was actually begun in 1949 with 300 looms and an output of 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 yards of bleached cloth per annum. The number of workers at that time was 900 Natives and 100 White technicians. Since then there have been two extensions, one in 1954 and one in 1959, and the number of looms has as a result been increased to 1,080, and the output to 40,000,000 yards of cloth of various types. The present labour complement there is 2,850 Natives and 200 Whites. This expansion has been largely achieved through a training scheme which this company has provided for its workers. I would just like to read a paragraph from a letter I received from them which deals with this aspect—

That is an example of what should be undertaken throughout the country; it should not be confined merely to this one factory. By increasing the skill of the Native, and I was going to add by abolishing job reservation, you will increase production a hundredfold and you will increase Native wages in accordance with his increased capacity to earn and expand your internal market. It is true to say that a beginning has been made in some of the Bantu schools established in recent years to provide industrial training, but that has not been undertaken on a sufficient scale to make any substantial industrial impression on the needs of our country. The policy should be to train every Bantu child in our schools, male and female alike, in skills which will fit them for absorption into industry as soon as they reach the school-leaving stage. Machinery should be set up to ensure that every one of them is placed in an occupation for which his school training has fitted him, and at a fair living wage. In this way we will not only provide a well-trained labour force for the country’s expanding industries, but we will increase the spending power of the Bantu people to the great benefit of the whole community, and also get rid of the criminal elements which draw their recruits from among the frustrated young people who grow up and have no jobs to go to. That is the situation as I see it and these are the steps that should be taken in addition to the mere increasing of wages which has been suggested.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has introduced a very interesting and a very highly complicated motion and there are few things more difficult to debate in a forum such as this than such a complicated problem as a minimum wage. The hon. member has always shown an interest in labour matters and in associating myself with certain remarks that have been made from this side of the House, I hope that in future he will continue to show a very deep interest in family cost-of-living allowances.

The first point I want to deal with is the basic question of the function of government in a private enterprise society in relation to a minimum wage. The hon. member took the view that we are a capitalist society, or an individualist society as I prefer to call it, and therefore anything such as a minimum wage runs counter to the basic principle that he accepts. Of course this is not quite the case. In other words, he was over-emphasizing something there, because in fact both sides of the House accept the principle of a minimum wage in an individualist society. The question under discussion is whether we can aim at a general minimum wage or the type of minimum wage that comes into being by reason of the activities of the Wage Board and so forth. What I want to emphasize is that in a society which is capitalist but no longer a laissez-faire capitalist society, there is nothing more wrong in having a minimum wage basis than there is in having a basis which fixes the hours of work, because after all that is an interference with the right of the employer and the employee, if you are thinking in terms of laissez-faire capitalism. The position in all countries of the world to-day which are non-socialist is parallel to that of the gold standard basis on which the world works, namely that it is a managed currency but gold still remains the basis. Equally in every country of the world to-day there is a degree of interference and management by the State in these matters, while retaining the basic principle of self-government and private enterprise in industry.

The second matter I wish to deal with in a general way before coming to specific arguments is the argument about the increase in productivity in relation to wages, that you cannot increase wages without increasing productivity without running into danger of inflation. I would like to point out that over the last 15 to 25 years there has been a colossal increase in production in this country and the basic question which we have to face, in relation to the wages of the lowest-paid workers, is that in that increase of the national income which follows on that increased productivity, did the lowest-paid worker get his fair share of the increased productivity in terms not of money wages but in terms of real wages? It is my submission that it was not so; that a sufficiency of the share of that increased productivity which resulted from the association of capital and labour did not go to the lowest level of the workers and therefore there is reason at this moment to consider an upward adjustment of that lower level which should perhaps have taken place in the past. But I want to argue—and here I support the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) —that the argument is not as simple as that, that simply by raising wages you automatically throw a spanner into the works and that there will not necessarily be any increase in productivity from that increase in wages unless you take other steps also. One of the factors in this regard which has not been considered in this debate, and I think it must be mentioned here to get the background right, is the tremendous alteration that has taken place in the country in the application of power to the work. In other words, our whole industrial structure has altered in that regard, so that irrespective of the advance in the individual skill of the worker, the fact that power was used has in itself tremendously increased production. Therefore figures which simply indicate a rise in cash wages over a period without any relation to any of those other factors mean very little [Interjection.] I have figures here to show the increase in the power used, but I do not think I need go into those figures because we all know that much more power has been applied whether it is in agriculture of secondary industry.

The second important question which arises here is the extent to which rises in prices are associated with rises in general wages. The assumption is in all cases that with the rise in wages you will ipso facto get a roughly corresponding increase in general prices if the rise in wages is general. It does not follow that these things are directly proportionate to each other. I have some figures here from Australia, which of the non-socialist countries of the world is the country where the state more than anywhere else plays a dominant rôle in the question of wages. These figures are from the years 1945 to 1946 and they give an index for the wage rate which rises from 100 to 250 and of earnings—because earnings and wage rates are different matters—which rose from 100 to 274, and prices rose from 100 to 214. The point is that in a country like that with an established and high minimum wage, where compulsory arbitration is a very common form of industrial negotiation, in other words, a country where the state does play a big rôle in these matters while the society remains a private enterprise society, prices did not rise to the extent that wages rose. In other words, the real gain to the country was not entirely wiped out. The two things were not exactly parallel, but it can be assumed, generally speaking, that a general rise in wages has the danger of a general rise in prices and it is a question of balancing those two things.

The third big factor that we have to consider in this matter, and this is where this country differs radically from nearly all other countries with our stage of development, is the ratio between unskilled and skilled wages. In most of the highly developed countries, that ratio is anything from about 30 per cent to 55 per cent and the general average will be about 40 per cent. Here the ratio of unskilled to skilled is something like one-sixth. Disregarding any question of race and just considering skilled and unskilled labour, in any country such a relationship is not a healthy one and the basic question to my mind is how to close that gap, not in money wages but in real wages, between the unskilled and the skilled groups. The reason why this situation arose in this country is part of our history, that we had to pay high prices to attract skilled labour from outside, and we were absorbing from poverty-stricken areas people who were not used to a high wage, and so we started with that big gap. But I want to submit that we have advanced beyond the stage where we can consider that as a healthy thing or where we consider, as we always have done, that we have an unlimited supply of that cheaper variety of labour at our disposal. We have not, if the labour were properly distributed between the activities on which it ought to be engaged; in other words, conquering poverty in the reserves on the one hand and improving agricultural production on the other, and thirdly, providing the labour that we need for our primary and secondary industry. Now here comes another difficulty in this highly complicated question. Leaving aside the reserve question, there is the big difference between wages in primary industry —and in primary industry I include agriculture, because although in this House we often discuss agriculture as a very special subject, in relation to the economic situation of the country it is one of the big primary industries together with mining—and those in secondary industry.

The hon. member made a point by implication that one of our difficulties is this, that whereas it may be easy for certain secondary industries to raise their wages, it is very difficult for the primary industries, particularly mining, to do the same, and with the fixed price of gold that is a very real difficulty. But nevertheless I think there is still some scope for movement there and it is the submission of this party, and what this party aims at in its policy, to have a better relationship between the various big demands that are made on our labour, a co-ordinated relationship between those demands. There are few countries where the governing people, who in South Africa at the moment happen to be the White race, give more thought to the future. We are a provident people; we have an instinct to plan and to try and look at the year 2000, but it is a curious thing for a people with that kind of mind that we are very inadequately provided with statistics, and it is very dangerous to attempt to plan without the facts. My first big plea is to the Government to arrive at more of the facts of the matter. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) mentioned the cost of living in the urban areas, of the Bantu. We are ignorant of the real cost of living of the urban Bantu in relation to the wages he receives. The only research done in this field has been conducted not by the Government but by voluntary bodies such as universities, and any figures quoted in this regard, such as the figure quoted by the hon. member for East London (City), ranges for a man, his wife and three children from £25 per month, depending on the city and the subsistence level, to £22, and this has not been arrived at by exhaustive research, but purely by sample surveys made by bodies like the Institute of Race Relations. I think the first thing we need is to have a closer inquiry into the cost of living, and not exclusively of the Bantu worker but of the lower-income groups. In this regard we deal with an average figure. We take the cost-of-living index the Government works on, and it is a good index, but it is an average, and whenever you deal with average figures you are running into danger. It is my submission that the average cost of living is only true for a certain level of wage. In other words, I would contend that the cost of living of the lowest income groups has risen more than that of the others. I do not say Mr. Spooner’s figures are accurate, but he has done a sufficiently detailed analysis to raise the question of the validity of the cost-of-living index we accept as an average in relation to the lowest-paid workers. He takes a period of 15 years ending in 1953-4, and he finds that the cost of living of a Bantu family based on the cost of mealie-meal, blankets, etc. has risen to 182 at a time when our average index rose to 150. On the basis of that figure—I do not say it is a correct figure; what I would like to see is elaborate research into the cost of living of that particular group —but if that figure is correct his conclusion that he draws is also correct, and that is that the real wages of Bantu workers have actually fallen rather than risen relatively to the skilled workers, although their cash wages have risen. Whether that is true or not I do not know, but even if that figure has remained just static it is quite a serious matter because in most of our discussions here in dealing with the average figure we are quite satisfied that the bottom level, although it might be not improving as fast as we could wish, is nonetheless improving steadily in terms of real wages. I think this is well worth an investigation by the Government, and in the amendment we are going to move we will submit that the Government should consider the advisability of establishing a commission to inquire thoroughly into the cost of living of the rural and urban worker at the lowest level, i.e. particularly the Bantu worker, because this is the most important thing that we should establish. It is not of much value us coming to this House and comparing our lowest-paid worker with those elsewhere in Africa, and because our position is better saying that we can be complacent and need not worry about the criticism we are getting. The fact is that we are more highly developed than those countries, we have more power applied in industry and we have advanced more in technology and ipso facto therefore our wages should be higher than in those countries. I am not criticizing South Africa; I welcome the fact that we are beginning to get at the roots of poverty.

Are you against raising wages in South Africa?

I am for raising wages, but I am saying that the comparison of a highly developed country’s wage structure with that of a less developed country is not of much value. My whole case is for the raising of wages and for the establishment of regional minimum wages, difficult as the matter may be.

Does the hon. member now advocate that wages should be raised in South Africa without any regard to the increased productivity of the worker?

Of course I would not advocate such a thing, except at a given instant of time. Then I would. If you regard the economic structure as a dynamic process, of course you cannot consider steadily increasing wages with a falling productivity, but at a given instant of time you might say that the bottom level is so low that the benefits coming from raising that bottom level are worth the shock that may result to the economy referred to by the hon. member for Pretoria (West). But as the hon. member for Jeppes has pointed out, at a certain level increasing wages to improve the nutrition standard of the worker will itself increase production, just as the West found out in the 19th century that a steady decrease in hours from 12 to eight steadily increased production, because of the increased efficiency of the workers under those conditions. A lot of these generalizations are dangerous to deal with. You must deal with the thing in detail rather than in broad generalization. That brings me to another point I wish to make in this regard. We speak of raising wages in secondary industry, for example, as though secondary industry were a kind of homogeneous thing, and the Government policy is to raise wages selectively; in other words where in a particular industry it can readily be done—whether by self-government or not is not the point at issue here—then you lift the wage in that industry but not over secondary industry as a whole, and naturally in general progress this is the sort of pattern we will follow. But what I want to point out— what was left out of the argument—is that different industries vary quite considerably in the relation of wages to costs, the proportion that wages represent in the determination of costs. For example, in the building industry wages are not, contrary to popular belief, a highly significant proportion of total cost. In mining they are a much more significant proportion, although not as great a proportion as they used to be before mining became so highly mechanized. In agriculture they used to be a very high proportion of costs until an element of mechanization was also introduced into agriculture and land values became inflated so that capital became a very big factor. But you must analyse this thing in each industry, because where wages do not represent a significant proportion of costs and where that industry is highly profitable, it is very easy for that particular group to raise wages; it is a question of the bargaining power between two groups. But that particular industry is also competitive in the labour market with other industries where the relation of wages to cost is different. This is one of the great difficulties in the way of establishing a minimum wage. The hon. member dealt with this by implication when he spoke about marginal firms. He said that if you had a firm at a marginal wage level, if I understood him correctly, then if you establish a general minimum wage that was above the wage level of that firm, you put it out of business. So all those things have to be considered, and one more thing has to be considered: We are all familiar with the argument in this House that capital and labour work together, that the two are interdependent, that you cannot get on with production if the one is not associated with the other. Well, it is equally true to say that you cannot get on with production unless unskilled and skilled wages are associated together. An important thing also is the ratio between those two groups in numbers and the ratio between those two groups in actual wages paid, and it is here as I have said earlier, that our economy is so much out of phase, or has its peculiar problems—to put it in another way—compared with the economies of other countries of the world, but it is my contention that unless you raise the percentage of unskilled to skilled, not only do you get a very unstable condition in your economic society but ultimately you cannot increase production because the incentive applied to that unskilled group counts for just as much as the incentive applied to the skilled group. We say that our problems are unique but let me give a comparison in the history of 100 years ago of a very similar problem that arose, at a time when in England the unskilled wages were at the lowest level, but still they came, so to speak, from the reserves—I do not know whether the country of Ireland would like me to describe them as the reserves of English labour—but there still came labour from Ireland that would undercut the lowest level of the existing wage levels. One of the arguments used by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) was in the direction of decreasing the labour force available to us as one of the means—I do not know whether he was thinking there in political terms or exclusively in economic terms— of maintaining the wage level of the African worker in the town. I think nothing could be more harmful than this concept of limiting a labour force in order to protect existing workers. The temporary effect of the converse process of raising the wage can be to decrease the labour force, and simultaneously with that will go the thing for which both the speakers on that side of the House pleaded, an increase in the efficiency of management, because management, confronted with the necessity of having to pay a certain level of wage, automatically tries to adjust its productive methods to that higher cost. This is immediately what would happen if you established a minimum wage for a given area above the existing level. There would tend to be a decrease in employment for the time being; there would tend to be an increase in the efficiency of management and there would slowly tend to be an increased absorption of labour, resulting both from the increased productivity of that industry and the increased purchasing power that would be available. We argue on this increased purchasing power by raising wages particularly from the angle that it will benefit industry in general, but the important effect that increased purchasing power would have would be to increase the size of the industrial unit, and most of industrial units in South Africa, with the exception of a few are too small and therefore costly because they had to adjust themselves to the market that was available in the country. Now, if you can increase the size of your industrial unit, then the question of your export market (the point made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt)) is alleviated.

Why?

Because an increase in the size of the factory unit generally decreases your total production costs. Your production costs are very high in this country in many cases because the factory unit is too small, and with the increase in size we cannot apply mass production techniques to industries with a very limited market, and the mass production technique that we might be able to apply here, if our domestic purchasing power is increased, would then benefit us in the overseas markets because we are now competing on a much better basis with the other people who have got the domestic market to create units of an economic size. As with the farm, so with the factory; there is an optimum economic size for each type of undertaking, and in most cases in South Africa we have not got to that optimum size. In the steel industry, for example, we are on that level, but when we get more units like that we will need a larger domestic purchasing power to enable us to operate internationally. I do not want to go too deeply into that but it is an important point that the increase in internal purchasing power does not merely benefit a factory from the temporary increase in profits and output, it benefits it in that it is enabled to adjust its size to the optimum; it is enabled to spend more money on research to be able to improve its techniques and so forth.

In the short time at my disposal I want to make a bit of a case for what I would call a regional minimum wage. I think a general minimum wage in South Africa would be a very difficult thing to put into effect, but I do submit that it will be possible to do something more than the purely selective approach that the Government advocates, and that is assisting through the Wage Board, but otherwise not interfering with self-government, allowing selective industry where there is great profitability and, where the wages are not in high relation to costs, gradually to raise wages and so, by competitive effect, to raise it in other spheres. The basic problem here, which is not easy of solution but which I think the Government should keep in mind, is the relation between the labour force in the three big groups of activity that I outlined at the beginning, that is to say, conquering poverty in the reserves, working in rural areas mostly in agriculture but to a certain extent in small industries, and the association of capital and labour in the big complex of the great towns. If you do not have some kind of balance between those three things—I admit that it is a long period ideal—then you will get an inbalance in the supply of labour between one of those three things. Our influx control regulations and so forth are an attempt, at their very best, to destroy an inbalance that tends to exist through the pressure of poverty in the reserves on the one hand and the attraction of such wages as we pay on the other hand, causing a tremendous one-way current to the towns. There is the problem of farm labour so we tend to push the labour back from the towns, not merely for economic reasons, not for reasons of supply and demand, but because there is a call from the agricultural community for such labour. In the ideal system you would have wages in each of these three places at a level which eventually determine an equilibrium which would give you roughly the proportion of labour that you want in each of the three sectors. I admit that that is a very long-period ideal, but you can move towards that and it is partly because of the wage structure that has existed in the past, the differentiation that we have recognized in our wage determinations between the platteland and the towns, and the special nature of primary industry and the special difficulties of primary industry compared to secondary, that we are talking in terms of a regional minimum wage —a platteland/town minimum wage as compared with a big town minimum wage. I am speaking in very general terms at the moment. Not only must you have a relation between those things but it must cover a wider sphere than our legislation at present covers. In other words, I consider that ultimately farming, as a big primary industry, must be considered like any other big primary industry in relation to a minimum wage, but making allowance, which can be done, for payments which are made other than in cash wages in that particular pursuit. In other words, where the use of land is put at the disposal of the worker or where he receives food allowance should be made for that. But if you exclude the huge spheres of activity entirely, you will never get anything like a balance between the needs of these different activities. When the Botha Commission reported one of the biggest points on which they concentrated their attention was what they called co-ordination, i.e. not the wage level that is achieved in any one industry by reason of supply and demand but the relation between the wage levels in the different industries, in other words, some kind of attempt to relate the wages of the steel worker to the wages of an agricultural worker —not directly, but to have some reason why the difference should be so much and why that relationship should be retained. Now, in a private enterprise economy it is very difficult to arrive at any basis of direct coordination, and I myself would not support it, just as in any normal society I personally would not be a strong supporter of the approach of a general minimum wage, because the law of supply and demand is the thing that should be operating. We live in South Africa in a society which for historical reasons, and by reason of the policy in other regards, which I do not wish to go into too deeply here, in which the law of supply and demand is directly interfered with …

When business was suspended I was pleading for an investigation into a true cost-of-living allowance for the lowest income group, and also pleading that the Government should consider investigating the question of regional minimum wages, recognizing the difficulty of one single national minimum wage. By “regional minimum wage” I do not necessarily mean a purely geographical basis of separation—a minimum wage for Cape Town, Durban or Johannesburg—but rather regional in the sense of those regions where different conditions prevail, for example in rural platteland areas as compared with the big industrial complexes. When business was suspended I was about to move the further amendment which I will now move and which embodies these two ideas—

Sir, many points were raised by the mover of this motion—such questions as the self-government of industry and what meaning that has where the great bulk of the labour force has absolutely no real say in its own government. By the “ great bulk of the labour force ” I refer to that bulk which is not White. My seconder will deal with a number of these points, but before sitting down I just wanted to ask one question. The motion of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) suggests that the Government should continue with its policy of gradually raising wages at the bottom level. Well, I would like to know when the Government began, because I have never understood that it was the policy of the Government to raise wages at the bottom level, or if it has been their policy, they have taken no practical steps to carry it out. All they have done is not to get in the way of those industrial councils and other bodies which have to some extent arranged a rise in the wages at the bottom. We have heard mention of bodies like the commission instituted by the Chambers of Industry and other bodies to go into this question of increased wages in relation to productivity, but these were not bodies instituted by this Government. The Government at this stage is beginning at least not to discourage such bodies, but while I have been here I have always understood the attitude of that side of the House to be that we do not wish to grant recognition of self-government to Bantu trade unions, because ultimately they will use these trade unions for political purposes, and if you pay them too high wages, they will begin to use such economic power as they get against you. That is what I have up till now understood to be the attitude of the Government rather than a policy which directly encouraged the raising of wages at the bottom level. But leaving that aside, if the Government is going to begin now on a policy of directly encouraging, so far as the State does intervene in this matter, a rise in wages, it must be welcomed. The point has been made and made correctly by speakers on this side of the House that no matter how our bottom wages may compare with the bottom wages of other countries, in relation to the cost of living of the people who get those wages they still leave very much to be desired. I do not agree with those who said that occurrences such as Langa and Sharpeville were solely attributable to low wages, but I do say that low wages and poverty are a factor in the type of discontent that manifests itself in outbreak of violence there. In conclusion I want to recommend to the Government that it is not merely a question of raising wages; it is a question of allowing labour to bargain for the best wages it can get under given circumstances. [Time limit.]

I second the further amendment. I must say that I never cease to be amazed in this House at the arguments, which are so often contradictory, which are used by hon. members on that side of the House. When it suits them hon. members are great supporters of laissez-faire. When it does not suit them, of course, it is necessary for every citizen in this country to have the guiding hand of the State to control every facet of our lives. I must say that over the years the emphasis, of course, have been on State control in everything that we do, everything that we think and everything that we read. To-day hon. members on the Government side have had their laissez-faire boots on and they are protesting against any incursion on the part of the State into what they deem to be the realm of private enterprise. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) told us that any attempt by the Government to institute a national system of minimum wages would affect the autonomy of industry. I think the same point was made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt). They told us that they were for industry being allowed to run its own affairs and that if the Government should attempt to institute a system of minimum wages this would mean interference in private enterprise. I do not know where hon. members get the idea that there is any true autonomy in the running of industrial enterprises to-day, either in this country or in any other country. Indeed, long, long ago the idea of laissez-faire in industrial enterprise disappeared. It disappeared with the promulgation of Factory Acts, of Acts controlling conditions of labour, conditions of employment of women and children, of hours of labour, safety regulations, etc. All these are factors which in themselves obviously increased cost of production but which necessarily control the private entrepreneur in the running of his business. The old days of child labour, the old days of the industrial revolution in England where employers could pay their employees starvation wages, have long gone by the board in modern industrial countries, and therefore for hon. members to pretend that we are introducing a new principle in the control of industry by the suggestion that it is time the Government introduced a national system of wages based on regional cost of living differences, is of course, quite absurd. The hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) went so far as to ask us whether we did not believe in the system of free enterprise and whether we did not support the capital system. I want to tell the hon. member that this system of minimum wages is indeed the norm, in every country which pretends to be a modern industrial country. It is the norm, not the exception at all. As the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has pointed out: America which is the most highly capitalistic and the most highly industrialized country in the world has long had a system of national minimum wages. At present that wage is a dollar an hour in a 40-hour working week. Recently attempts were made in the American Congress to get that minimum wage raised to $1.25 per hour. Those attempts have not yet succeeded, but the basic principle of a minimum wage below which a person, no matter how humble his employment, cannot be employed, is not only a state law but is the federal law and it applies throughout the United States. Australia in fact uses a minimum wage which is based on a family system and they have an irreducible basic wage below which no person might be employed. New Zealand has such a wage. In the United Kingdom there are minimum wages for practically every single occupation in Great Britain. So there is nothing new in this and it does not undermine the system of free enterprise, and indeed it is utilized, as we have pointed out, by practically every modern industrial state. As long ago as 1946, our hon. Minister of Transport was advocating a system of minimum national wages. He did not seem to be unduly concerned at that time about upholding the basic concepts of free enterprise and the capitalistic system. He was advocating it as one of the basic policies of the Nationalist Party. He went much further of course. He wanted the nationalization of the gold mines and certain other industries, but indeed he was at that time advocating a system of minimum wages. So for hon. members on the other side to come to-day and profess surprise that we suggest this, and to say that by doing so we are undermining the capitalistic system, is nothing short of hypocrisy.

Other arguments were used, for instance, the argument used by the hon. member for Karas (Mr. Von Moltke) in an interjection—and this argument has also been used by other hon. members on previous occasions—namely to ask us what law exists in South Africa against the raising of wages by employers. In other words, they say that it is the employer’s responsibility to increase wages. When hon. members use that argument, they do not understand the basic principle of competitive enterprise. Sir, if I am an employer in the boot factory, for example, and I wish to raise the wages of my workers above the average wage which is paid in that industry, I am immediately put in a grossly disadvantageous position vis-à-vis my competitors in that industry. Therefore, one would require to be not only an industrialist but a philanthropist. There are such industrial philanthropists, fortunately, because in many industries in South Africa to-day individual employers are taking the initiative by raising wage levels above the minimum wages which are paid by their competitors.

Why then this accusation?

I don’t understand the interjection of the hon. member. May be he will get up and make his own speech and then we will understand him better.

We won’t.

The hon. member may well be right. In any case, the position is that under free enterprise an industrialist has to take note of his competitors and the price which his competitors are charging in the open market, and it will require great power of will and indeed very great elasticity of profits for any entrepreneur to put his wages higher than the wages paid by his competitors. This point was very well made by Mr. Lulofs, who was quoted by the hon. member who moved the motion this morning, and who last year was the president of the South African Chamber of Industries. He said—

And this is the salient point-

Increases in Native wages would, however, not be easy to organize on a voluntary basis. There were many who were prepared to revise Native wages, but there are always the few who would like to see their competitors increase their cost structure so that they might obtain a larger share of the local market for themselves on the price basis. For this reason the Chamber of Industries had asked Cabinet Ministers to modify and improve the machinery for wage fixing, and particularly to make it possible for the Wage Board to review unskilled wages at more regular intervals, and also to allow Native workers themselves to take part in wage negotiations.

In other words, it clearly cannot be left to the individual entrepreneur to put up wages. He will probably do so if he can compete adequately, but in the main the entrepreneur must always take cognizance of conditions prevailing in the open market.

He did not ask for a general minimum wage.

He said, “Many of us genuinely believe that what is being done is not enough ”.

Yes, he wants the Wage Board to effect increases.

That is precisely what I want done.

But you are advocating a minimum wage.

The point is that we are arguing why entrepreneurs generally throughout the country cannot put up wages without the institution of minimum wages. Of course, you ultimately will have minimum wages when you lay down a minimum wage for every occupation. The employers themselves believe that it has to be tackled by the Government.

There is a difference between a general minimum wage and what Mr. Lulofs is asking.

Certainly there is a difference between a national minimum wage and what Mr. Lulofs asks for, but there is no difference in the argument in regard to the point made by the hon. member for Karas who said that employers themselves can do this without Government intervention. Mr. Lulofs’s point and my point is that that in fact cannot be done without Government intervention. This is one facet of our life where I would welcome Government intervention, and it would very much be to the benefit of all of us if the Government would devote itself to interfering in such a facet of life and leave other facets alone.

Some of the other arguments that have been used also must be countered at this stage. The hon. member for Pretoria (West), or the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg)—I am not sure which—made the point that if wages go up in towns, this will have a disastrous effect on the rural autonomy, because it will draw workers from the rural areas to the towns. In other words, workers will move from the platteland where farmers are paying low wages, to the towns and this would have a doubly bad effect, first of all by depriving farmers of labour and secondly by increasing the difficulties of urban Africans in the towns. It is very possible that if wages go up in the towns only, there will be a drift of labour from the rural areas to the towns. Indeed that is happening to-day because rural wages are much lower than urban wages, certainly cash wages. I know the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) is looking belligerent because he wants to deny this and he is going to tell me that I always underrate the wages paid by farmers and that I have no idea of how much is paid in kind, and that therefore the wages do not in fact compare so unfavourably with wages paid in urban areas. Nevertheless the point is that the cash wages are higher and the African farm labourer does not value the wages in kind as high as the farmer values the wages in kind I might throw a little hint in the direction of the hon. member that it might pay him to pay his farm labourers more in cash and if necessary charge them something for the services in kind that he renders them, possibly by giving them the use of a piece of land. In any case the actual wages in cash and kind, as recent surveys have shown, are lower in the country districts than in the towns. Recently a survey was done of labour in the farm economy by Margaret Roberts and she estimated in one area that the total wages in cash and kind amounted to £7 7s. 8d. per month. She divided her inquiry over five branches of farming: Stock farming, dairy industry, citrus, pine and mixed farming. So there is no doubt that the disadvantages in regard to wages are there Of course, we are not suggesting a minimum wage for urban areas only. We are suggesting that a minimum wage be laid down also for rural areas, taking into consideration the difference in cost of living in town and country and taking into consideration, as far as it is possible to do so, the value of wages paid in kind. Therefore there would not be this great discrepancy, if our proposal were carried, between the wages of rural and urban workers. We believe that wages generally speaking are far too low in South Africa and that they have to be raised both in the rural areas and in the urban areas.

As has been mentioned by other hon. members in this debate, it is quite impossible to consider the question of minimum wages and a system of attempting to work out cost of living and everything else that goes with minimum wages in vacuo. Closely related to the whole question of wages are the factors which affect the whole question of the demand and supply of labour and the socio-economic policy generally. It is no good simply asking the Government to review existing minimum wage legislation, or for instance to get the Wage Board working more expeditiously so that it does not take 14 or 15 years before a new Wage Board determination comes out in respect of different industrial occupations and in respect of unskilled wages. One also has to consider the whole relationship of socioeconomic policies in this regard. That means that the Government obviously would have to give attention to matters such as influx control which prohibits labour from flowing to the centres where the wage rates are higher, as for instance from farming areas to urban areas, influx control that maintains a cheaper supply of labour for the rural community. Consideration will have to be given to all the devices which keep employers from hiring the labour they would like to choose and keep employees from offering their labour in the higher paid markets. The whole question of migratory labour comes into the picture of low wage rates. Indeed one might say that one had to find an historical reason for the very low unskilled wage rate in this country and the high skilled rate, which as the hon. member has pointed out is of an unusually high spread in South Africa compared with other countries, that historical reason would be found in the utilization of migratory labour. Because from the early days on, with the development of our first real industrial economy on the diamond mines, the utilization of migratory labour has affected the pattern of wage levels throughout South Africa. It was continued in the gold mines and continued to some extent in the present industrial economy in the towns of to-day, that is in secondary industry and commerce, although not to the same extent Of course originally on the diamond mines there was this freely flowing available source of labour from the Native reserves, coming in to earn a cash wage, and the man was paid on the assumption that his family was being maintained on the Native reserves and assumption which of course to-day is no longer correct. But all these are factors that have to be considered. The migratory labour system is one which even to-day is being encouraged by the Government, indeed, is its major labour policy. It discourages as far as possible the settling of a stable urbanized African labour force, it encourages the continuation of this migratory labour system. Sir, it is hard to over-emphasize the complete inefficiency of the utilization of migratory labour.

Why?

I will tell the hon. member why. Not that he has not been told before, and not that I have any hope whatever that he will appreciate what I am saying now. I will use only words of one syllable: It is because a man does not become an efficient worker in any occupation if he shifts from one job to the other. He is neither a good agricultural worker, nor is he a good industrial worker.

He never stays long enough to acquire any real skill in any job. Is that penetrating this time?

If one looks at a study which was recently done by Prof. Hobart Houghton of Rhodes University, a study on migratory labour which was called “ Men of two worlds: Some aspects of migratory labour”, he found in this study, which was based on 340 employment histories of the typical African, that the typical African over a period of 31 years spent 36 per cent of his time at home and 64 per cent of his time in employment away from home. He had 34 different jobs and the average length of time that he spent at each job was 47 weeks. A labour turnover of 120 per cent, he states, is by no means unknown. Obviously that is a highly inefficient system of labour. It is not only a highly inefficient system, but it is one of the basic reasons for the prevailing low rates of wages in unskilled jobs in South Africa, and that is why I say we cannot consider this question of the institution of a national minimum wage system in vacuo. We have to take into consideration all these other socio-economic factors. Let me take another factor that has to be taken into consideration, this question of trade unionism. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) told us that the works committees have achieved far more for the African workers than trade unions could have achieved, and he also mentioned the Central Native Labour Board. I want to say immediately that the Central Native Labour Board has done a great deal, particularly in recent months, in increasing basic wages. It was high time that something was done, because for nearly 16 years unskilled labour rates were practically static in this country, although the cost of living was shooting up all the time and there was this tremendous post-war development that we had in South Africa. I will give credit to that Board. It has done a great deal. There was much leeway to be made up, and although it has made up some of that leeway, a great deal still remains to be done. Although I give credit to the Board for what it has done, I am not prepared to concur with the hon. member’s dogmatic statement that this Board has done more to raise the Native wages than would have happened under the ordinary process of collective bargaining. Indeed, I dispute this most strongly. Through the history of all industrial countries it has been shown that one force and one force only has really been the propelling force behind upward movements in wages and that has been collective bargaining by the workers themselves, for the simple reason that nobody else is as interested in improving conditions of labour and wages as are the workers themselves. This has been proved over and over again in the industrial history of every single country in the world, and there is no reason why South Africa should be any different. It is high time that African workers who are urbanized, who are stable and employed in industry, should have the right of collective bargaining. It is no accident that it is precisely in those occupations where 95 per cent of the work is performed by Africans that the wage rates have been static over a period of 16 years. It is purely and simply because the benefit of collective bargaining has been denied to them.

I have mentioned other factors, such as the reorganization of the wage structure. I agree with the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) when he refers to this tremendous spread between unskilled and skilled wages and when he says that this spread in South Africa is an unhealthy spread. It does not exist anywhere else. We still need reclassification of jobs in this country. It has been going on with the concurrence of some of the White trade unions themselves in some cases, where they have agreed to the reclassification of jobs, and industry has gone in more for semi-skilled occupations rather than a clear division between purely skilled jobs which carry craft union status and the unskilled jobs which carry no status at all. In between now we have this ladder of semi-skilled jobs, mainly due to the introduction of machine processes, the mechanization of industry. But although there has been this reclassification of jobs, more such reclassification is needed before industry can be brought on to a proper basis and a better wage structure introduced in South Africa.

Finally, I want to say that never before has it been so necessary for South Africa to reappraise its whole attitude towards the utilization of labour. I say this because to-day we are being thrown more and more on our own resources. External markets and markets to the north of us in Africa are slowly being closed to us as a result of boycott movements, increasing unpopularity of South African goods, in ability of our manufacturers to put “ Made in South Africa ” on the products— all these are signs of the times, and South Africa is going to be thrown more and more on her own resources, and it is essential that if our standard of living is not to drop to disastrously low levels, that we do our best to improve the utilization of our labour resources, and most important of all that we do something to increase our small internal market. That is the basic factor: We have got to increase our internal market in South Africa if we are in some way or other to offset the already apparent slackening of industrial tempo in this country. There are many reasons for the small market. Although we have got approximately 14,500,000 inhabitants, their total consumer demand is about one-half of that of Australia with its population of 10,000,000. I wonder why the hon. member shakes his head? Is he distressed or does he not believe me?

No, it is not correct.

I am quoting expert figures and I can assure the hon. member that they are correct.

But why compare us with Australia, why not with the other states of Africa?

I am hoping that hon. members of this House consider South Africa a modern state. Of course if they consider us a primitive African state, I will be very happy to compare this country with Ghana if you like, which is also becoming industrialized quickly, or Tanganyika, Uganda. But I consider South Africa to be a modern industrial country, and I don’t want to compare South Africa with primitive African states, and I don’t want to compare South Africa with countries like India and Pakistan, which after all have overwhelming populations, and much smaller material resources than South Africa. Surely the more logical comparison is with a country similar to our own.

You need not go so far. Look at our neighbours.

South Africa I want to regard as a modern industrial state, and I am keen to continue to use motor-cars and not to go back to the ox-wagon.

May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member says that South Africa is a modern industrial state. How is it then that just over our border, where there are just as many resources as in the Union, there is not that development and that the Bantu there have to come to the Union for work? Why is it that here we have a highly industrialized country and not over the border?

That was rather a long question, which requires a short answer. The hon. member cannot compare us with our neighbours, because they do not have the same advantages that we have, they have not got the same European population in numbers.

How did we start?

It was settled—I am now referring to the Federation—250 years later than the Union. It has not got the gold this country has got, it has not the iron ore and other resources we have. Admittedly the Federation is more developed than the other states, but is not nearly as developed as the Union of South Africa. Its national income is nothing like our national income. That is why I am not comparing the two.

But why compare us with Australia?

In Australia the unskilled workers earns about £12 a week.

The worker in Australia is a European.

That may be, but it makes no difference whether the hands that work are black or white, or whether the mouth that consumes belongs to a White person or a Black person—it still has the effect of increasing the internal market.

Whilst the worker in Australia earns about £12 a week, the unskilled worker in South Africa earns less than £3 10s. a week. Imagine the effect on the internal market in South Africa if we could increase the wages earned by unskilled workers in South Africa, the enormous injection of consumer demand, backed up by cash—because the demand is there, but it is not backed up by cash. If we had that increase in our internal market, our industrial progress could continue. Enormous changes could take place in this country. At present the aggregate African income is in the neighbourhood of R800,000,000 per annum, and it would be to our obvious benefit if we injected more than this effective consumer demand into our economy. All non-White workers, not only Africans, should have an increase in wages which in turn would benefit all the workers in South Africa, because it would immediately increase the demand and the whole economy of this country would benefit. The larger internal market would mean larger output of factories and savings on unit costs of production. By using our plants to full capacity, which is not happening to-day, we could lower our unit costs of production, and this in turn would increase the competitive ability of local industry not only vis-à-vis imports, but also vis-à-vis our shrinking export markets which we will have to recapture at some time or other. Secondly, productivity would rise as a result of an increase in wages.

May I ask the hon. member a question? She continually uses the term “ increased wages ”. Up to what limit does the hon. member want to go?

I cannot give the hon. member a figure. All I say is that we must go in for progressive increases so as at least to bring the minimum wage up to the poverty datum line, because at the present stage the vast majority of our workers are living below the poverty line, and malnutrition and lower productivity go hand in hand. So that if you pay more wages, the workers would be better fed, and if your workers were better fed, that in turn would mean that they would produce more. South Africa is different from other countries in this respect. Where normally you would merely say that an increase in wages would only be possible as a result of an increase in productivity, here it may very well mean that an increase in wages will in itself lead to an increase in productivity.

There I agree with you.

Then I hope this motion is going to be carried if everybody agrees. This question of productivity has of course been operating the minds of all the members of this House, and obviously it is the important factor, but as I said originally we are in the peculiar position here that you have first to increase wages to hope for increased productivity. Thereafter you will get further increases in productivity and you will get mass production and the saving of unit costs in production.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) mentioned that efforts are already being made by employers to use labour more efficiently. That of course is quite true. But, Sir, all these efforts by the employers are bedevilled by other socio-economic policies that surround employment in South Africa, and bedevilled also by the availability of so-called cheap labour. That has been one of the main stumbling blocks to better productivity in South Africa, because there is a big pool of unskilled labour in South Africa, a reservoir of unskilled labour so that employers go in for a policy of “ hire and fire ” rather than “ hire and train ”, and this has been one of the great stumbling blocks in the way of increased productivity and increased efficiency in South Africa. I may say that if labour were not so cheap in South Africa employers would think twice about the expensive way in which they use their labour in this country. The very fact that wages are low has made for extravagant and inefficient use of labour, and employers would double and redouble their efforts to improve productivity if labour was not so cheap as it is in South Africa. You would find that employers would go in for better selection of employees. At the present stage, from this vast pool of unskilled labour they take anything that offers. They make no attempt to use aptitude tests, to select their workers, because they believe that an African is an easily interchangeable unit, and it doesn’t much matter if you employ African A for African B. Now this is increasingly found to be not true by employers who have progressive ideas of industry—I use the more generally understood meaning of the word “ progressive ”—and who have employed aptitude tests and who do their best to select their employees for the particular jobs that they want them to carry out. But even to-day, although this is being done on an increasing scale, in Johannesburg, which is the most advanced industrial area in the Union, the labour turnover still exceeds 50 per cent per annum. So therefore we have loss of efficiency and lower productivity. And this is a tremendously expensive system.

And I say, the long term effects on increased wages, and increased productivity, all of which depend upon a change in policy in the country as regards colour bar legislation, as regards restriction on the utilization of labour—if these things were changed we would have an enormous improvement in the whole economic position of South Africa. The long term effect on combating poverty, on social and economic welfare can only be of benefit to all sections of the population. A contented labour force is a prerequisite of law and order in any country, and a well-paid stable population is not subject to unrest, nor is it a prey to agitators. The whole present trend towards increasing crime, delinquency and unrest, and the sullen, discontented population that we have at the present stage could be almost dramatically reversed if the economic conditions for the non-White labour force in this country were improved.

It is very refreshing to listen once again to a little pure economics— industrial economics—and I want to congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) as a former student on having moved this motion here to-day. But unfortunately while I was listening to this pure industrial economics, I had to return from the lofty spheres to the realities of terra firma here in South Africa. Here we are dealing not with a question of pure industrial economics, but with ideological economics, and one immediately finds oneself faced with the tremendous dilemma with which we are always faced in this country. There is no one who is not in favour of increasing industrial wages, particularly if it entails an increase in real wages as well. But what is our dilemma? It is that in reality we can only achieve this object if we have what I shall describe in the old terms of improved co-operation between White and non-White labour; in other words, improved and more extensive forms of economic integration. Here is our dilemma. Under our ideology we do not want to allow that, while increased wages not only for the non-Whites but for the Whites as well are in the long run absolutely dependent on this process of economic integration, and particularly on the process of qualitative economic integration by which we shall also make the non-Whites semi-skilled and also skilled workers to an ever-increasing extent, instead of their merely remaining unskilled workers. Let us assume that we were to do so. Then we would immediately come face to face with an overwhelming problem, namely that by qualitative integration we shall not only be giving the non-Whites of South Africa higher wages, but—because this is the only result it can have and no other—we shall be giving the non-Whites of this country economic power which will be an increasing economic power and which before long will bring us face to face with the situation that all our talk about rights and political rights will disappear just like the mist before the morning sun. When we proceed to give economic power to our non-Whites, then nothing can prevent them demanding their political and other rights, no matter what we may want to do. That is the dilemma. If we want to implement the ideology of apartheid, then we must necessarily place limitations on the non-White labour in White areas.

Order! The hon. member is now also placing me in a dilemma because he is wandering very far from the motion and the amendments.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am discussing the question of increased wages, and that of minimum wages, and I want to point out what the problem in this regard is. I say that here we have a dilemma on which the nation must decide. If we decide upon separation, then we must shed the illusion that we can increase wages. Because I repeat that if such wage increases are to mean anything, then they can only be achieved by a more advanced form of economic integration of White and non-White labour. We are always inclined to discuss these matters in a vacuum —in a lacuna. The question of increasing wages, even when considered purely in terms of economics, cannot be regarded as something separate, but we must see it against the background of our capital resources, our entrepreneur resources and the quality of those resources, of the organizers of our business undertaking. In this country we have what we can describe as a plentiful labour supply but comparatively little capital. The result will be that every employer will be inclined to link an increased dose of labour with his limited capital resources. We say to-day that South Africa can or can nearly meet her own capital requirements. When I see that a large section of our people have to work for such low wages that the country is lagging behind as far as our real and essential development is concerned, is in my opinion the worst possible nonsense to say that South Africa has sufficient capital available. We require infinitely more capital if we want to use the labour we have available at a higher level. By the same token, in the case of the entrepreneur class, one of our handicaps as regards industrial development and the possibility of paying higher real wages, is the shortage of entrepreneurs and the quality of our entrepreneurs. This again links up with a very much wider problem, namely the distribution of labour not only in our country, but throughout the whole Western world. We normally refer to this aspect as immigration. Immigration means nothing else than the redistribution of the available labour resources.

Our Government adopts a dangerous attitude; it takes unto itself the responsibility of deciding upon wage scales; it does not allow the worker, as is the position in other countries, to contribute to increasing his wages himself by means of collective bargaining. For that reason the duty that rests on the State in this country is so much the greater, seeing that the responsibility has been taken from the worker himself. Whatever the feelings of certain employers may be—in most cases they simply cannot afford to pay higher wages—it is the State’s function to increase minimum wages because the worker himself in his competition with the employers cannot do so on his own.

May I ask you a question? To what do you attribute the fact that while in the other African States that competitive right of the Bantu for example is recognized—in other words, the Bantu trade unions are recognized—the wages of the Bantu in this country where that recognition does not exist are nevertheless so much higher than in the countries where they do have that bargaining right?

*Prof. FOURIE: The answer is quite simple, and I am once again using my old terms because here in South Africa we have a tremendous head start in respect of what I shall describe as qualitative economic integration. We have here an industrialization process which is much older than in the Federation or any other African country. I also just want to give the hon. member an answer to another question which is continuously being put with reference to the fact that the wages of the workers in African countries other than the Union are so much lower than in the Union itself. The answer is obvious. It is not because we ourselves are so much more altruistic, but it is because nowhere else in Africa has non-White labour together with White labour made such a tremendous contribution to building up the national income. Although in the opinion of many people the non-White worker in this country perhaps does not earn nearly what he should …

When will you demonstrate the much vaunted advantages of the bargaining right which you are discussing? You have not yet discussed that aspect, nor did the previous speaker.

I am answering the question which the hon. member has put. If we had had the right of collective bargaining in this country—particularly in view of the fact that the State is expected to fulfil this function, but nevertheless does not do so as it should—wage scales would probably have been far higher than they are now, and the difference between wage scales elsewhere and in this country would have been even greater. But the reason why the wage scales are higher in this country is not because we in this country are so altruistic. They are based on the higher productivity which has been achieved in this country by the use of Native labour in conjunction with White labour. There is no such thing as the productivity of Native labour. The whole concept is a monstrosity. There is no such thing as the productivity of labour as such, but of White labour in conjunction with non-White labour, together with the function of the entrepreneur.

You are now evading my question.

These are a few of the questions which we should ask ourselves. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is correct when she, together with the hon. member opposite, said that we had 14,500,000 or 15,000,000 people in South Africa, while we had no more than 5,000,000 economically effective units. In other words, our domestic market is so limited that we simply cannot utilize the most modern methods of production. For that reason it is so essential that we should raise the economic effectiveness of our whole population as rapidly as possible so that we can expand our markets. We cannot do so merely by paying higher wages. We can do that as a start. If at the start of the ploughing season the oxen are so underfed that they cannot pull the plough—in other words, their productivity is nil—one can easily increase productivity immediately by feeding them with a little fodder. Then at least they can pull the plough. This we can also do to a certain extent in the case of labour—but only to a very limited extent. In the long run productivity must be equal to the wage being paid or higher than the wage. What I want to emphasize here is that we should not only think of the worker when we discuss increased wages. The employer is as responsible as the worker himself for higher wages through the efficiency of his organization. The efficiency of labour is in fact more dependent on the use to which the employer puts it. This does not divest the worker of all responsibility. He must try to increase his productivity himself, but in the long run it depends on the employer how productive the worker will be; and the employer’s productivity will in the final analysis depend not only on his own ability, but on the capital which he has available. I can see that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is here. I hope we shall hear less of the nonsense that South Africa can already save sufficient capital each year to finance the enormous development which is required in this country if we want to meet to any extent the problems facing us.

There is just one other point I want to mention, and it is that we have this peculiar situation in South Africa that our Government, perhaps of necessity because of social reasons, is applying a system of influx control and is doing so to an increasing extent in respect of our labour market. I personally approve of this because the establishment of a closed labour market in the large industrial centres to a certain extent contributes to the wages of our Native workers not being as low as they would otherwise have been. When one limits the influx of labour—when one creates an artificial shortage of labour—it also makes it easier comparatively speaking to solve the problem of increased wages from the point of view of the employers. An unrestricted influx of Native labour to the few industrial centres of our country would simply force wage scales down and would create an impossible social position. Influx control with the accompanying creation of closed labour markets can be justified. It has a certain positive value, but the great importance of these steps which the Government has taken in connection with influx control is that they are negative in nature. It is pointless making a certain wage scale possible for a certain percentage of the population, while the greater bulk of our labour supply is of necessity kept on the platteland and in the reserves and even on the farms of White farmers at wage scales on which they cannot live. In the long run influx control will cease to be effective. We cannot create closed markets for a portion of our labour supply while the others must simply fend for themselves. For that reason I want to praise as one of the main factors which will make the payment of increased wages possible, apart from its ideological significance, the purposeful and positive attempts which are now being made to establish labour markets in the reserves and on the borders of the reserves where the surplus labour which cannot be employed in the closed labour markets, will also find a livelihood in the course of time.

At the very outset I want to congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) on the most capable way in which they have submitted this matter to the House to-day. They have both made a thorough study of the subject and they have submitted it to us in, a very clear way. I am particularly pleased about the opportunity which they have given the House considering this matter to-day. It has been really gratifying to listen to much of the discussions and to many of the opinions which have been expressed. The speeches by Opposition speakers have also contained fewer of the slogans we heard a year ago when the same subject was under discussion. The passage of time may also have given rise to greater clarity of thought and objectivity in the ranks of hon. members opposite, which one appreciates in discussing a matter such as this which is of great importance to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, when one is discussing the question of wages, it is understandable that it should call for one’s serious attention, particularly in a House such as this, because wages constitute such an important factor in determining the purchasing power of a nation, the productivity of that nation and also the standard of living of that nation. It is therefore right that we should consider a matter such as this to-day. When one discusses the question of increased wages, and that of increased Bantu wages—which has been discussed mainly during this debate—I think it is as well that at the outset we should consider the representations or the desire for increased wages against the background of the present earning power of our population groups. When one considers the earning power of our population groups to-day, we can sum up the position in a few words: As far as the Whites are concerned, our White workers are amongst the most prosperous in the world; as far as the Coloured workers are concerned, their position is such that over the past ten or 15 years their standard of living has been raised considerably. I hope that during the Budget debate on the Labour Vote we shall have the opportunity to consider more specifically the position of the Coloured worker in the Western Cape, which will show that in recent years the Coloured has in fact progressed into many spheres of employment which give him a far better livelihood to-day than he enjoyed ten or 15 years ago. And in the third place, as far as the Natives are concerned, it is generally accepted —even the hon. members of the Progressive Party concede this—that our Natives on the average are the best paid on the continent of Africa. This is a generally accepted fact today. But to round off the picture as far as the Natives are concerned, which must serve as a background against which we must see the representations for further increases, I should just like to quote one paragraph written by someone from whom we would not always expect appreciation in this regard. I am referring to the editor of the Star. He was travelling through Europe last year. Inter alia, he gave an interview to the Press in England, and he was asked in the light of articles which he wrote in the Star, what he had told the Fleet Street journalists about South Africa. In October last year he said in a special article that he told the journalists of Fleet Street the following as regards the earning power of the Natives—

And then he goes on to tabulate what real economic benefits the Natives enjoy—an opinion with which we all agree, and one which I am quoting at this stage so that we can see fully the background against which we must consider the pleas for higher wages, whether they be regional minimum wages or any other type of wages. But the picture would perhaps be incomplete from the point of background, if we did not also refer to a very important barometer of the contentment of the Native workers at this stage. I am referring to the question of industrial disputes to which the mover and his seconder have already referred. The conclusion which I should just like to submit at this stage is that we have had fewer industrial disputes involving Natives during the last year than in many earlier years. As a matter of fact, in 1960 we only had 42 industrial disputes. When one considers this fact against the background of the large Native labour force, that figure is minimal and in fact hardly worth mentioning and it serves as a great compliment to the industrial set-up of this country. It serves as a compliment to the industrial arrangements which can best be judged by the extent to which industrial unrest exists. If people, whether they be White or non-White workers, are dissatisfied with the industrial arrangements or the wages being paid, the first signs of such dissatisfaction takes the form of industrial unrest and strikes. Without wanting to claim undue credit for the Government, we can in fact to a large extent attribute this state of affairs to the policy which the Government is following and has followed over the past 13 years, that is to say, the Government’s policy of creating the required industrial machinery, the required industrial arrangements, and of systematically increasing Native wages. For that reason I am surprised that the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) asked in one of the moments when he was trying to be very critical of the exposition given by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East): When did this Government then start increasing unskilled wages? He was implying that our interest in this regard had never been very evident. Perhaps it is necessary to remind the hon. member and the Opposition of certain very important steps which have been and are being taken and on which we are engaged and which have contributed to this state of industrial peace in this country. Hon. members have already referred to the fact that some years ago the Wage Board was divided into two sections to expedite its work. As hon. members know, the result has been that wage determinations which in the past took ten or more years, are now completed in five years or even sooner.

Since when?

The Wage Board was divided into two sections in 1956, and since that time the tempo has been accelerated. The “ output ” of the Wage Board has been more than doubled. In the same way the output of the Wage Board will be increased in another respect as a result of the fact that in future references which are given to the Wage Board will be consolidated. Allow me to give an example. Take the meat industry. In the past when the position in the meat industry required investigation, the references provided that the position should be investigated in Cape Town, then again in Pietermaritzburg, in Johannesburg, etc. These were separate references. In the near future a reference will be issued not to investigate the position in the meat industry in the various cities, but there will be one reference to investigate the meat industry throughout the whole country. This will have many benefits. Apart from the fact that it will expedite the work, we shall also form a more uniform idea of the position and it will approximate very closely to what the Progressive Party has advocated—something which I shall discuss presently—namely their regional minimum wages. This is the second important step—the consolidation of the references which will expedite this work A third step is that we are giving precedence to investigations into those industries which employ the largest number of Native workers. All this is being done with the aim of bringing about the greatest measure of satisfaction in the shortest possible time. To take this process still further, a fourth step is being taken outside the framework of the Wage Board, that is to say, wage increases which the Wage Board lays down, are being applied to other branches of industry. With that object in mind we are ensuring that the Industrial Council agreements—these are the agreements which, as hon. members know, are the result of collective bargaining between the trade unions and the employers’ organizations—are extended to the Native employees in the industries concerned. In this way, that is to say, by this extension of the Industrial Council agreements to include Native workers as well, a total of 240,000 Native workers have, for example, been brought under Industrial Council agreements since 1958 which means that increased wages have been granted to these 240,000 workers. This brings me to the work of the Central Native Labour Board, a board which is doing such important work that I really think greater appreciation could have been expressed to that board because the work it is doing on behalf of the Native worker and in the cause of industrial peace is of immense value. The board makes a point of visiting Industrial Councils and of persuading employers to pay higher wages. It is not always all that easy to persuade the employers to pay increased wages, but under the chairmanship of Mr. Mentz, the chairman of the Central Native Labour Board, great work has been done in this regard and in the past year they have attended 17 of these Industrial Council meetings and they have succeeded in persuading the employers to pay higher wages. The hon. member for Musgrave has asked what wage increases have been granted. The most recent report by the Central Native Labour Board to the Minister tabulates the wage increases which have been granted since 1956. I am not going to give the figures for every year but only for the last two. In 1959 wage increases were granted which varied from 3s. 3d. to £9 9s. 7d. per month in respect of 183,000 workers. In 1960 wage increases, which varied from 5s. 1d. to £6 6s. 9d., were obtained for 135,000 Native workers. In other words, from the beginning of 1956 to the end of 1960 the wages and conditions of service of 541,852 Bantu workers were improved as a result of the work of the board, and the expenditure in which these increases have involved the employers totals millions of rand. In other words, through the machinery of the State a tremendous amount is being done, and in the process of achieving these improved wages and working conditions, all of which are responsible for the industrial peace which we enjoy, the works committees are playing a very important role. I should like to say something in this regard.

I personally gave instructions last year that these works committees should be further extended. At the moment we only have a limited number of these committees in this country, but it is felt that works committees should be established on a far larger scale. Divisional inspectors were instructed to contact employers and to persuade them to establish more such works committees. But in this regard we require the co-operation of the employers, and I want to make an appeal to all employers in the country to assist the Department in establishing these committees which are doing very good work.

How many committees are there to-day?

About 16, and that is very few. We should like to have many more. Last year a conference of these works committees was held in Cape Town and it became evident that the Native workers who were delegates to this conference, approached the question of industrial arrangements and wages in a very responsible fashion. This has given us confidence in a system which began modestly, and we have seen that it is a success, and now we want to extend it still further. As a matter of fact we consider that when they, the employers, consider what the alternative to works committees is they should be favourably disposed towards this proposal because the alternative is the step to which the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) and the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) have alluded to-day, namely the recognition of Native trade unions. If these works committees are not established on a larger scale, it is possible that the leftist agitators may continue agitating for the establishment of Native trade unions, supported perhaps by one or two spokesmen in this House. I think the employers would serve their own cause by being far more favourably disposed towards works committees than they have been in the past. As regards Native trade unions, the hon. member for East London (City) has said that this Government will eventually be forced to recognize such trade unions. The Progressives are far more frank and say that this represents the only salvation for South Africa. In this regard it is perhaps as well that I should give the House the findings of an organization to which hon. members opposite attach a great deal of value, namely the I.L.O. Last year the I.L.O. investigated the activities of the Native trade unions in Africa and I want to give the House one or two of the findings of that commission—

The hon. member for Houghton who has once again pleaded so eloquently for the right of Natives to participate in “collective bargaining ” could safely allow her enthusiasm to be tempered by the experience of Africa. But what is more, as regards political abuse, the I.L.O. came to this conclusion—

This substantiates fully the standpoint and the belief which this side of the House have always held, namely that the Native is not able industrially, socially and mentally to make judicious use of the trade union weapon. That is the experience we have had in this country, and I do not want to repeat all the arguments again. During the debate on the settlement of disputes we gave ample facts and figures. The experience throughout Africa has been that they use the trade union as a political weapon, and not as a bargaining instrument. It is for that reason that we urge that the works committees should be employed as representing a far better system through which the requests or demands of the Natives for increased wages can be considered; because we shall not only be rendering a disservice to South Africa and industry if we should recognize trade unions, but we should also be rendering a disservice to the Natives themselves because we shall be giving them a weapon which they are not competent to use.

As regards the question of increased wages, we are agreed in this House that such increases must be accompanied by increased production, and I am gratified by the clear-headed approach which has been adopted. This matter has not always been approached in this same spirit. It has sometimes been argued that we should simply pay higher wages, that we should pay £1 per day, and that South Africa would then become the land of Canaan. In this regard it is perhaps as well that I should point out that as influential an organization as Assocom also gave its support at its conference last year to the raising of unskilled wages but on the clear condition that such increases should take place gradually and that they should be accompanied by increased productivity; and in this regard the opinion of Mr. Goldberg, the chairman of this organization to which hon. members have referred to-day, namely the Association for the Advancement of Native Wages and Productivity, is also of importance because it shows that there is a greater understanding of the real problem than existed in the past. In his latest statement Mr. Goldberg has said—

This is a very practical approach, which merely goes to show that the direction in which we have moved in recent years has been sound and judicious.

But to-day the Progressive Party has moved an amendment which asks that the Government should consider the advisability of appointing a commission of inquiry to investigate the basic cost of living of urban and rural workers, with a view to instituting regional minimum wages. In the first place I want to express my appreciation for the clear-headed approach which has also been adopted in this regard, in that they have dropped the idea of a national minimum wage.

We have never advocated it.

Oh, then I am pleased that their clear-headed approach has become even clearer because in the past we were always under that impression. For that reason I am pleased that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has introduced this motion so that the Progressive Party have had the opportunity to make there standpoint clear. But now they are advocating regional minimum wages. As far as I am concerned not one of their speakers has expressed himself clearly enough on this point to show where this proposal differs from the present position—and this also links up with the United Party’s amendment which calls upon the Government to assume the primary responsibility for establishing adequate minimum wage standards throughout South Africa. I think that what the Opposition groups request in their amendments is to a large extent being done to-day, in the first place as regards the scientific inquiry into the cost of living. There is hardly any other organization which is better able to do so than the Wage Board. These are experienced people whose task it is to investigate thoroughly the basic living requirements in each area. The numerous reports of the Wage Board testify to the fact that they do not do their work superficially, and I can hardly imagine a commission which could submit a better report on this matter than the Wage Board. But what is more, as regards the request that we should lay down regional wages, that is to a large extent what we are doing. We do have wages for the various areas. I have just said that we have issued an instruction that there should be consolidation, but this also applies to an industry such as the meat industry, and it also covers a region. In this regard I should like to mention something which I regard as yet another indication that we are on the right road. I am referring to the experience of other countries—not that we can always accept their experiences as gospel, but when I was overseas recently I made a point of inquiring from one or two ministries what their policy regarding national minimum wages was. I only want to mention two countries whose experience is of importance to us because their industrial arrangements correspond with ours in other respects, that is to say England and France. In England the Deputy Minister of Labour told me that there were no national minimum wages, but the case of France is far more interesting because it is in line with our own experience. The position in that country is that there are in fact minimum wages but the country is divided into eight different regions. They do not have one national minimum wage. They have a minimum wage in eight different regions, that is to say in the urban areas and in the rural and semi-rural areas. This to a very large extent is similar to the position in South Africa. We also have our various wage determinations for various areas in accordance with their standards of living. The hon. member for Musgrave, despite the fact that they say that they have never advocated a national minimum wage, has nevertheless just said that if it should become necessary to inflict such a shock on the country’s economy, the economy will simply have to bear the shock.

Regional wages.

I am glad that that is the position because for those who still cling to the national minimum wage as the solution of all our problems, the opinion expressed by Prof. Steenkamp are of very great interest. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) has quoted his opinion and hon. members opposite then asked where his figures came from. I should like to give the exact figures so that the House can appreciate what the implications of a national minimum wage would be for South Africa. Prof. Steenkamp recently gave this opinion to the Economic Advisory Council—

I think it is crystal clear to everyone that such an overall increase would be disastrous for the country. It would be disastrous to the continued existence of our industries and the employment opportunities they offer as well as our entire export trade. The only conclusion we can reach is that we must continue with the policy we have adopted, that is to say, of systematically increasing wages, as we have done over the years. It is true that there must be shorter intervals between increases, but at the same time not unduly short intervals so that industry will have an opportunity to adjust itself to each increase, and such increases must be accompanied by increased productivity. But the responsibility for increased productivity, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) and others have said, rests in the first place on the employers. I now want to say that increasing the productivity of Natives is not an easy task because the I.L.O. also sent a mission recently to the Congo to see whether they could make proposals as to how the productivity and the wages of the workers in the Congo could be increased. It will interest the House to hear what their finding was—

The I.L.O. has not yet placed on record our experiences, but it does at least shows that the task of increasing productivity and of telling the Native that if he will produce more he will earn more, is not always such an easy one.

I want to conclude by supporting the plea which the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) has made regarding the provision of food to Natives in order to increase their productivity. This is a very important matter. The hon. member has given the example of the Railways which are providing food to 30,000 Natives. We have the example of the mines which also provide food so that they can achieve maximum production, but I think the time will come when even the Wage Board will have to consider including the provision of food in wage determinations. If we want to increase productivity, it is pointless paying the Native that extra cent in order to increase his productivity if he uses it to buy Coca-Cola and white bread. I think our record over the years regarding functioning of our industrial legislation and the industrial peace which we enjoy is the best proof that we are on the right road and I believe that if South Africa continues along the present lines, we shall increase the prosperity not only of the White but also of the non-White workers and by so doing we shall also establish the greatest possible measure of contentment amongst our Native labour force. For that reason I thank the hon. member for Pretoria (West) once again for having given this House the opportunity to discuss this important matter.

When one reads the terms of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Pretoria (West), one might be misled by the fact that the motion talks of policy, whereas we have heard from much more responsible members opposite that the Government has always denied that it has any responsibility for introducing any policy to increase minimum wages for unskilled workers.

At 3.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 41 (3) and the debate was adjourned until 14 April.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Orders of the Day.

Mr. Speaker, it is noticeable that whenever we in this country have to consider any matter affecting the education of our children and the future of our nation, discord, dispute and unfortunately suspicion as well, always arise. In the case of the matter we are considering to-day, that is to say, these few amendments to the University of the Orange Free State Act, similar friction has once again arisen which, as far as I can see, is only based, and very superficially based at that, on misunderstanding and ignorance of the position. I have said before: Do not argue over our children; do not turn our schools into a battlefield. But whenever education comes under discussion suspicion arises amongst certain sections of the people.

The matter we are discussing to-day is not a question of State policy. This Bill is not one which a Minister has introduced. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) is already becoming restive. If anyone criticizes him, he becomes touchy (skurf). I say this is not a question of State policy. This is a private Bill and an amendment to a private Act which we are considering to-day. The people who are opposing this legislation give full recognition to the principle of university autonomy. I shall come to that aspect, but this step is now being taken because within the framework of the University of the Free State there is an unfortunate inconsistency. There is a conflict between two things, that is to say between the statutes of the University on the one hand and the Universities Act on the other hand. The two differ and this matter must be put right. This matter has already caused so much unrest amongst the community of the Free State that the Church has expressed itself very strongly and seriously on this point. For ten years this matter has already been under the serious consideration not only of the Church but of the council of the University itself. It is felt that the community is not being served in accordance with the principles embodied in its statutes. In 1959 the Smithfield “Ring” resolved—

The reason why the “Ring” was so emphatic and repeatedly used the word “ seriously ” is the fact that the “Ring” also took the following resolution—

The “Ring” was concerned and the Church in the Free State were concerned about a type of colourless policy in education—not a dual character in education but a lack of character in education—which has crept into our education in this materialistic age and which is prevalent to-day. We know that materialism is forcing higher education in a certain direction, namely in the direction of science. And it is going further than science and is merely moving in the direction of technical education. But to a large extent and as a result of circumstances the Christian values are being neglected. Both the synod of the Free State Church and the Council of the University of the Free State are very anxious that a definite character should be given to our education. That character must be in accordance with its recognized principles, that is to say Christian and Protestant, and we do not want to deviate from that character and that principle. It is not the Government which is speaking this afternoon, it is an ex-student who is a member of the convocation of that university. In other words, I have the right to speak on behalf of our university and because this matter has already been so long delayed the synodal commission of the Free State N.G. Kerk acted yet again during this year and issued a statement that it noted with concern the agitation in the Press against the application for the amendment of the Act of the Free State University in order to place it on a Protestant, Christian basis. Here we have an unequivocal statement of policy. The commission further states that it deplores this agitation all the more because this resolution by the university council was in accord with the request made by the synod of the Free State N.G. Church. In other words, the attack on this legislation and on the principle embodied in it is an attack on the Church and is an attack which is being made by people who themselves say that we should not discriminate in church or religious matters.

Mr. Speaker, let us commence with the statutes. The statutes were promulgated in the Government Gazette, 20 January 1950. In Section 3 of chapter 1, which sets out the policy, we find the following—

That is stated in the statutes. In section 4 of chapter 3 we find—

In other words, the statutes also give the Council the power to exercise control over the lecturers. It has full control over the staff which it appoints. To-day there is this restrictive clause which provides that it may not apply a conscience test in appointing a member of its staff. In other words, the Act obliges the council to violate its statutes. In other words, it must appoint a certain person under the Act and as soon as it has appointed him, it can dismiss him and say: “ He is not a Christian Protestant.”

That is far-fetched.

It is not as far-fetched as we may think. Throughout the country and at many universities all over the world the type of person being appointed is after all taken into account and no university council would blindly appoint a person merely on the basis of his academic qualifications. Every university has a policy, and what is more the council has the right under its statutes to bring its legislation into line with its statutes by means of private legislation, as it is now doing. It means that the statutes form the basis of the university’s existence and not the Act. The Act gives the university certain legal powers which it can use, but the statutes constitute the basis of its policy and the statutes must not necessarily be brought into line with the Act; the Act should be brought into line with the statutes; and seeing that there is an inconsistency, that is what we are doing.

It is still not right.

The conscience clause as embodied in the Act to-day is hindering the council in carrying out its policy because it is in conflict with that policy. It is handicapping the council in carrying out its policy to the full. This university has developed from an educational institution which was established 106 years ago. Dr. Andrew Murray was one of the founders of the educational system of the Free State and when the old Grey College was established, the intention was to have an institution which would comply with three requirements: It had to be in accordance with the national character of the Free State; It had to meet the cultural requirements of the Free State; and it had to serve the religious beliefs of the Free State. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, the Free State became a model republic because it educated its citizen correctly. A university is not an organ of the State. Professor Price made that point yet again recently here in Cape Town. The State does not use the university in order to achieve its objects. The university must act in a accordance with the requirements of its environment and its community. It does not ask the State what its policy should be and still less does it ask a section of the people of the country what its policy should be; it has recourse to its environment. When Professor Lauwerys of the London University visited this country, I asked him frankly at a meeting what the object of education was. His answer was: There are two objects. I have three. He said the first two were that a person should be educated so as to equip him to earn his living and, secondly, to ensure the cohesion of his community. The third object which I want to add is that he should be contented. But under conditions of perpetual discord over educational matters he is not contented and the cohesion of the Free State community will not be ensured for so long as this clause remains because the university is serving a Christian Protestant community. The conscience clause is therefore not only unnecessary but it is a burden, and it is a greater burden because it is useless.

Then it is not a burden.

The clause is useless because, as the evidence before the Select Committee shows, it is very easy to circumvent it. But Professor Groenewould stated very clearly and unambiguously: We do not want to circumvent the law; we want to correct it and we want to implement the Act honestly. It is a most praiseworthy motive on the part of the Council and Senate of the university to wish to hold high the level of their own morality and to be able to say: We want to be honest; we do not want to have a provision with which we can bluff the outside world and say: “ We have a conscience clause in order to satisfy you, but we can go on doing what we like.” It is to preserve that morality that I have risen this afternoon to put this matter frankly and clearly.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to criticize hon. members opposite who have criticized this Bill, but the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) has said that this represents discrimination on the ground of religion. Of course it is. All religion is discriminatory. I as a Protestant discriminate against everything which is un-Protestant. I do not bring it into my house nor do I bring it into my church and I do not want it in my school. After all there is nothing clearer than that. The Jew says: I am a Jew and I bring my children up to be Jews, and the country gives him every right to do so; there is no obstacle in his way. He can educate his children in accordance with his own character. As a matter of fact we want them to do so and I have always encouraged them to do so. But the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) even goes so far as to say that this Bill represents a threat to religious freedom. It is precisely the reverse. It wishes to give the Free State and its university their full religious rights without detracting one iota from the rights of any other religion in the world. No right of any other religion or denomination or belief or anything else is threatened or affected in any way whatever by this legislation, and that is why I feel free to say that these criticisms are based on suspicion and fear. Here the Afrikaner—and the Afrikaner has been the scapegoat in this country for the past 300 years—is introducing a cunning devilish amendment and he has something up his sleeve by which he wants to create difficulties for other races. I want to say this afternoon unequivocally that the time when the Afrikaner could be told what rights he has as regards his language, his education, his family, his sacred things, is past. That time is gone for ever, and because we as a mainly Afrikaner university realize that that time is past, we also realize that the rights of minorities and others will be entrenched. That is why this legislation provides that no student will be subjected to any test of religious belief. He will be admitted and he can remain a student and he can acquire degrees and retain degrees at that university. This amendment only relates to the staff. It shows that the university has not the slightest intention of interfering with the religious rights or beliefs of any of its students. But like any other university, it has its policy, and it says that there is a neutral character in our education which should be removed. We must be specific, and if a parent wants to send his child to Bloemfontein, then he must know in advance that he is sending his child to a Christian Protestant university and if he does not want to send him to such a university, then he should not send him to that university. But I can send my child to that university in the full confidence that what my child has learned in my home and my church, he will learn at that university. The hon. member for Rosettenville now says: “ It is the destruction of the university.” Did the hon. member drink something the night before or what is wrong?

No, that you cannot say.

Which university did you attend?

The hon. member says: “ It is the destruction of the university.” He was possessed in some way or another when he used those words. After all he cannot talk such nonsensical rubbish.

It is not nonsensical.

He goes further and says that the Government does not have the right to exclude. But the Government has nothing on earth to do with this legislation; it is our Bill. It has no right to interfere here. I want to go further and refer to one or two matters of general interest; I want to show how this matter arose. This matter was made public and this amending Bill was published on four occasions in the Government Gazette, in the Friend and in the Volks blad, and there was no reaction, no one said boo or baa or uttered one word against those publications

How do you know that?

There was no reaction whatsoever. All of a sudden, when the Bill was on the point of being introduced, there was a reaction and this reaction was against matters of principle—not subsidiary matters. If any university—let us take the Witwatersrand or Cape Town—wants to put its domestic affairs, its matters of principle, in order, what right do I as a Transvaler or a Free Stater or an ex-Grey student—which I am proud to be— have to tell the University of Cape Town: Look, you may not do those things in order to put your domestic affairs into order? I do not have the slightest right to do so.

What about the separate universities?

If a new principle was being introduced into the Act, we could perhaps concede the point; then other universities, other convocations, could perhaps interfere in our convocation and say: “You are introducing a new principle.” But this principle was laid down in the university’s statutes before the Act was enacted. The principle existed 42 years ago when I was a student at that university; at that time it was already our principle. Mr. Speaker, the main reason why we have introduced this legislation are the following: The Council feels, and rightly so, that the university is developing within a community and that that community has a Christian character and a Protestant Christian character. But the Council also feels that this university exercises a tremendous influence on that community. The influence of the University of the Free State has extended tremendously over the past 40 to 47 years or more. But to an even greater extent the Council appreciates that it is strongly influenced by its community and that community has indicated in the most serious possible terms that it wants this matter put right. The Council says that it is most anxious that this should be done. The rector of the university gave evidence before the committee to the effect that it was a matter of the utmost importance to the university that this matter should be put right, and at no stage has any sound reason been advanced why we should suspect that this amendment is aimed at one or other section of the community. The conscience clause is the property of the university to which it belongs. Every university can do with it what it likes; it does not belong to the State. Potchefstroom has dropped this conscience clause. Unfortunately the hon. member for Rosettenville did not fully understand the position at the time. Look, the position is as follows: The Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education is not an institution for training clergymen. That is a sub-section of the university. After all, we know on what bases the various universities have both faculties and seminaries, as they are called. Stellenbosch has such a seminary where the church trains its people within the framework of the university; Potchefstroom has one; Pretoria has two. But that is not the university; that is an institution for training spiritual leaders. But in Potchefstroom the university, apart from the institution for training spiritual leaders, has itself excluded the conscience clause and we have the right to do exactly the same thing in the case of the Free State. But we do not rely on that fact. I do not rely on the argument that Potchefstroom has dropped the conscience clause and that the Free State should therefore do so as well. I rely on the inherent right of the Free State to reshape and to revise its own legislation in the light of its statutes. Mr. Speaker, the tendency at many universities in the world to-day is a two-fold one. The one university wishes to become cosmopolitan and collective; it wants to see one great State; it wants to see one great nation for the whole world. We have heard enough of that type of thing, and we are tired of it. Our churches almost became involved and were almost led into an ambush. But the position will come right. To-day the people are wide awake against that tendency. The other tendency is for such an educational institution to root itself in the soul and heart of its own community and to get away from this concept of one State, one language, one race and one doctrine for the whole world. In other words, the object of this legislation is to safeguard and to confirm the individuality of its people and its community. For that reason I support the Bill wholeheartedly and I hope that it will eventually be adopted.

There are one or two matters to which I just want to refer. Prof. Israelstam has sent me a circular in which he defines university autonomy very well. He says—

I know Prof. Israelstam personally and he is a very friendly person. He gave an excellent testimony abroad regarding South Africa’s position. He has the right attitude. He is speaking against the legislation and he says—

He goes further than we wish to—

That is very clear to anyone who understands English. Then in the same document he turns round and criticizes us. He says that we shall lose our international status. Mr. Speaker, if we must choose between our own soul and conscience and our international status, between our own convictions and the opinion of people outside, then I just want to refer to the history of South Africa over the past 300 years. If the Afrikaner nation had played into the hands of public opinion, of international opinion, and had been concerned about its international status, we could have been a very great country to-day. We could have stood very high amongst the nations, but we Afrikaners would not have had the courage to look other people in the face; we would have had to sacrifice our own souls, and that we have never been prepared to do. That is not the tradition of President Steyn and President Kruger. We do not seek that status; we seek the inherent right which Professor Israelstam describes so well in his own document. He says we have that right. The autonomy and the prerogative of a university are two different things, academic freedom on the one hand and autonomy on the other hand. I put autonomy uppermost, because from the autonomy of a university emanates the power to give direction to its policy. The rector of the university has specifically stated that the clause as it stands is fallible. It is a useless fig leaf and it is a negative thing. In its place we are now putting forward a positive provision which the university has submitted. It states positively: There are many ways in which the technicalities can be evaded, but the University of the Orange Free State would prefer to have the legal right to apply a religious test in cases where it is considered necessary rather than to make use of underhand methods, of which I can assure the House there are many. We do not want to use those methods. We want to have the written, specific and unambiguous right to do just what our statutes allow us to do. Mr. Speaker, other members will still speak. The other merits of this matter will still be enlarged upon. I want to emphasize mainly that this university is fully justified in its desire to have this legislation amended, and that it is doing nothing but act in accordance with its conscience, and if there is a clash between its conscience and the conscience of persons who are seeking staff appointments, then any right-minded person would say that the conscience of the university is the conscience which should prevail. It is not a question of propaganda; it is not a question of tricking one another. It is a question of giving expression to the inherent right and unequivocal principles on which that university rests. For that reason I as a former student support this Bill unreservedly and I shall continue to do so until it is passed.

I agree wholeheartedly with the last speaker that a university is not an organ of the state. Nor for that matter can university education be regarded as in any nature a function of the state. But I cannot possibly agree with the hon. member for Witbank that this is not a matter of state policy. It is a matter of state policy and of very important policy, because, Mr. Speaker, there is an important principle at stake and a principle that has been recognized by our state ever since the state has been in existence. The conscience clause so far as I have been able to discover, was first embodied in an old Cape Act in about 1873. And, Sir, when the Act which laid down the conscience clause as a model for the statutes of all the universities was adopted by the Union Parliament in 1917, the conscience clause was taken over from the old Cape Act and was adopted without any discussion whatsoever. I have been through the proceedings of the debate in 1917 and no discussion whatsoever took place on the question of the adoption of the conscience clause. It was quite clear that it was adopted at that time without any opposition, and simply taken for granted. It was never questioned for a moment that it was desirable to have the conscience clause incorporated in the statutes of the different universities. It is worth just repeating briefly what the conscience clause is, and I want to read it again—

What does that mean? It simply means that any university which has this conscience clause in its constitution is not to become a sectional, denominational university, and it is included in the statutes of those universities which contain it for the very reason that it was desired to keep those universities on a totally undenominational, unsectarian basis, a free basis where any question of religion will not hinder free discussion and will not hinder the appointment of staff, and so forth. That is a very clear principle and, as I say, it was adopted by the state when the Act was passed in 1917. I do not want to go over the history of the agitation that has taken place in certain centres against the conscience clause, or the reasons for that agitation. But I do want to say that what happened at the University of Potchefstroom was referred to by the hon. mover of this motion as a precedent. He argued that what occurred at Potchefstroom was that the principle had been laid down that the state no longer regarded the conscience clause as essential for the universities. With great respect I would say that that is not so. What happened at the University of Potchefstroom was on quite a different basis from the background which has led to this motion in respect of the Free State University, or for that matter which might lead to an attempt to remove the conscience clause from any other of our universities. Hon. members will recall the debate that took place in 1950 and previously in regard to the Potchefstroom University. The big argument was that Potchefstroom was a special case, that for special historical and religious reasons connected with the University of Potchefstroom, Potchefstroom fell in a special category. That argument was used over and over again during the debates, and I may say that many people did not accept the argument and were doubtful about it. Others again did accept that this was a special case, and I maintain that the vote which was given in the case of Potchefstroom in 1950 was mainly on the basis that this was a special case. But there were grave doubts raised even then, and I just want to cite one paragraph in an article which was published at about that time. This was in the April issue of 1950 of Jewish Affairs, just about the time when the Potchefstroom Bill was before this House, and this is the paragraph I want to quote—

So you see, Sir, that at that time this particular journal, reflecting the opinion of many others, was concerned about the assurances that were given and the arguments that were raised at the time of the Potchefstroom University Bill to the effect that that was a special case. They expressed the fear at that time that far from being a special case, this would be regarded as a precedent for action elsewhere. And we see that those fears appear now to have been very well justified, because now we have the introduction of this Bill for the University of the Free State and immediately the claim is made that Potchefstroom constituted a precedent, in other words, confirming exactly the fears expressed in this particular article, and I know only too well, the fears expressed in many quarters at that time. I therefore wish to challenge the contention that Potchefstroom was in fact a precedent and that the question of the inclusion of the conscience clause in the statutes of the universities is not a matter of state policy. I submit that it is a matter of state policy and that it is a matter that the House must examine very closely indeed, because I do believe that if we agree to the clauses in this particular Bill which seeks to abolish the conscience clause, then indeed, we will have established a precedent, and the conscience clause so far as the state is concerned, will have gone out of the window. I say that that would be a most deplorable development in regard to education.

Why?

I contend that by adopting this Bill, a disservice will be done to higher education in the Free State. I believe that it is not only bad for the cause of education in the Free State, but I think it is bad for the cause of education altogether, because as I say, here you will introduce the element of denominationalism. There will be a narrowing of the horizon in the Free State so far as higher education is concerned, and I contend that that is not a good thing for education in that province—all the more pity, because if there is one province I feel that has shown very great racial tolerance and where all the different sections have over the years lived extremely happily together, it is the Free State. It has a proud record of racial tolerance and it seems to me a very great pity that at this stage something should be done that I feel may disturb that happy state that has existed over all these years.

There can be no doubt whatsoever that sections of our community are concerned about this development. The Jewish section is definitely concerned, and I feel with good reason. But there are other sections too. On religious grounds the Catholic section are also deeply concerned, and I can say that the Anglican section is also concerned about this development. I say that because I want to make the point that there are sections of the community deeply concerned by this development and that representatives of those sections of the community live in the Free State and elsewhere, and that this action will not lead to happier relations in the Free State. On the contrary I feel that it will have a disturbing effect and that a development of this kind is much better left alone.

Now I want to refer to one or two other objections to the dropping of the conscience clause. There is this question, and it is quite an important principle, whether or not the state should grant subsidies on the same basis to undenominational institutions as to institutions which take on a denominational character. In this connection I would like to quote an eminent authority who holds the view that where an institution takes on a denominational character, the question arises as to whether or not the same basis of subsidization by the state should take place. I quote from a speech made by the late Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr when he was Minister of Education, on 15 April 1932 (Hansard, Col. 3225). Mr. Hofmeyr said this—

Well now, Sir, what is happening, what is the trend and what is the indication of what the removal of this conscience clause may lead to in the Free State? Hon. members may argue that it is not an attempt in any shape or form to make the University of the Free State denominational. With respect, I feel that that is not so. I cannot see what other reason there is for wishing to remove the conscience clause. If it is not to make it a wholly denominational institution, then certainly it is to make it more denominational than it is now, and to take on a more specific, more religious character than it has at the moment. If that is so, then I feel that this principle of the question of a subsidy comes into the picture, because it is difficult to know where to stop if universities or any institutions tend to take on more and more of a particular religious character. If they are changing more and more in a certain direction, then we must consider whether the state should subsidize such institutions on the same basis as free and open institutions. I don’t think I need to prove that principle or to argue it further. It is perfectly obvious. The state is supported by all its citizens, all its taxpayers, and to ask the state to subsidize a certain section is a matter that must always be very seriously considered. I make the point that this principle is involved in this question of the conscience clause, and it is involved to some extent in the question of the Bill which is before the House at the moment. I would like to quote another authority in connection with the same point, namely, the late Dr. D. F. Malan, a former Prime Minister, who, on 15 April 1932 (Hansard, Col. 32341), said this—

So Dr. Malan was also against the abolition of the conscience clause. There was a further passage where he specifically referred to the question of subsidization, but for the moment I cannot find it. Mr. Speaker, a number of educationists, including the late Dr. Malan and the late Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr, also made the point that the inclusion of a conscience clause would have a harmful effect on the staff of an institution and would lead to a certain amount of trouble and discontent in a university. They pointed out that it would put a strain very often upon the honesty of a professor or a member of the academic staff applying for a post, that such a man might be tempted to conceal his religious beliefs and perhaps in order to obtain a post represent himself as not being of a certain denomination. They held that this would certainly put a strain on the honesty of a professor. They also dealt at considerable length, both Dr. Malan and the late Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr, with the deleterious effects upon freedom of thought and science and so forth in universities if the conscience clause was very rigidly applied and there was a tendency to get a staff which contended to conform to a certain religious belief. So you see that there seems little doubt that academically, according to those authorities, the conscience clauses can certainly not in any sense or form be said to improve the educational standard of a university. This is a case of making an institution more denominational. For that reason and for the reason that I believe that an important principle, a state principle is involved, I wish to move the following amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp)—

I second the further amendment. And I want to say that we go a little further than the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow in two respects. First of all we omit the provisions to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow in so far as that amendment makes specific mention of the Christian Protestant basis and of the autonomy of the University of the Orange Free State. Secondly, we go further in that we add at the end of the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow our further objections to this Bill in so far as it prejudices not only the appointment of staff but may prejudice also the position of graduates and students at the University of the Orange Free State. The Bill as it stands omits from that portion of the so-called conscience clause, which refers to students, the words “ or of his holding any office or receiving any emoluments or exercising any privilege therein ”. We believe that this may mean that students who are at the university or graduates who are attending the university can be denied certain bursaries or scholarships on the grounds of religious discrimination at the University of the Free State.

As the hon. member for Parktown has pointed out, predictions were made long ago, when the original attempts were made to remove the conscience clause, first from the University of the Free State and later when this was partially accomplished in respect of the University of Potchefstroom, that persons would later claim this as a precedent for future action to obtain the removal of the conscience clause from the constitutions of other universities. This has been proved to be only too correct. First of all, we have had the example in the Separate Universities Act, as it is familiarly known (the Extension of Universities Act as it is formally known), in the removal of the conscience clause from the constitution of those universities. In that case, the case of Potchefstroom was cited as a precedent. The hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) when he introduced this private Bill also cited this as a precedent. Indeed the predictions have proved correct, although the citing of the Potchefstroom University and the partial removal of the conscience clause is indeed not a precedent, and no norm was set by the removal of the conscience clause at that time. That was proved in debate during the Separate Universities Act debate. It was proved that although that conscience clause, part of it at any rate, was removed nine years before the Separate Universities Bill was introduced, that was no precedent.

It was argued, not proved.

I think it was pretty conclusively argued that no norm was established, because since the passing of the Potchefstroom Act removing the conscience clause, the University Act was again passed in 1954, consolidating the university legislation and the conscience clause remained there. No norm was established in that respect at all. In any case, as has been pointed out by other hon. members, the fact is that the Potchefstroom case was a special case, not only from the point of view of it having a special religious basis and also because of the fact that it was supported from funds from certain churches. But even the Potchefstroom University Act did not completely remove the conscience clause as this Bill now seeks to do, in the case of staff. Firstly the change introduced in respect of the Potchefstroom University simply amounted to a change in the form of the conscience clause, but to a large extent left it even as far as the staff was concerned, since only the words “ test of religious denomination ” were used, and this was defined as not necessarily meaning membership of a specific church. But here we go very much further. It is not a question therefore of precedent or norm, because it goes very much further than in the Potchefstroom case. Also as far as Potchefstroom was concerned, there was the support of the Church referred to by me, financial support, and as the hon. member for Parktown correctly pointed out, the Free State University is not in the same position. The Orange Free State University is supported from general revenue, which is contributed by the taxpayers of this country of all religious denominations, and therefore there is no cause for this university being specifically entitled to this constitutional amendment which is proposed to-day introducing the principle of religious discrimination as far as the appointment of staff is concerned, and to some extent prejudicing the possible chances of students to obtain bursaries and scholarships from this university. There is no doubt that if this goes through, a further agitation will be set in motion for the removal of the conscience clause from other universities.

Are there no taxpayers in the Free State?

Certainly, but there are quite a lot who don’t belong to that particular religious belief. The State contributions to the Orange Free State University do not come out of the Free State funds, but out of general revenue to which all the taxpayers of South Africa contribute. I wonder if the hon. member would like the Orange Free State University to be entirely dependent upon taxes paid by the Free State. Of course not. He wants the Free State University to get as big a slice out of general revenue as the universities in the Transvaal and the Cape Province and Natal, and rightly so.

What becomes then of the autonomy of the universities?

I am coming to that argument. As I mentioned in an earlier debate, this Government changes its attitude towards autonomy and laissez-faire whenever it suits them. When it suits them they want to control everything, when it does not suit them, they ask for laissez-faire and autonomy. But I shall return to that later. The other argument that has been advanced is that the Orange Free State University has always ignored the conscience clause anyway, and that when it has advertised for members of staff it has always asked that the religious affiliations of the applicants should be stated. Giving evidence before the Select Committee, I notice that Professor Groenewoud actually advanced this as a reason for removing the conscience clause, which is tantamount to asking this House to help the University of the Orange Free State to legalize What was virtually an illegal practice before. The same sort of argument, as I recollect, was advanced by the hon. the Minister for Lands during the debate on the Separate Universities Bill. He said that in any case the conscience clause was largely ignored, therefore, why not remove it. The counter-argument to that is, of course, in that case why not remove all laws which are easy to evade, which is obviously an absurd argument. I wonder if we would ask the Commissioner for Inland Revenue, for instance, to remove the Income Tax Act simply because people evade paying taxes? The law is there simply because it has an intrinsic value, and the fact that people are evading the law is no argument for removing these laws.

This, in fact, is simply a plea that not only should injustice appear to be done, but that it should in fact be done. That is quite a reversal of the normal procedure. The other argument is this question of the curtailment of the University Council’s powers and the autonomy of the university. That was used by the hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) when he introduced this Bill, by other members in this debate, and it was used by Professor Groenewoud in his evidence before the Select Committee. But it is interesting to note that the Chairman of that Select Committee stated that he did not consider the autonomy of the university entered into the matter at all. If one takes the trouble to read the report of the Select Committee it will be seen that the Chairman of the Select Committee himself denied that the autonomy of this university was at all relevant to this argument. And the hon. member for Witbank is surely aware of that fact …

What was his reply to that?

I am not interested in the argument put up by Professor Groenewoud, because he was obviously advocating the very opposite from what I want. What I am interested in is countering the argument of Professor Groenewoud, and here I have the assistance of the Chairman of the Select Committee. I do not need to go any further on that. But I do want to say this, that in any case everybody knows that no university enjoys complete autonomy. No university in the country has ever enjoyed complete autonomy. There are statutes which govern the regulations of a university, and the universities have to accede to those statutes. And, in any case, it is an over-simplification ever to talk of autonomy in the widest sense. Even when one talks of recognized freedoms there is always a tacit recognition that some limitations are imposed by laws. For instance, freedom of speech does not mean to say that I can say what I like about my neighbour. There are the laws of libel to stop me doing so. Freedom of the Press does not mean that I can publish any pornographic literature that I have. Freedom of movement does not mean that I can trespass on my neighbour’s property. And freedom of religion does not mean that I can carry out ritual murders. So that in every case where we talk about freedom we realize that there are certain limitations. And a university must have certain limitations placed on its freedom, placed on its autonomy, when it wishes to introduce principles of religious discrimination in the engagement of staff or the handing out of benefits to students. Therefore autonomy of the universities does not include the right of a university to exercise racial intolerance.

Racial intolerance!

Yes, Sir, this is racial intolerance—or rather, it is religious intolerance purely and simply.

I want to issue the strongest possible warning to hon. members about the effects of accepting this Bill in its present form. Professor Groenewoud stated in his evidence to the Select Committee that the proposed amendment which provides that the universities shall be based on Protestant Christian principles, to which regard shall be had when the staff are appointed, shall not mean that only Protestants will be appointed to the staff of the university. He said, on page 2 of the evidence—

He said that the Council was aware that it was concerned with an academic institution and with professional knowledge and that as a result of the availability of staff, etc., in South Africa—

I want to emphasize the use of the words of Professor Groenewoud “ would be obliged ” because I want to return to this phrase in a minute. He went on to say that universities which were going to appoint staff on the grounds of religion only would be cutting their own throats because every institution for higher education must ensure that its standard of work is as high as possible—

I could not agree more with the Professor in this respect. I agree wholeheartedly with what he has said in this latter respect, but I ask in all seriousness, does the University of the Orange Free State really think that the best non-Protestant academicians will offer themselves for appointment to the staff, knowing that they will be taken on sufferance? Even academicians, even lecturers at universities, even professors have their pride, and if they know that they are going to be taken on sufferance I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, they will not apply for appointments to the staff of the University of the Orange Free State.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am busy at the moment. The hon. member can ask me later.

I would like to remind this hon. House that the existing universities have the greatest difficulty in obtaining adequate staff. They have the greatest difficulty in obtaining well qualified persons. Does the University of the Orange Free State honestly think it is going to enhance its chances of obtaining the best possible lecturers and professors on its staff if they add this religious clause which is going to mean the admission of people to the staff only if nobody else can be obtained? Quite obviously they are not going to apply. I might say that the university and Professor Groenewoud will never even know what better staff members the university might have obtained from amongst non-Protestants, because I am quite prepared to state, dogmatically, as I have before, that no non-Protestant will apply under these conditions.

Mr. Speaker, the very fact that up to now the University of the Free State has been evading the conscience clause does not help in this respect either, because giving legal entrenchment to what has been done previously makes the matter even worse than it was. I want to warn the university that it will indeed be cutting its own throat if it proceeds with this measure in its present form. The standard of academic work will be gravely affected, not only in existing faculties but also in respect of any undergraduate or post-graduate faculties which the university may wish to establish in the future. Because what applies to the teaching staff applies, possibly to an even greater extent, to the student body. Intending students will weigh up the relevant faculties, staff and teaching facilities at the different universities before selecting their Alma Mater. The fact that the exclusion of Section 31, which embodies the usual conscience clause, and with it the words—

can be interpreted, as our amendment shows, as placing non-Protestant students at a disadvantage as regards scholarships and bursaries will undoubtedly be taken into consideration by students who are non-Protestants and who were intending to study at the University of the Orange Free State. In other words, to a large extent even the retention of portion of the old conscience clause, which is retained by virtue of Clause 1 (3)ter, which states that—

the effect of retaining even a portion of that, is largely offset by the partial reduction in the rights of students as far as bursaries and other benefits are concerned.

I want to conclude by drawing an historic parallel, which may be of interest to some of the members of this hon. House, particularly those members—and I believe there are some —who studied at the University of Leiden. This fine university was founded in 1575 and for more than two centuries, while younger universities were struggling to establish themselves, and schools of medicine were also gradually being established in England, Scotland and America, the University of Leiden remained in the forefront of the world as a flourishing academic centre. It was a Mecca of learning whose fame continues to this day. What began the emergence of this University of Leiden as a great academic centre? One thing, and one thing only, and that is the decline of the University of Padua which for three centuries before had been the most important centre of learning in Europe. And the decline of the University of Padua was due entirely to the Papal Edict whereby non-Catholics were excluded from the university, and the freedom of thought and religion which the university had always enjoyed was stifled by Church and State—despite, I might say, vigorous opposition from within the University of Padua itself, which recognized what a disastrous effect this would have on the university. As a result of this Papal Edict—which I am to-day comparing with the removal of the conscience clause from the University of the Orange Free State—students, men of science and men of letters, prevented from attending or teaching at the University of Padua, flocked to the recently founded school at Leiden, more especially since this university opened its door to all-comers irrespective of race, nationality or religion. Padua declined and Leiden flourished.

Mr. Speaker, the moral of my story is that if the introduction of religious intolerance into a university as famous as the University of Padua could have had such a devastating effect, it is not difficult to imagine the devastating effect that the introduction of religious discrimination is likely to have on a young university striving to establish itself, like the University of the Orange Free State. More especially is this so when those sentiments emanate from within the university itself; that is, when the support for this religious intolerance comes from within the university itself. I ask the mover of this Bill, the hon. member for Welkom who must have the good of the University of the Orange Free State at heart, and I ask this House to reflect upon the action contemplated to-day and to realize that the adoption of this Bill in its present form can only be interpreted as a backward step which will redound to the dis-credit both of the University of the Orange Free State and the Government that imposes it.

Finally I want to say that if this Bill is adopted by this House it will cast suspicion on the statements of this Government at the inception of this republic; it will create doubt as to the Government’s sincerity in its pledge that religious freedom and no religious discrimination will be scrupulously observed in the republic.

Both the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) had much to say about Potchefstroom and also about university autonomy, to which I hope to come back later. I just want to mention the remark made by the hon. member for Park-town in connection with financial support from the Government to the universities. If I understood him correctly then his complaint was that the money which the Government granted to the universities came from all taxpayers and therefore sectional universities, as he called it, should not have Government support. On the other hand one could also argue that the Protestant-Christian taxpayer could say that he had no intention to have his money invested in a particular university because he saw that students from that university walked about the streets with banners saying “ we do not believe ”. This is a double-edged sword and I want to point out that it is not such an impossible principle. Die Vrye Universiteit in Amsterdam, from which a very large number of our church leaders have come in the past and are still coming from to-day, gets state support amounting, I think, to about 80 per cent. One finds that in America the so-called private universities no longer receive their money from private sources only. The state supports those so-called private universities. Rochester receives an allowance of 60 per cent from the state, and Columbia gets 80 per cent. The hon. member for Parktown spoke about the fears the Roman Catholics might have. We do not want to argue about that, but in Canada the Roman Catholic institutions in Montreal and Quebec receive large sums from the state and their personnel are appointed from Rome. It is not so unusual that the state should subsidize universities even though they pursue a stipulated course. It is sometimes difficult to understand the arguments of hon. members opposite. I think, for instance, of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). He beat about the bush the other day in connection with this debate, just like one who has a guilty conscience. I do not blame him if his conscience worried him because that hon. member always poses as a great defender and champion of university autonomy. In his speech he even tried to tell us that the University of the Orange Free State was free to state that it was Protestant-Christian. But later on he said that the university must remember that it should remain at a declaration only. That, Mr. Speaker, came from one who on 8 April 1959, according to Hansard, Col. 3370, said the following about university autonomy—

And to emphasize how very determined he is about university autonomy he continues and talks precisely about this conscience clause. He says that the United Party is not in favour of the conscience clause being abolished. But, he says—

In other words, if the council requests it, then the United Party will be prepared to give permission for it to be abolished. Mr. Speaker, now we find that this same hon. gentleman tells us: The members on my side of the House will vote against this Bill. Are these now the winds of change or are they just ordinary United Party confusion?

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher), who is ordinarily a very pleasant person, also made a speech and I am very sorry to have to say that he cut a most pathetic figure when he did not make his own speech but tried to deliver to us a circular letter which we have all received. I am almost sorry that he took part in the debate. If one witnessed his attitude and manner one cannot but be surprised. I for one was particularly surprised. He got up here and made demands. He kept saying “ I demand “ I demand this ” and “ I demand that ”. I do not know whether the hon. member thought of what the reaction could be. I do not know whether he thought that we were just a bunch of weaklings or cowards who would fall on our knees because someone said to us “ I demand ”. It is a pity that he adopted that attitude. I can give him the assurance that that has contributed more than anything else to make hon. members on this side less inclined to make any concessions. I pitied the hon. member when he repeatedly said that he did not care about what was happening in other countries and in other universities. He repeated it so often that I began wondering whether he was afraid that an hon. member would rise and allege that there was no conscience clause in Israel. I want to spare him embarrassment by not going into that. What I do want to say, however, is that I am very sorry that he did adopt that attitude and virtually arrayed himself on the side of the enemies of South Africa when he told us that “ this is a threat to religious freedom; there is a distinct danger to religious freedom in South Africa ”. Then he added: “ What will the outside world think about it?” The hon. member wanted to create the impression that South Africa was now busy with a very serious and dangerous matter while he knew full well that there was no threat to religious freedom in it. He knows well that this Bill is not aimed at anyone. He knows just as well as I do that if there is any country in the world which stands for freedom of religion then it is South Africa. Why does he then come along with this sort of allegation to try to create suspicion? Mr. Speaker, I do not think that he believes himself that there is any threat. I am convinced that he did not speak with conviction and I have reason to believe it. If one reads the report of the Select Committee it will be found that this Bill has been advertised properly, as the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) has rightly pointed out. The advertisements in connection with it appeared four times in both languages in the Government Gazette, four times in the Friend and four times in the Volksblad, and no objections were received. There was an opportunity for witnesses to appear but there were no objecting witnesses. The hon. member for Rosettenville himself was a member of the Select Committee. He had no objection originally. He agreed with this clause orginally. He was satisfied and he accepted that the University of the Orange Free State would have the right to take into consideration the Protestant-Christian basis in the appointing of its personnel.

Can it be true?

It was only towards the end of the proceedings that he proposed that paragraph (h) should be deleted from the preamble. The Chairman rightly ruled it out of order because the clause had already been adopted with his concurrence. My impression, therefore, is that he did not feel very strongly about this matter himself and that his actions here and perhaps also outside are more of a gesture towards the people who are now shouting about it outside. And now we must hear that there is a threat to freedom of religion.

Mr. Speaker, freedom is a concept which is sadly ill-treated in this country. One finds far too many people who all day long shout about freedom; they want to be free to do as they please, free to do harm and to destroy; they want to be free to live irreligiously and without purpose. But these same people who are such sticklers for freedom do not grant freedom to other people when they want to do good and want to be constructive. They do not concede freedom to people who want to be positively religious. Mr. Speaker, I say that freedom is mishandled too much. As far as I know—and I speak under correction—Fort Hare was long ago exempted from the conscience clause, but then no one shouted that it endangered freedom of religion or academic freedom. No one ever made a fuss about there not being a conscience clause at Fort Hare. We never had any circular letters from the Jewish Board of Deputies. I do not know whether the Christian Council was already in existence then, but the Christian Council did not make a fuss and say that because the conscience clause did not apply at Fort Hare there was no longer any freedom of religion and academic freedom! I cannot understand this: Why should it be good for Fort Hare but not good for the University of the Orange Free State? What is really wrong in our country and what kind of freedom are we now busy obtaining here? Hon. members opposite had much to say about Potchefstroom. I just want to say in passing that Potchefstroom was exempted from the conscience clause and there were good reasons for it. It was done by hon. members on both sides of the House. It is also true that in 1959 in the debate on the extension of universities the principle was accepted by this side of the House and the conscience clause was left out. If this happened in other cases why is it that the Free State cannot have it? We are told that Fort Hare is a different matter because it developed as a mission institution. They say that Potchefstroom is also a different matter because it developed as a church institution. But, Mr. Speaker, why then should it be forgotten that the University of the Orange Free State was established as a theological school for Dutch ministers? It is a fact that in 1854 Sir George Gray gave a grant for higher education in the Free State, namely an amount of £2,000. For reasons of his own he did not give the money to the state but to the church. He asked that trustees should be appointed. The first trustees were Messrs. Griessel, Boshoff and that great churchman, Dr. Andrew Murray who was also the first principal of Greys College. The college came into being as a theological school. If one reads the trust deeds it will be found that in Clauses 3 and 4 the trustees are empowered to provide for educational facilities as soon as possible, consisting inter alia of the teaching of Greek, Latin, Dutch, English—and this is very important—and of other branches of education necessary for the training of ministers for the N.G. Kerk. Sir George Grey found it so satisfactory that he later made a further grant of £3,000 to this institution, of which Dr. Andrew Murray was the principal. Knowing the background and the history of the University of the Orange Free State—and without taking into consideration the unpleasantness of the past—I want to add that it was not the fault of the Free State; that it was not the fault of the University of the Orange Free State but that another power overran it and took control there. With that in mind it has to be realized that it is nothing extraordinary but just the natural thing that the University is asking for to-day: Give back to me what is rightly mine. It is quite natural for the Free State, which has developed and which has come into being under this particular philosophy of life, to ask: Give my children the opportunity of obtaining their education under this philosophy of life. This seems quite natural to me. What is unnatural to me is that we can ever consider refusing such a request.

I can understand that in the olden times, when there were only one or two universities in the country, it could have been argued that all had to go to those few universities, and that it was then perhaps necessary for such a clause to exist. I do not agree with it but I can understand that such an argument could have been advanced. To-day circumstances are entirely different. To-day we have eight or nine universities and I say that we can afford to have, and I think we should encourage variety, and not only variety in that some universities will develop in an Afrikaans direction and some in an English direction. What is wrong with us developing in other directions? I do not think that we should try to muffle that growth and I do not think that we should forget that the University of the Orange Free State is an independent university, and I use the term “ independent ” in the knowledge that no university in South Africa is entirely independent because it must go to the hon. the Minister for certain things, but in so much as a university in South Africa can be independent so the University of the Orange Free State is independent and I do not think it is right that if the university feels that it is good for them that we should apply the brakes and obstruct them. It must be re membered that South Africa is a Protestant-Christian country and it must be accepted as a fact that the more the Protestant-Christian basis gets a grip in South Africa the more certain will we be about having freedom of religion. The Protestant-Christian basis is the guarantee of freedom of religion and it must be remembered that South Africa is such a country. It is acknowledged in the country’s constitution and every day when proceedings are commenced here it is acknowledged in the prayer which is read here. In the National Party’s policy the following appears in connection with the aims concerning education—

Nearly every day we tell our young people that it is the Christian philosophy of life which is our salvation in this country and that the continued existence of the Whites depend on it. Are we prepared to simply wear a label and to leave it at a declaration? If that is so then our children have the right to ask us if we really mean it. They have the right to ask if it is all child’s play that we are busy with or whether we mean what we say. In 1956 the laying of a foundation stone took place at Greys College in the Free State and the House of Assembly was then in session. They regarded it as such a solemn ceremony that the Assembly adjourned in order to attend the proceedings. It is Hamel-berg who tells us that it was a stirring sight to see the representatives of the people leave the council chamber as a body to go to a ceremony and to join in communal prayer in order to ask the blessings of the Almighty on the mighty task lying ahead. I can imagine the idealisms with which those fathers of the nation gathered there because to them it meant the erection of a building where their children would receive education and light and would be able to continue to spread the light for the benefit of future generations.

We are also here this afternoon as representatives of the people. The question arises: What are we going to do? Like in 1856, are we also going to come forward in one body and bring homage to those men and women who sacrificed everything and who gave their lives for precisely this philosophy of life? Are we going to come forward and bring homage to those who kept the torches burning, or are we going to walk around only with a label and be satisfied that a screen remains through which the light will shine only dimly? My course is very clear. In these difficult and dark days in which we live, difficult days not only for South Africa but for the entire world, our only salvation for the future lies in our ensuring that that light is bright and shines even brighter, and any attempt in that direction, and I think this Bill is such an attempt, deserves and enjoys my wholehearted support.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) is not here now because his background and mine in respect of the institution which is under discussion is the same. I believe that it was one of the good characteristics of that institution of that time, 40 years ago, that one had true freedom there, that it could produce products like the hon. member for Witbank and myself who differ totally and fundamentally on this question. Mr. Speaker, I am a heretic. I have been that all my life and I hope I shall remain it because I do not believe that anyone in the world has discovered the whole truth for all time, whether it be in the sciences or in religion. That, in fact, were the characteristics of men like Luther and Calvin; not only were they heretics and not only did they try and re-discover what was in the Christian religion but they were in reality also discoverers and reformers in religion. I believe in heretics, honest heretics. I have never believed in hothouse flowers or plants, and just as little do I believe in hothouse religion. As I see the world to-day we need discoverers and Voortrekkers in terms of religion.

What does one find in the Bill? We may say what we like but here we are trying to form an association. If possible we want to place the students in a hothouse of religion where there is no test in real life as it exists to-day. We try and protect them from the realities. It would surprise me if, in these days with such a policy of stricture a new Luther and Calvin, for whom the world has great need, could be found. If the University Council wants to abolish the clause, then why do they not abolish the entire clause instead of just confining it to the lecturers? The hon. member for Witbank spoke about the community; the university should adapt itself to and virtually reflect the entire community. What does the hon. member mean by “ community ”? I know the Free State as well as he does, and even better. Does he mean the Afrikaner Protestant community or has the Free State got a broader community? Let the university reflect the community but not a narrowed down community. I am concerned about the tendency there is, and I say it with the greatest sense of responsibility, in respect of my Alma Mater which I have tried to serve to the best of my ability for many years. I believe in real freedom, and not in, as the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) said, the kind of freedom where the enjoying of one’s own freedom means the curbing of the freedom of others. I think of the days of Grey when this conscience clause was established and not in vain either. Our forefathers and legislators knew what they were doing. In those days they had professors at that university. I think of a Rindl and many others who rendered excellent services to that institution and to their students. The present rector, who gave evidence before the Select Committee, was a student of Dr. Rindl’s. This kind of legislation, I believe, will exclude the Dr. Rindls of the future as lecturers at that university, and I would regret that. I stand for the open university where one welcomes those who differ from one in principle, where one wants the friction of ideas which can bring about a broadening of oneself. I am afraid of becoming shallow and narrow in the present world conditions. The world is as confused as it never was before, much like it was in the Middle Ages. Then there was intolerance which restrained the soul and spirit of the people. To-day the world needs tolerance more than anything else. Listen to what the other man man says, in the realization that all of us are just seeking the truth and trying to understand the eternal book of truth, which is a never-ending campaign. Why put the students in a position to believe that the Protestants of to-day, who cannot even give direction to the world—they realize it themselves—will give them the full truth if only they are prepared to be put into a camp and have only Protestant lecturers and Protestant fellow-students? Any student with self-respect who goes to a university where his religion is not tolerated and where he cannot express his personality and be an individual to the fullest extent will be an extraordinary person; he will be an exception. Why make the students feel that the full truth to-day is in the possession of the Protestant lecturers who will be appointed there? I do not believe it. No one has it. No one has ever had it and there is still a long road of discovery lying ahead. Not only do I want a recovery of the values of our religion, but more particularly a discovery, new discoveries of the truth, and I believe that this direction in which the university is now moving will bring about a narrowing down and a spirit which will never lead to discovery but rather to a stagnation in religion. Therefore I say that it is within our power to agree to this kind of demand but that our future students and future generations will not thank us for it. In the light of the realities of this chaotic world which has been created by the development of a mighty technology, in which moral values have been left far behind, no one has to-day the key to an understanding of what the course must be. Let us support the open university and the right of anyone who is a heretic because it is through heretics throughout the history of the world that humanity has time and again found a new course. Let us remain reformers. We started off as reformers and Protestants, but do not let us become reformers who are conformists. If there is one sphere in which the human spirit should be free then it is the university. Do not let us also demarcate that sphere and breed conformists instead of Protestants.

Mr. Chairman, the debate on this Bill has been conducted on a very high level, something for which I think we can all be grateful. There are certain exceptions about which I do not want to say anything, but the fact that the debate was conducted on such a high level clearly proves that this matter is regarded in a serious light both by the supporters of this principle, the specific clause which is really under discussion, and also by those who oppose it.

I would like to try to defend this removal of the conscience clause on various grounds. The first is that it is right and just and that it is not an interference with religious freedom, as various bodies allege. That allegation was made by various bodies and also in the circular of the Jewish Board of Deputies. The allegation was also made by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) and others,, but I can merely say that in view of the fact that this circular from the Jewish Board of Deputies was received by us shortly before the introduction of the Bill—and I would like to direct the attention of the House to the fact that this circular and the accompanying letter emanated from the Cape Town Branch of the Jewish Board of Deputies. I want to draw attention to the fact that no protest emanated from the Free State itself against this principle which the University of the Orange Free State wants to introduce, viz. the removal of the conscience clause. I also want to say that the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), who said here that he was talking on behalf of his party and who put the whole matter on a party basis— he is here now; the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) said in his absence a moment ago that he was being inconsistent and that at the time of the legislation dealing with separate universities he had propounded a different principle here on behalf of his party, viz. that if a university asked for it their party would concede this principle, although unwillingly, but in spite of that he now objects to it.

Read my speech again.

I say no complaints were received from anybody in the Free State. The Jewish community in the Free State did not protest against this clause. Why not? Simply because they are the people concerned in the matter. They know the spirit and the sentiment in the Free State. Have they not been living amongst the Free Staters for all these years? They would regard it as ridiculous to protest against it. The fact is that where this request has now been made and these protests voiced, we know that for all these years education in the Free State has been Christian-National. That has been provided for in education. The children of the Jewish community have received their education under that system for all these years in the Free State and never once have any of them protested. There has never been any reason for complaint by the Jewish community. Whence this sudden anxiety that it violates the great principle of religious freedom in this country? Surely that is not so. I say the council of the University is asking for the insertion of this clause in the Bill because they, as the rector stated in his evidence, want to be above board and do not want to sail under a foreign flag. Other bodies have said: You have the right to do it, even though that provision is contained in the Act, even though the conscience clause is there; why do you not appoint whom you want? But they do not want to do that. Already in a leading article in Jewish Affairs of 1961, this complaint has been voiced—

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) also pointed that out. The complaint is already being voiced. How can these people state their standpoint honestly and sincerely and give expression to the philosophy of life of the Free State if that is to be the case?

But there are also other grounds. We now find that those who most ardently plead for the future expansion and the greatness of the University of the Orange Free State are the very hon. members who oppose this principle, the removal of the conscience clause. Do they really think that the men in control of the university, the members of the council, are not realists? Surely they are people who do not want to harm the university, but to benefit it. It is also very clear from the evidence of the rector that they want this principle because it is in line with the philosophy of life of the Free Staters, of the parents of the children, that section of the population served by the university. They will not make appointments merely on a religious basis, but they want this principle inserted in the statutes of the university.

I also want to defend the matter on the basis of principle, and I want to commence by saying that 85 per cent of the population of the Free State is Afrikaans-speaking in the first place, and the majority belongs to the Dutch churches. The Jewish community, on the contrary, constitutes 1.4 per cent of the population of the Free State, according to the latest census figures. It was alleged that a denominational test would be set, but that is not so and I definitely deny it. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) also made that allegation. In the educational philosophy there are two schools of thought which are diametrically opposed to each other. We find the historical-Christian and the humanistic schools of thought, each with its own point of view. The historic-Christian mainly places the emphasis on the Creator, everything from God, by God and to God, whereas the main emphasis of the humanistic school of thought is on man—everything from man, by man and to man. This is not the time to expatiate on these two lines of thought. I just want to emphasize this fact. I say that where this conscience clause exists and where the lecturer favours the last-mentioned line of thought, it must necessarily have an influence on his students. I do not want to allege that all universities which have the conscience clause necessarily follow the humanistic direction. On the contrary, that is not so and it has been proved that it is not so. In view of the fact that the population of the Free State, which is practically homogeneous, favours this line of thought, the Christian-Protestant direction, and in view of the fact that they have a very strong Christian philosophy, they want to do everything in their power to protect that philosophy and to propagate it and preserve it. This philosophy has its roots in the history of the Free State and of the countries of origin from which its population stems. It is for that reason that this population and this university which serves that population and the council of that university make this request, no, make this demand and ask for this guarantee that this philosophy will be adhered to by at least the majority of the teaching staff of that university. It will be accepted that the educationist who holds a Christian philosophy will regard the eventual aim of education differently from one who does not. In view of the fact that students, particularly in recent years, go to university at a youthful age and are very susceptible to new ideas, particularly at the stage when they are at the university, the parents are seeking a guarantee that their children, when they leave the university, will still have the same philosophy as that of their parents, and perhaps to a greater extent and with more conviction. Hence the demand that the teaching staff of that university should impress the stamp on their children of the practically homogeneous population of the Free State. They at least want to guarantee that there will be no atheists or communists at the university to whom the education of their children will be entrusted. The parents at least want to be satisfied that there is a safety valve and that the university authorities will have the power to keep such people out of the university. Mr. Speaker, the accusation that the removal of the conscience clause constitutes a threat to freedom of religion is definitely unfounded. Does freedom of religion really mean that a man cannot be the master in his own house; does it mean that other people should be allowed to dictate to you what you should do in your own home? No, that will certainly not be freedom of religion. It has already been pointed out that the second part of this clause contains a guarantee that the religious test will under no circumstances be applied to the students.