Mr Chairman, first of all I want to congratulate the hon member for Stilfontein on his election as chairman of the Standing Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs. We wish him everything of the best in his new task and trust that everything will run very smoothly for him in his new office.

There is a wealth of study material at our disposal. First of all we have a complete annual report from the Department of Manpower, which is more extensive and comprehensive than ever before. As is apparent from the report, pressure on the department has increased due to various factors. The Appropriation was R222,9 million. Only 358 new people joined the department, and only 13 of these were graduates. For such a department, which has to maintain a presence throughout South Africa, there are too few men; only 42,5% of the staff complement. In our opinion there are also too few manpower attachés abroad.

Secondly there is the report of the National Manpower Commission on some aspects of redundancies and retrenchments in the Republic of South Africa. Thirdly we have their report on certain aspects of strikes in the RSA; fourthly their annual report; fifthly the annual report of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner; sixthly the annual report of the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner, and seventhly the report of the President’s Council Committee for Economic Affairs on a Strategy for Employment Creation and Labour Intensive Development. I shall be referring to some of these reports. These are not the only ones that have been placed at our disposal by the very active and industrious Department of Manpower, to which the CP pays tribute for the hard work it is doing for South Africa in this connection.

In the interests of the country, the hon the Minister should not attempt to approach this debate in his usual light-hearted and superficial manner. [Interjections.] I think the hon the Minister reached the lowest point to which he could sink in his reply to our private members’ motion on 25 June.

You were hurt by it!

That little exhibition represented the lowest point I can ever remember a Minister having sunk to. It also places him on the very bottom rung of the Cabinet’s popularity poll, and quite apart from that he may pride himself on having the largest minority in the Cabinet.

You could not oust him with your gossip!

We are living in times in which South Africa’s achievements are far below par, times in which productivity has shown a pathetic increase of 0,2% per annum over the past 13 years. This represents one-sixth of that of Switzerland, one-fifth of that of America, one-quarter of that of Japan and a third of that of Britain. We are living in times in which inflation has crushed the purchasing power of the rand. Today a rand can only buy what could be bought with 50 cents in 1980.

Sir, I just want to interrupt my speech at this point. I request the privilege of the half hour.

Very well.

What is more, when the value of the rand is compared to other important currencies such as the British pound, the German mark, the Japanese yen and even the American dollar, there are some instances in which the rand has decreased in value by some 75% in relation to certain of those currencies.

Since 1981 the total tax burden on individuals, including GST, has increased by nearly 400%. The consumer price index has risen by 138% and State expenditure by 130%. In the domestic appliance industry some 396 000 people have lost their jobs. Company liquidations have increased by 295%; shoplifting by 26,64%; car-theft by 32,1%; and housebreaking by 28,6%. In times such as these the hon the Minister is playing the fool, just as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, and on 26 June he made the poorest speech an hon Minister has ever made in this House.

I know that that hon Minister is not held in very high esteem by the hon the State President. [Interjections.] I shudder to think what would happen if that speech of the hon the Minister were to land on the hon the State President’s desk. [Interjections.]

Order!

In that debate only one contribution was forthcoming from the Government and the PFP which was worth reacting to, and that was the speech made by the hon member for Durban Central. I just want to refer briefly to that speech. He said we were waging a fierce but hopeless struggle against economic and historical realities.

We want to tell him that we will persevere in this fierce struggle with all the energy at our command, for his sake as well as our own, and for the sake of future generations, because if a people forfeits its right to self-determination, including that on the labour front, and fails to retain its independence in all respects in so far as its domestic and foreign policies are concerned, but rather acknowledges economic interdependence, it will soon have no more control over any matters whatsoever.

It is both futile and naïve to believe that in the new South Africa the White man will enjoy political recognition on the basis of merit alone. He will, as was the case in Rhodesia, merely be exploited as an economic commodity—there will be no question of participation in the decision-making process.

Particularly when one takes note of the report of the President’s Council Committee for Economic Affairs on a Strategy for Employment Creation and Labour Intensive Development, one finds right at the beginning of the chapter containing the recommendations, that is chapter 9, that unemployment and underemployment in South Africa have increased to the point where, in terms of absolute poverty and the social order, they are exacting a price which requires the urgent attention of the authorities. In fact, projections based on an economic growth rate of 3,1% per annum, which we are not achieving, indicate that the labour surplus is expected to increase to 7,9 million by the year 2000.

I shall return briefly to this report at a later stage, but this is what Mr Christie Kuun, the President of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, said:

An appalling indictment! Whilst this phenomenon has been manifesting itself, we in the RSA have been experiencing the further disturbing trend of increasing strikes in a depressed economy, and of more and more man-hours being lost.

Whereas, according to the experts, trade unions normally maintain a lower profile during poor economic conditions and then take up the cudgels on behalf of their members whenever economic conditions warrant it, in South Africa we find that depressed economic conditions are co-inciding with a worsening political crisis. Cosatu, for example, has given its blessing to compulsory sanctions and further disinvestment.

Under such alarming circumstances we hear that the spiritual father of the new manpower legislation, Prof Nick Wiehahn, is of the opinion that power-sharing, properly implemented in the trade unions, will lead to the successful implementation of power-sharing in the Government of the country. That goes to show that a start is being made in labour circles to deploy the political power towards which they are striving.

The increase in strikes is directly attributable to the show of strength on the part of Black trade unions. This consequently justifies our standpoint that when the CP comes to power, we shall not allow these trade unions to operate. [Interjections.] Note, for example, the statistics contained in the report on certain aspects of strikes. These were also reiterated in Productivity South Africa. The annual frequency rate of strikes was less than two until 1970; thereafter it increased to four and then to seven in the five-year period under review.

As far as the loss of man-days is concerned, there was the violent era around 1922; followed by a levelling-off until 1979, with the exception of the period between 1945 and 1949. Since 1979, however, the graph has begun to display a steadily rising trend. Ross and Hartman have found that in the period between 1900 and 1956 strike activity in South Africa was reasonably low in comparison to other countries.

†They were of the opinion that this was mainly due to restrictions in the labour market that were peculiar to South Africa, including restrictions on the movement of certain groups of workers and their being barred from trade union rights.

*This therefore corresponds to CP policy. This was actually applied for many years and was the reason why there was a low incidence of strikes. This was thanks to influx control and the abolition of Black trade unions.

The authors go on to say:

Therefore, just as education and every other element of State administration cannot be divorced from the world view and the outlook on life of the people it serves, this is also the case with this extremely sensitive department, the Department of Manpower. Here, too, expression must be given to the drive towards and the right to self-determination of a people. That is why this is the point of departure of the CP. Flowing from this there is also the reservation of jobs for one’s own people in their own areas.

One cannot expect to retain or even to share the political power in one’s country if these trade unions and trade union federations are continually permitted to flex their political muscle without let or hindrance. They are flexing their muscle with slogans such as: “Down with minority rule”; “Stop raids into neighbouring states”; “Unban the ANC and release political prisoners”; “Comrades unite”, and “We will look after you—Marxist socialism works for you”. The Government is turning a blind eye and allowing these trade unions and trade union federations to proliferate and continue their efforts to destabilise South Africa.

It is incorrect to allege, as the hon the Minister has done, that the CP is promoting the objectives of the ANC. What do Cosatu and the UDF themselves say in this regard? They say:

The hon the Minister says we are playing into the hands of the ANC. [Interjections.] Cosatu and the UDF say the following:

Yet the hon the Minister tells us we are furthering the aims of the ANC. [Interjections.] That just goes to show what a superficial and flippant view he takes of these matters.

At the same time as Britain is announcing that she is to place further constraints upon the trade unions, which virtually crippled the economy in the days of Mr Ted Heath, for example—and this has happened despite the fact that a new post of “Trade Union Commissioner” was created, with the power to assist union members in enforcing their fundamental rights—the NMC is recommending in the reform milieu in South Africa that certain employees, even those in the essential services, be given the right to strike. That is precisely the opposite side of the coin. Mrs Thatcher is successful, but the NP is running out of both steam and support. [Interjections.] They are a spent force and can have nothing to say about the matter.

This type of concession and this tendency to yield to increasing demands will cost South Africa dearly. It cannot be tolerated any longer.

Let me quote to hon members a few of the figures mentioned in the annual report.

The number of working hours lost has practically doubled from 678 000 in 1985 to 1,309 million in 1986. More than 96% of South Africa’s strikers were Black, and since the railway strike is not entirely over and a miners’ strike is imminent, the figures for 1987 will be even more alarming.

I now want to deal with the President’s Council report on a Strategy for Employment Creation and Labour Intensive Development. I stated last year that we should guard against the overlapping of functions taking place due to the many sub-divisions, sub-departments and sub-committees within the Department of Manpower.

For example, in co-operation with the Economic Advisory Board of the Prime Minister, an overall strategy for the combating of unemployment was submitted to the Government for consideration in 1983. In 1984, after careful consideration of those recommendations, the Government tabled a White Paper in the House of Assembly on a strategy for the creation of job opportunities. Now we have this report on a strategy for employment creation in which the Government is being asked for a White Paper.

Unfortunately, time does not permit me to refer to certain recommendations of this committee which, in many respects, correspond to CP policy. For example, one does not spend R600 million to have people eradicate weeds on pavements and in cemeteries, but rather creates an infrastructure which, in turn, will lead to job-creation. If economic growth is stimulated, employment opportunities will result. One cannot create employment opportunities and believe that the economy will therefore be stimulated.

The last matter I want to deal with relates to interference by the hon the Minister in the agricultural sector. This is a very thorny issue, and here I am referring to the rumours that minimum conditions of service for domestic servants and agricultural workers are now also in store for us. The hon the Minister must spell out to us where this meddling in other people’s affairs, which Mr Fanie Botha initiated, is going to lead us. A writer to the Landbouweekblad, Mr Johan Willeman, writes the following:

Dit is myns insiens ’n resep vir groot ekonomiese ellende in die volgende klompie jare.

We concur with this and agree that we would rather see 16 million people employed, even if their salaries are just enough to buy food with, than see 4 million of them enjoy a high standard of living and 12 million remain unemployed. That is why we say it would be better for everyone to have jobs than for trade unions, through their actions, only to promote the interests of their members by striking for higher wages without fear of dismissal. The writer to the Landbouweekblad continues:

Can hon members imagine what would happen if a farmer were asked to appear before an industrial court by a trade union because workers had not followed instructions or decided to strike when crops had to be harvested? We are telling the hon Minister to keep his hands off the farmer.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I think that one must approach the entire labour and manpower facet very carefully. Before I get to that, however, I should like to thank the hon member for Brakpan for his good wishes. I appreciate them.

I also want to express my thanks to the department, the Director-General, Dr Van der Merwe, and his team for all the assistance and support we receive from them. Their assistance is really outstanding, and we want to assure them that everyone in the study group and the standing committee greatly appreciates their support. Thank you very much for that.

I should now like to return to the department itself and discuss manpower as such. I want to dwell on the speech of the hon member for Brakpan for a moment. He launched a personal attack on the hon the Minister. I suppose it is not necessary for me to say that I view this in a very poor light. He spoke about sensitivity. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Greytown is laughing now, but I hear he has had this Dakar problem for years. The other day someone told me that when he was a little boy he was walking down the street with his mother. When a motor vehicle rode past he said: “Mommy, look at da’ kar. ” [Interjections.] He must simply approach the matter a little more calmly. [Interjections.]

I now come back to the hon member for Brakpan. He said that we must handle the matter of manpower with sensitivity, and he spoke about sensitivity in the field of manpower. But he himself did not show the least sensitivity and openly launched a personal attack on the hon the Minister. I want to tell him that this hon Minister is one of the best Ministers of Manpower we have ever had, although the hon member may possibly disagree with this. I want to go further and tell him that this hon Minister is a thorn in the flesh of the CP. [Interjections.] The deeper that thorn penetrates their flesh, the more it hurts them. That is why they are kicking up such a fuss all the time. I do not want to defend this hon Minister further. He is going to have the opportunity to defend himself later on, and then I want to see how the hon members of the CP are going to carry on and make a noise over there. [Interjections.]

The hon member said that there were certain trade unions that wanted to go on strike. But the former secretary of a trade union is sitting in his party. I hear the hon member for Carletonville has resigned from that post. I read this in the newspapers and I think it is the case. There sits one of the hon members who, just before he resigned, wanted to lead his trade union into a strike. Then the hon member for Brakpan comes along and kicks up a fuss because trade unions want to strike! This does not make sense to me. [Interjections.]

That was not the first time he wanted to do that either.

Another thing we must do is to see strikes and trade unions in the correct perspective. Today I also want to dwell on trade unions for a while, because we also see them as an important facet in the entire labour set-up. Trade unions have come strongly to the fore in the RSA during the past few years. Many emotions have been aroused regarding trade unions. The CP in particular politically misused the trade unions, during the election too, and told all manner of stories. I shall return to this in a moment.

Perhaps it is again necessary today briefly to sketch the background of both White and Black trade unions. White trade unions have never had a problem negotiating, but Black trade unions, which were established before the ’twenties and have existed ever since, were never allowed to register. They therefore had no bargaining power. This non-registration led to a great deal of frustration in our country, among both employers and employees. The employers did not know who to talk to and the employees could not talk either because they were not registered. They therefore received absolutely no recognition from employers. What was even worse was that when some of these Black trade unions went to the employers to try to talk to them, many of the employers turned around and said that they did not recognise them. They simply sat back and wanted nothing to do with the Black trade unions. The Black workers constantly had to approach the employer hat in hand on an individual basis. They could not negotiate.

Then as forerunners of the trade unions we established the relations committees and everything that went with them. Those relations committees and liaison committees worked so well that in 1979 we allowed the Black trade unions to register.

Now there are certain Black trade union leaders who have in the meantime changed the essence of the trade unions. Instead of negotiation we now have confrontation. The most important facet is that those hon members now sitting in the CP were all in favour of the establishment of Black trade unions in 1979, their admissibility and their registration. They were sitting here in the NP benches.

That is not true.

What a lot of nonsense.

They were with us, but now they are shouting and complaining about this. [Interjections.] They are just as responsible for that baby as we are.

You are not speaking to children now.

Now they turn around and want nothing to do with it. I cannot understand how one can turn one’s back on one’s paternal responsibilities in that way. [Interjections.]

Let us proceed. The CP is now making a very big mistake. Because certain trade union leaders want to politicise the trade union movement, they are simply writing off all trade unions. That is the biggest mistake those hon members can make. If one person makes a mistake, one does not write off everyone. When certain trade union leaders want to drag in politics—I shall discuss this later—I am not prepared simply to say that I must eliminate all Black trade unions.

It is not only in Black trade unions that one comes across political undertones; this is also found in certain White trade unions. I want to repeat what I have just said, this does not apply to all Black trade unions, because there are responsible Black trade unions that participate with great responsibility in the negotiating processes of our country. The CP is also spreading another rumour abroad, namely that we ostensibly cannot control the Black trade unions. This Government is supposed to be too weak to …

Clamp down!

There you have it, the show of strength!

What those hon members do not realise is that this Government creates the negotiating machinery for trade unions and for employer organisations, and if the managements are too weak or do not maintain good labour relations in their factories, it is not the Government’s fault. I must not then simply say that because of this I must write off all Black trade unions. [Interjections.] Today I am standing here and I am saying that the NP Government has established negotiating machinery in this country which ranks among the best in the world. People come here from throughout the world who come here to see how negotiations take place in South Africa—specifically because we have faired so well with negotiating machinery, particularly in the sense that we were able to defuse explosive situations. But it is not our fault if the employers do not make use of the industrial courts which have been established for them. It is not our fault if workers do not use the channels available to them. They do exist; they must simply use them.

When trade union leaders operate in other spheres, this does become a problem for us. In this respect I want to associate myself with previous remarks, but I do not treat everyone alike.

We must differentiate between bravado and seriousness. The AWB, the CP’s kindred spirits in the “cultural” field, filled with bravado can kick up a fuss and stamp their feet; they are entitled to do so. But the trade unions are also entitled to do so. They can also be filled with bravado, kick up a fuss and stamp their feet, but when that bravado turns into physical violence, it becomes a problem for us. This morning I want to tell trade unions and those persons who support such behaviour that we as the Government will then take action.

There are two facets of the trade unions which have to be addressed seriously. The first of these is political interference by some of their leaders and the second facet has to do with illegal labour practices. I have cuttings here from which I want to read a few excerpts to hon members. They come from the Financial Mail of 3 July, and deal with the Cosatu Congress which was held recently. They read:

Their general secretary, Jay Naidoo, went on to say:

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am merely rising to afford the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Order! The hon member for Stilfontein may proceed.

Sir, I thank the hon Whip of the CP most sincerely.

In the Financial Mail of 24 July it was also reported:

Take note, “adopted”—

The major developments flowing from the congress, according to Naidoo, were: The definition of a clearer political direction; a decisive guide to international allies seeking to isolate apartheid; the decision to forge closer links with other “anti-imperialist” Third World trade unions.

If its resolutions seemed like leading to conflict with the State, Cosatu was unfazed, stating: ‘The State has already placed itself on a collision course with Cosatu, and we have given notice that we will defend ourselves.’

What is very important is the following:

†The Cosatu president, Elijah Barayi, said in his opening address:

Sir, I now want to say to the Cosatu president, first of all, that I am here to praise P W Botha and not to bury him. [Interjections.] Secondly, I want to say to him that if Cosatu have given notice that they will defend themselves, I am giving Cosatu notice that the State will defend itself—make no mistake about that!

Someone like Elijah Barayi must realise that it as a result of P W Botha and his Government that he can get up and make statements like these in South Africa. I want to tell Mr Barayi to go to Moscow or to any of these other socialist states and say the same about their leaders as he has said here about P W Botha, and see what happens. He must take note of what has happened in communist countries, where people are now trying to get labour movements off the ground. He must be very careful what he says. It may sound politically sound, but it could lead to problems. We are certainly not going to create those problems, and I wish to appeal to certain leaders in trade unions not to start creating problems.

*These trade union leaders who are kicking up such a fuss politically, must be very careful, whether they are Black or White. I want to repeat that warning. At the same time, however, I want to say that we will never take action against bona fide trade union leaders if they act within the channels which have been placed at their disposal. They can go ahead undisturbed, but they must know that if they operate outside those spheres they can have problems. I want to repeat that I am only addressing certain trade union leaders. Those trade union leaders to whom this warning has now been issued must please not complain later if we do take action when they operate outside their sphere.

Oh, they laugh at you.

I now want to get back to the second facet, namely “wildcat strikes”—these illegal strikes that take place so suddenly. This happens specifically when one person is fired and the rest of the staff walk out. I want to tell these people again that such behaviour cannot be allowed or tolerated. The trade unions have had enough time to put their house in order. The time has now come for them to start behaving like adults. We as the State will not allow the prosperity of everyone in our country, and that includes most of their people, to be jeopardised.

Today I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to take a fairly urgent look at legislation so that trade unions who are involved in these illegal actions can be sued for damages. We must as a matter of urgency allow the Industrial Court to determine compensation when these illegal strikes take place. What is even more important is that there is the tendency in certain trade unions to victimise their members or blackmail them to participate in such illegal strikes. I think the time has come in this country when the trade union member who suffers financially as a result of a strike he does not want to participate in but which he is forced to participate in and must eventually participate in should have the right to go to the Industrial Court and sue his trade union for compensation.

We must make come out in favour of this because it has become necessary for us to examine this matter. We cannot allow this kind of illegal strike to continue in our country. It can cost our country millions of rand and we cannot afford this in the present economic times.

I found it interesting that the hon member for Brakpan referred to trade unions which should only strike when things are going very well. But I want to remind him that the hon member for Carletonville, who until recently was still the secretary of the mineworkers' trade union, adopted the opposite view when they recently voted in favour of a strike. We are experiencing economically unfavourable times at the moment and they want to go on strike. What is good enough for White trade unions …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

I just want to finish the point I am making.

What is good enough for White trade unions is surely good enough for Black trade unions, and for all trade unions in our country. Because a trade union consists of Whites, we cannot create special machinery or special regulations for it and then say that the Black trade unions may not enjoy the same regulations. We have tried in this country of ours as far as possible to move away from discriminatory measures.

I want to say that in some cases where these trade unions have gone on strike, we must also put a little of the blame on management. If management and trade unions act in a responsible way and if we maintain the principle that we negotiate today because tomorrow is another day—we must see whether we cannot solve our problems in an orderly fashion today, because we are going to have the opportunity to negotiate again tomorrow—then we are adopting a mature approach to our labour problems. We cannot continue, as is happening in other countries, to jeopardise the government of the day because of trade union actions.

I want to repeat my warning: If certain leaders of certain trade unions act irresponsibly, they must not complain in future if the State takes action to protect its interests. The hon member for Brakpan may now put his question to me.

Mr Chairman, I just want to know from the hon member whether he is suggesting that White trade unions have acted at all irresponsibly recently.

The hon member for Brakpan was not listening. I said repeatedly and clearly: Unlike him, I am not shooting down trade unions per se. I said that certain leaders of certain trade unions had acted irresponsibly.

I want to remind the hon member of 1922 when strikes, and everything associated with them, were initiated by the mineworkers’ trade union. Was that responsible behaviour? No, it was extremely irresponsible.

Did the Government act responsibly? [Interjections.]

It was extremely irresponsible, because it was seeking confrontation between the trade union movement and the Government. That in itself is irresponsible. [Interjections.] Now the hon member comes along and wants to suggest that I am said that all White trade unions had acted irresponsibly. I never said that. I singled out the trade union leaders who were acting irresponsibly. I want to repeat what I said: This does not apply to everyone; there are also very responsible Black and White trade unions in our country with whom I have sat around a table and had the best negotiations one can possibly have with a trade union. (Time expired.)

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan described the department as a very sensitive one, and I think he is right. It is the one department which has the task of dealing with the realities of our country and which tries to do so in a way which will bring about and, as far as possible, maintain calm and order in the sphere of labour.

I want to begin by conveying my thanks to die Director-General and his staff. They have always been very helpful, and I believe that generally speaking, one can accept that the Director-General and his staff are widely respected among many sectors of our population, by employers as well as employees.

†It is very difficult for any Government department to achieve the respect in which the Director-General and his staff are held in the area in which they have to operate. It is a compliment to the Director-General and his department and I hope that he will be able to continue with his very measured, guarded and objective approach to the very intricate problems that we have in our country. The Director-General is a person who is invited to speak on many public platforms and he never misses those opportunities to spell out his vision and deliver a message of goodwill, conciliation etcetera to all parties concerned.

One listened to the hon member for Stilfontein and in a way he was doing exactly what I believe the Department of Manpower is trying not to do.

He is a confrontationalist, and we had a bit of bravado here. He gives notice—who is he?—that confrontation will take place if people look for confrontation. He says that those union leaders who seek to bury P W Botha and not to praise him, are looking for confrontation. [Interjections.] The hon member for Carletonville is also here to bury P W Botha, and we, too, are here to bury P W Botha, not to praise him. [Interjections.] The hon member for Carletonville has an opportunity of working towards that political goal because he wants to get rid of the National Party Government. He has the opportunity of working through the electoral process, through representation in Parliament. I want to ask him how those South Africans who have no representation, but have the same objective, go about achieving their political objective.

Not through the labour field.

If there is no avenue at all, is he surprised that the labour unions have political objectives? [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to allow this dialogue to continue. The hon member for Durban Central may proceed.

The reality is that a labour representative is in Parliament because of his stature among certain sectors of the workers. His supporters have clearly identifiable political objectives. We heard them this morning: “Self-beskikking vir die Blanke werker”.

*That is what it is all about—it is a political objective that they are trying to achieve. That is the reality. Does the hon member mean to tell me that trade unions that are denied the right to vote should not be allowed to pursue the same objectives? On what basis can he justify that? As long as the Government refuses to give those people representation in Parliament, trade unions will pursue political objectives as well, and will be justified in doing so. There is nothing we can do about that. [Interjections.]

†It is no use denying that reality. We can look at Western countries, but we cannot use them as a standard of comparison, because whether it be Britain, Germany, America or anywhere else, the worker has the opportunity of sending his political representatives to Parliament. One cannot, therefore, use those countries as a direct comparison with or example for South Africa.

There are many aspects of labour relations—the mechanisms which the department has provided—which one ought to discuss: industrial courts, suggestions about a labour court etc. The hon the Minister knows, however, that important legislation is expected. The Labour Relations Amendment Bill is expected to be produced before Parliament soon, and everyone expects it to contain some fairly significant amendments to the Labour Relations Act. I do not, therefore, think it serves much purpose at this stage to discuss the present situation without knowing what changes will be coming.

May I ask the hon the Minister when we can expect the Labour Relations Amendment Bill. Will it be discussed during this session? There are a lot of expectations and much speculation in this regard, and he knows it. What is worrying, however, is that the speculation actually goes much further than the Labour Relations Act. There is speculation that the department is working on some form of legislation which is intended to tackle and tighten up or to control the unions. I believe that that speculation is unfounded and nothing but speculation. The indications that one has had from the department are that they are only working on one Bill, viz the Labour Relations Amendment Bill. However, could the hon the Minister not please deal with that speculation in order to get it out of the way or tell us whether or not the department is working on some other legislation which is aimed at getting more effective control over unions generally. It would help a great deal.

During the past year there have been continuous and worrying signs that the Government does want to clamp down on unions. “Clampdown” is a very vague term because no one knows exactly how they want to do it, if they want to do it. The concern about tighter control by the State over the unions does not only come from the trade unions themselves—we know that Cosatu and other trade unions have expressed strong views on the matter—but also from employers. Employers have warned against a clamp-down and interference in employer-employee relations by the State. Why have they warned against this? They have done so because the entire industrial relations area will be threatened if the Government intends to intervene in a way which is contrary to the spirit of the labour legislation as it exists.

The National Manpower Commission, a very valuable forum through which direction is given and new input is made into labour relations, has again in its report dealing with dispute settlement, levels of collective bargaining and related matters set out what the Government’s approach should be to labour relations. May I just read a paragraph from the foreword on page ii …

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise to afford the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon Whip.

Tell us about the trade unions in Dakar.

My point of view on Dakar will be stated very clearly if I am given the opportunity to speak during the discussion of the hon the State President’s Vote. [Interjections.] Let me quote from the report:

That has been the approach since the new legislation has come into being. I am concerned about the call by the hon member for Stilfontein that somehow, through legislation, provision should be made for affected parties to claim compensation for damages suffered as a result of wildcat strikes. That hon member does not want to leave this aspect to discussion between employer and employee. He wants the State to interfere by introducing that sort of legislation which runs totally contrary to what labour relations should be like.

That may well be a view held by management. It is a view that I believe was possibly motivated by management. If that hon member wants to take the side of management in unions he must say so quite clearly. I am not suggesting that he should not express views on it. However, the question of compensation as a result of wildcat strikes should be left to the employer and employee to find out whether there is any need whatsoever to resolve that issue, if it is to be dealt with.

As far as the public sector is concerned, the “Staatsdiens”, Prof Wiehahn expressed the view that the provisions of the Labour Relations Act should be extended to the Public Service and parastatal organisations, the SATS and the Post Office. Taking into account the fact that they will not be able to copy it identically because of essential services, by and large the right to strike should be extended to public servants. I ask the hon the Minister if he can tell us whether the Government has accepted the inevitability of trade unions in the Public Service; whether they will therefore have the right to strike; and whether a new dispensation is being looked at. At the moment the position is that the Labour Relations Act governs labour relations in the private sector and there is different legislation for labour relations in the public sector. I believe that that is an unhealthy state of affairs, because public servants are starting to look enviously—I am talking about the workers’ side specifically in organisations like the SATS and the Post Office—at the results which other trade unions are achieving for their workers. It is therefore understandable that there will be growing agitation from public servants for a clearly defined bargaining process—for a system in which they will have similar rights to those enjoyed by trade union members. I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister will deal with that aspect.

I want to draw hon members’ attention to one other aspect. It is years now since the question of farm workers and domestic servants first arose. It has become a hardy annual. I asked the hon the Minister the same question last year. Has he shelved that report? What is happening? Does he think that it can just stay on the shelf until agriculture decides it is acceptable? I think it is generally accepted that the farmworker has the roughest deal in terms of rights and protection of all the workers in the formal sector of our economy. [Interjections.] Hon members need only go to Botshabelo near Bloemfontein to see that. Eight years ago it did not exist and now there is a city there four times the size of Bloemfontein, mainly as a result of people having had to leave farms due to mechanisation, but also due to pressure from the Government to reduce the number of workers on farms.

There was no pressure on the farmers!

[Interjections.]

We cannot ignore the farmworkers and the domestic servants and some progress has to be made. We cannot sit on this report for years. [Interjections.]

Order!

What is interesting when one looks to the future, is to see that the percentage of the total labour supply which will be able to find employment in the formal sector will remain relatively static with a small growth while the percentage of labour supply which will have to occupy the section of unemployed, underemployed, subsistence agriculture and informal business will grow substantially. What one needs to look at—this goes for the unions as well—is whether we are not moving into a decade or two where union members will almost start to become bourgeois in relation to those who work in the informal subsistence section. The trade union member is starting to occupy a niche among workers which is seen more and more as a privileged position.

It would be interesting to look into the effect of this on the whole political role of trade unions.

I would like to refer to two further aspects—the question of stayaways and public holidays. The hon the Minister knows that irrespective of whether the hon the State President agrees to make 1 May Workers’ Day, or whatever he wants to call it, every year from now onwards there will be massive industrial unrest and stayaways on that day. That is a fact. That is because it is an international labour day, which has nothing to do with communism. [Interjections.] It is a day on which solidarity is shown with other workers. I appeal to the hon the Minister to use his influence with the hon the State President to proclaim 1 May as Labour Day. That will defuse tremendous tensions which will otherwise inevitably occur.

Further we must draw a distinction between protest stayaways and commemorative days. Hon members must note that 16 June is a commemorative day; they call it “People’s Holiday”, because a wide section of South Africa’s population, the majority, see that as a commemorative day. I ask the Government to encourage negotiations between labour and management to make that a holiday which is recognised. I believe the unions ought to be careful that they do not involve themselves in stayaways and confrontation action which does not directly affect the position of the worker in his place. There is a place for stayaways if it involves the workers’ rights, but I believe that the question of stayaways and commemorative holidays is a question which needs urgent negotiation between employer and employee. The hon the State President should be involved as far as 1 May is concerned, after consultation with the unions and with the employers.

Lastly, I want to refer to the question of religious objectors, which is also handled by this department. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether they cannot please be permitted to play a more productive role than is the case at the moment. They should be allowed to practise their profession or occupation in order not to further themselves only but also to assist the community as a whole. Teachers should be allowed to teach, musicians to … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the beginning of his speech the hon member for Durban Central praised the department and its staff highly. We agree with him on that. Being involved in the field of labour or manpower is very hazardous, and I agree with the hon member that the problems experienced over the past few years are being dealt with very well by the Director-General and his staff.

The hon member also spoke about trade unions which are political. He contended that Blacks agitate at work because they are not represented in Parliament. Surely that is not the case. He knows that most strikes are the result of intimidation. We need only look, for example, at the most recent strike at the SATS, in which people were murdered because they would not strike. If we in this country could find a solution to intimidation, we could solve more than half of our labour problems.

Political rights are the solution.

Ban Black trade unions!

He also spoke about the farm workers. It seems to me that his party has no idea of the important part the farmer plays in the care of his labourers on the farm.

I do not deny that.

In that case he should not refer to this matter so sarcastically. [Interjections.] They are provided with housing and they are well taken care of. In my opinion there is no reason at present why there should be trade unions for them as there are for the workers in industry.

Only at present?

A country’s progress and prosperity—as far as all the regions in that country are concerned—reside in the constant improvement in the quality of its workers and its citizens. Without sufficient industrious and skilled workers who are motivated to develop their talents in the interests of these regions and the country, natural resources can never be fully exploited. In such a case the community’s standard of living cannot be maintained for very long either. That applies to everyone, because if a minority enjoyed these privileges alone there would be no stability and order.

Dissatisfaction and rebelliousness—the breeding ground of unrest—coups d’etat and wars, often arise out of the difference in the standards of living of the various sections of the population. If everyone is poor, or if everyone is struck by unemployment, there is a spirit of unity and compassion in mutual tolerance. As this gap in the prosperity of the different sections of the population increases, tension builds up.

Order! A point of order is being raised.

Sir, on a point of order: The debate is continuing while there is not one member of the Executive is present in the Committee. [Interjections]

Order! My information is that the hon the Minister is listening to the debate somewhere else. [Interjections.] Order! The hon member for Alberton may proceed.

Is the hon the Minister trying to frighten me? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Alberton must be afforded an opportunity to make his speech.

May I put a point of order, Sir? [Interjections.]

Order! A point of order is being raised.

Sir, is it in order for the hon the Minister to threaten me? [Interjections.]

Order! I did not hear the hon the Minister threatening anybody.

Sir, I simply glared at him, and it seems he got a fright. [Interjections.]

Order! A point of order is being raised.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon the Minister is stating an untruth, as he has done in the past. He pointed his finger at me Sir; he did not merely look at me. Is it in order for him to do that, Sir? [Interjections.]

Order! I did not get the impression that there was any aggression in that at all.

Sir, I glared at the hon member and pointed my finger at him, but the hon member is apparently not very brave and he took it very much to heart. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Alberton may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I pointed out that it is very important that the entire population makes progress. The Government realises this, and that is why its labour policy is based on the training of all its workers, on peace in the labour market, and on the principle that the worker’s security, safety and health must be protected. This policy must also ensure that employment opportunities are created for all its people.

The creation of employment is one of the most important—if not the most important—objectives for a country’s economic development policy. The employment of people leads to progress in a country, and progress determines a country’s preparedness and ability to enhance the quality of life of all its citizens. In the current economic climate it is not possible for the Government to create employment opportunities for all its people since the population growth is too high, especially in respect of the Black population. In addition, the level of skill and productivity is too low.

Unemployment is not only a South African phenomenon. As a matter of fact, it is a worldwide phenomenon. In the EEC countries, for example, 11,5% of the people were unemployed in 1985, whereas in the USA the unemployment rate was 7%. In Canada it was 9,5% during 1986. It is also interesting to note that unemployment in countries often hits certain groups harder than others. In Europe, for example, the unemployment rate among young people is much higher than that among the entire work force. In the USA it has been determined that the unemployment rate among Black youths is as high as 40%.

The creation and provision of employment is not only the responsibility of the Government, but also of the private sector. Nevertheless, the Government accepts the philosophy of private ownership and effective competition, and therefore it will ensure the establishment of a physical, economic and social infrastructure in which economic growth can take place. One can mention many examples in this respect. The Government has also instituted various investigations in order to promote this. I should like to refer to the White Papers on industrial development, 1985, industrial development on a regional basis and on the provision of employment, 1984, and on the mineral policy, 1983. Then there is the President Council’s report on a strategy for employment creation, which has just been completed. There is also the White Paper on training policy, 1980, and the White Paper on in-service training, 1980.

In addition there were also far-reaching changes with regard to the manpower policy, regional development, small business development, and privatisation and deregulation. Our unemployment problem can be solved to a great extent by the promotion of the small business sector. There are examples throughout the world which prove that the small business sector is the sector that creates 75% of all employment opportunities. This is because the small business sector is labour-intensive, as opposed to the big industrial firms. The SBDC contends that it costs R5 000 to create an employment opportunity in the small business sector, whereas it costs R30 000 in a big industry.

When one looks at the budget for the Department of Manpower, it appears that the Government has been making funds available to address the problem of unemployment since 1983. In 1985-86 an amount of R100 million was provided for this purpose. It was such a success that an additional R500 million was appropriated for that purpose in October of that year. This was a temporary measure which was not intended to create permanent employment opportunities or to be competitive.

Another of the Department of Manpower’s success stories is the programme for the training of unemployed people. A total of 407 259 people were trained during 1986. If we take into account that the cost of this amounted to just R260 per person, we could say that it was a good investment in order to make these people better equipped to find work. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a special privilege for me to take part in this debate on the Manpower Vote this morning. Initially I wanted to welcome the hon the Minister of Manpower back in the Committee, but I see he has already left. The voters will definitely take exception to this hon Minister who takes so little interest in his Vote that he is not even present when it is being discussed. [Interjections.]

If you look around, you will see him.

It is very clear, moreover, that both the hon the Minister of Manpower and the NP’s chief spokesman on manpower, the hon member for Stilfontein, have been rejected by the majority of their voters. The writing is on the wall for them, and I want to appeal to them to take the honourable course by resigning so that we can hold elections in Lydenburg and Stilfontein and elect people who have the interests of the worker at heart. [Interjections.] The hon member for Stilfontein spoke like a pawn of Anglo-American earlier this morning. [Interjections.]

I am delighted to be participating in this debate, and I want to express my appreciation to the Director-General, Dr Van der Merwe, as well as to the National Manpower Commission for the exceptionally comprehensive annual reports they issued. I also want to express my appreciation to the National Manpower Commission for their working paper entitled “Certain Aspects of Strikes in South Africa”.

It is very important to have statistical data on strikes at one’s disposal, because it can serve as an indication of inter alia labour peace in the country and as a gauge of the effectiveness of statutory measures for the control of labour relations in the country.

The Afrikaner people put the NP into power in 1948 with the instruction and the mandate to restore and ensure the interests of the White worker in South Africa according to the policy of apartheid. In 1955 the NP said that the United Party was following a dangerous course. Some of the hon members on the other side of the Committee will remember what was said then and will also recall this pamphlet. The former Saps, who are now sitting on that side of the Committee, and who look and feel completely at home there, will remember this pamphlet that I have in my hands particularly well. It read:

The NP went on to say:

That was the standpoint of the NP. They said:

[Interjections.] That was the standpoint of the NP. Since the previous Minister of Manpower, Mr Fanie Botha, took over the reins and harnessed Prof Nic Wiehahn as his willing horse, that horse has bolted with Fanie Botha, and consequently everything that the NP once warned against has suddenly become NP policy. [Interjections.] Job reservation has been abolished, Black trade unions have been legalised, and political integration has taken place to an even greater extent. The dangerous course of integration, which will lead to equality, degeneration and destruction, and which the NP once warned against, has become their course. That is why it is understandable that there are so many former UP members on the opposite side of the House, because the NP has simply taken over the UP’s policy. [Interjections.]

The membership of registered Black trade unions has increased so tremendously over the past year that at present there are 1,2 million registered Black trade union members. As the NP predicted in the days before Fanie Botha and Nic Wiehahn bolted—taking the NP with them—it is very clear that Black trade unions have become a mighty weapon in the hands of Blacks through which chaos can be caused in the country. I need only refer to the recent strike at the SATS where millions of rands of damage was caused.

It is very clear from the National Manpower Commission’s annual report that strikes increased during 1986. There were 389 strikes in 1985 as opposed to the 793 in 1986. About 240 000 Blacks participated in strikes during 1985 as opposed to 424 000 in 1986. In 1985 a total of 678 000 man-days was lost as opposed to 1,3 million in 1986.

What do the left-wing radicals say about that?

The textile and mining industries were most severely hit by the strikes during the past year. The irresponsible way in which Blacks went on strike caused 1,3 million man-days to be lost. In its report on strikes, the findings of the National Manpower Commissioner were that the factors which influenced the strike phenomenon most strongly were the extension of statutory trade union rights to Blacks in 1979, the big increase in the number of Black trade unions, and the Black membership of trade unions. [Interjections.]

In its report on a strategy for employment creation and labour-intensive development, the President’s Council’s Committee for Economic Affairs found that on average Blacks constituted 92,3% of striking workers during the period from 1980 to 1985, and accounted for an average of 90,5% of the man-days lost. Both percentages are disproportionate to the Blacks’ share of 55,9% of employment opportunities in the non-agricultural sector.

The Black trade unions, which are the brainchild of the hon members on the opposite side of the House, have developed and grown to such an extent that they have grabbed the Government by the throat and are cutting off its air supply. The Government clearly realises this, because that is one of the main reasons for their policy in respect of the privatisation of certain services. The Government has lost control over Black trade unions and does not want to take responsibility for the logical consequences of its policy of integration. Now it is privatising and can lay the blame at the door of the private sector, as the hon member for Stilfontein did. [Interjections.]

We saw how the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs failed to control the recent strike by workers of the SATS. In the process damage of R21 million was caused to coaches alone. More than a month after the strike began, the hon the Minister issued an ultimatum to the strikers, because it is practically impossible to take quick and effective action against striking workers in terms of the Conditions of Employment Act of 1983.

To put it bluntly, the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs was literally manipulated, and therefore privatisation is seen as an easy way out of the position the Government has created. [Interjections.] The Blacks have been given a powerful weapon by means of which chaos can be caused in the country. That is why privatisation is regarded as an easy way out, as a way of placing the blame on the shoulders of the private sector.

An aspect which is a cause for concern among hon members on this side of the Committee is the high rate of unemployment. Registered unemployment among Whites has increased from 12 361 in January 1983 to 29 398 in January 1986. According to the Central Statistical Services 1 870 000 Blacks, 112 000 Coloureds and 32 000 Asians were unemployed in October 1986. That is a cause for concern among hon members on this side of the Committee, especially when one considers the further finding of the committee of the President’s Council. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I just want to ask the hon member for Ventersdorp whether it is not true that Black trade unions went on strike even before they were officially recognised. I merely want to put that question to him. [Interjections.]

In addition I want to ask the hon member for Ventersdorp whether he is still in the habit of acting on behalf of Black trade unions. [Interjections.]

I should like to get away from the subject of the Black trade unions and the labour situation, and specifically address the training aspect, which is a very important facet of manpower.

The Government’s basic point of departure in its training policy is that the actual responsibility for the training and retraining of its workers rests with the employer. The Government acts only in a supportive capacity, and the Department of Manpower provides training only for its own employees, as is expected of any good employer. Incidentally, in many respects the department sets an example of what is really meant by privatisation in the public sector. The department’s support and training mainly entails the provision of advice by training advisers in the first place, the provision of financial assistance in the second, tax concessions in the third, and a cash allowance and subsidies to employers in the fourth place.

It is interesting that in the Vote under discussion the following allocations have been made from an amount of R222 000 million to the various facets of the department: To administration, 5%; safety and health, 2,2%; social insurance, 3,5%; auxiliary and associated services, 23,2%; labour relations, 2,4%; utilisation of manpower, 6,4%; and training, no less than 57,3%. In addition to these cash allowances and subsidies, there is revenue from tax incentives in order to achieve certain economic objectives, for example training, and the promotion of exports.

The allocation for training for 1983-84 amounted to a total of R155 million of the contribution of the total amount of company tax—this is excluding mining—which should still be added to this amount of the department.

It is also enlightening and interesting to see that in the 1980-81 tax year, only 5,97% of the total Manpower budget was allocated to training in comparison with the present 57%.

I have already referred to the basic point of departure of the Government which regards it as the employer’s task to take care of the training and retraining of its workers. The question arises as to the kind of framework within which this approach can be realised. It can be summarised briefly in the following points: (1) The establishment of a training board with various committees; (2) the regulating of the training of apprentices; (3) the conducting of trade tests and issuing of certificates; (4) the training of trainees; (5) the registration of in-service training schemes and centres; (6) the training of work-seekers; (7) the imposition of training levies in a specific trade to promote training; (8) training advice to employers; and (9) the provision of financial incentives for training.

The National Training Board is one of the most important instruments with which the Government achieves its objectives in respect of manpower training. The training board concentrates mainly on the co-ordination, encouragement and promotion of training. One of the most important committees of the National Training Board is the research and development committee. An important facet of the NTB’s activities, is that an investigation is being made in co-operation with the National Manpower Commission into management training in South Africa. I am convinced that management training is one of the contributory factors, if not the most important one, to increasing productivity in the RSA.

The National Training Board plans to follow up this investigation by a qualitative evaluation and a further follow-up campaign to determine: What can be done with reference to management training; what the nature of the solution is; who should do this; how it should be done; and why it is being done. This investigation will identify shortcomings and deficiencies which will be addressed thoroughly.

Further research that is being done by this investigative committee comprises inter alia criteria for target group training. This means that poorly skilled adults can be given a better training by means of aptitude test batteries. A further aspect that is being considered is the technological change in training. Certain research requirements have been identified from the HSRC’s White Paper on this investigation and are receiving attention in co-operation with the HSRC.

A further aspect is research on the training at universities and technikons. The purpose of this project is to reduce duplication of research. A data base is already being established. Naturally this committee is also considering the training of training staff. I think that goes without saying. Research on computer-assisted education to apprentices is also receiving the committee’s attention.

The last, but very important project that I want to refer to here and which this committee is involved in, is training in respect of labour relations. The importance of promoting better labour relations cannot be overemphasised. That is why the objective of this investigation is to address the problem in its entirety. This project results from and is supplementary to two existing projects of the National Training Board, viz an inquiry into the beneficial and inhibitive factors in training in labour relations in the first place and in the second, an inquiry into the effectiveness of and guidelines for training in labour relations, as published by the National Training Board.

Because of the need for promoting and co-ordinating the training of manpower on the regional level, as well as the need to decentralise training advisory services, 10 regional training committees have been established, and are making an exceptional contribution to promoting and co-ordinating training in the respective regions.

I singled out these aspects to emphasise once again that the labour field is a very complex one, which must be handled with great circumspection. If we look at the labour bank in South Africa, we find that there are 18 semi-skilled people and 14 unskilled people for every management position. If this is compared with the situation in the Western economies, the same ratio there is 1:5,5 in respect of semi-skilled people and 1:2 in respect of unskilled people. The only way in which we shall be able to rectify this matter, will be by constantly giving more attention to training. The idea of the Whites having a greater share in this labour force of ours is simply not feasible. We shall have to expand our training facilities, therefore, so that we can make use of the total labour force in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank our hon Minister and the Department of Manpower, and congratulate them on the decision they took in 1983 to investigate artisan training. Just as we on this side of the House do, they realise that artisans have a very important place in our society. We have great respect for them. The artisans ensure that the economy takes the correct course. If there are no artisans, the economy cannot make any progress. The more artisans there are, the more the rate of the economy accelerates.

The hon the Minister and the department entrusted their decision to the National Training Board. The latter involved the Human Sciences Research Council in the investigation into the training of artisans. They used 150 researchers to do this. That is an indication of the importance with which they regarded the instruction.

The things they had to investigate were the principles underlying the training of artisans, pre-apprenticeship education and training, the selection of apprentices, the training process, the evaluation of artisan training and the cost and financing of the training. The principle they took into account was that the Government wanted to interfere in the private sector as little as possible. As the hon member for Newcastle said, the Department of Manpower will ensure that the structures within which this training can take place are established now and in future. The employers derive the greatest benefit from a trained artisan, and that is why they have to finance the training. These were the three basic principles of this investigation.

The investigation was completed very quickly, because so many people were used and because it was regarded as being very important. They made certain recommendations of which I am going to mention only a few. The first was that the specified period training of the artisan by means of apprenticeship contracts which were normally three to five years, be converted to performance-based modular training for the artisan. Theoretically this could mean that an artisan possessing an N2 diploma with the right subjects could be a full-fledged artisan within a year.

They also recommended that testing of apprentices need not take place only at Olifantsfontein, but also at other large centres. Industry training boards, on which both employer and employee will have representation, must be established. The facilities at group training centres should be expanded in such a way that apprentices can be trained there as well.

They also recommended that teaching staff, particularly those who are involved with vocational guidance, should be trained so that they can understand what can be to the advantage of the child when it comes to the country’s requirements in respect of the technical professional world.

They also recommended that there be closer liaison between the educational bodies and the employers’ organisations concerning the subject content of certain fields of study.

When the Government received this report, they published this White Paper which was distributed to hon members during the session before 6 May. They regarded this as being of urgent importance and stated their standpoint on the subject.

When one reads this White Paper, one sees that the recommendations made by the investigative commission have in substance been accepted by the Government. It has also realised that the training of the artisan must enter a new phase.

The report was also distributed to the industries, and they can now apply many of the recommendations contained in it. Since a well-trained artisan who is skilled and can be made available to industries more quickly is to their advantage, we should advise them to pay attention to this White Paper. Many of these recommendations can be implemented without amending any legislation.

I spoke to the Department of Manpower, and they are also ready now to give the industries and teachers the necessary counselling on how to implement the recommendations contained in the White Paper. What these recommendations amount to is that the artisan can now derive benefit from these recommendations in a shorter period because he can complete his training more quickly and receive an artisan’s salary.

It is to the advantage of the employer that larger numbers of people can receive the training more quickly, and they need no longer be tested in one place only. As I have said, all the other places can also be used as test centres now; as a result, people can be made available more quickly. We therefore request that the industries consider and implement these recommendations.

Mr Chairman, I would like to add my tribute—as did the hon member for Durban Central—to the department and, in particular, to the officials and the Director-General. I would specifically like to commend the Director-General upon his report for the year ended December 1986. I think it is particularly well set out and—certainly for a person like myself who is relatively new to the role of second spokesman for the PFP on manpower—I found the report very enlightening and certainly did not anticipate that I would understand all sorts of things that a layman does not necessarily appreciate. From the point of view that it is not only a good report of the department but also exceptionally readable for the man in the street I would certainly commend it.

I would also like to mention the various reports of the National Manpower Commission which I have recently received and which I have had the benefit of receiving over the past few years. I find the work that is being done under the chairmanship of Dr Hennie Reynders particularly good. It certainly manifests great insight into the problems which face us in the manpower field. It also reflects a genuine concern to find a solution to these problems and to tackle them by way of fundamental recommendations.

I would like to touch on a few of the aspects related to this Vote, particularly the areas of job creation, education and the mobility of labour. I think these are related subjects which could have a very marked effect on the problem of employment in this country.

I think it is generally accepted that the level of prosperity and stability in any society depends directly on the level of employment or, conversely, unemployment. The role of employment in relation to the stability of our society—I am referring to the South African society—is particularly significant because of the high conflict potential which we already have owing to a number of other causes that are not strictly related to the question of employment. I refer here to historical factors, past Government policies and certain economic and demographic trends.

I believe the conflict potential in our labour situation is best understood if we take by way of example the research that is being done by the Institute for Futures Research at the University of Stellenbosch. Here they make certain projections on labour supply versus labour demand. They estimate that whereas our current labour supply is approximately 12 million people—people who are available for the labour market—-this will increase to approximately 18 million by the year 2000. Presently 7,7 million of the 12 million in labour supply are catered for by demand in the modern sector, leaving only 4,3 million in the peripheral sector—in other words those who have to find their own way of earning a living. They do this through self-employment or some other means—sometimes resorting to crime. However, the bulk of them are potentially unemployed and this section of the potential labour force will increase dramatically by the year 2000. I think this is nothing new. We all know that the increase in the potential labour or the labour supply is far outstripping the projected jobs that will be created particularly in the formal or modern sector of our economy for the foreseeable future.

I want to suggest that one of the prime reasons for job creation not being able to keep up with the explosion of workseekers is the shortage of highly skilled and entrepreneurial workers who can create jobs not only for themselves but also for others. While there are other contributory factors I believe that this aspect—in other words the education and training of people to the skilled and entrepreneurial level—remains the key to job creation.

I do not think I am wrong in saying that it is generally accepted that the policies adopted by governments in the past—not only this Government but previous governments as well—have been a very large contributory factor in the situation where demand for skilled labour—and I am limiting myself to the skilled labour field—far outstrips the supply. The shortage is estimated at approximately a quarter of a million, whereas it is estimated that the oversupply of semi-skilled labourers lacking the training to perform skilled work will increase tenfold in the period 1980 to 2000.

If this is so, if we have this vast increase in the shortage of skills for which a demand exists whereas on the other side of the coin we have a massive oversupply of semi-skilled or semi-educated people where there is in fact no demand, we have to ask ourselves: What is the point in educating a person to an intermediate level where he is unemployable? Is any purpose served? I suggest that, quite apart from dealing with the problem of employment, this method of educating, this shortage of vision in training for skills, is now and will increasingly become one of the major factors conducive to promoting the revolutionary climate in this country.

To illustrate what I am saying, the Futures Research Institute estimates that whereas approximately 290 000 potential labourers with education beyond Std 8 were unemployed in 1980, the surplus of unemployable labourers who have passed Std 8 or have matriculated will increase to nearly four million by the year 2000. What better climate for a revolution than to have four million young men and women whose expectations have been raised by education and who have no prospect of obtaining employment? I suggest that the revolutionary strategists could not have done it better themselves.

Our first objective, therefore, has to be to raise a sufficient number of labourers from this semi-educated, unskilled level to the skilled entrepreneurial level. As I have said, this is not only so that they can fill a job themselves, but also because that is the class of person who creates more jobs.

I suggest too that job creation of this nature requires an entirely new vision leading to realistic strategies freed from outmoded ideologies and constraints. I believe that the constraints of apartheid are illustrated specifically in the area of the mobility of labour and, more importantly, the mobility of the family of each individual labourer. Despite the abolition of influx control, a large section of our labour force still remains in the migrant labourer class. This is specifically because, although there are no legal constraints on certain individuals coming to work in this area, the de facto position as well as the legal position as regards both housing and the ability to bring their families to be with them, restrains these people from becoming stable workers within the community.

I am not going to have time to quote it in full, but I would refer you, Mr Chairman, to an article by Prof David Rees on productivity in the Leadership publication Human resources 1985-86, where he illustrates beautifully the dilemma of employer and employee in a migrant labour situation. There is just no reason at all for an employer to do the most essential job of in-house training, since he knows that the man is not going to be with him permanently, but will only be there for a few months of the year. Quite clearly, the employer is not going to spend money on that sort of person—not because such a person wants to work for only a few months of the year but because he wants to go back to his family—to raise his level of skill. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I listened to the hon members of the CP attentively this morning and came to the conclusion that they really are a lot of Jeremiahs. The people sitting over there are a scared group of people. I do not think one can be happy if one is that negative. Not one of them has spelt out their labour policy to us this morning. I hope one of them will do so during the course of the debate. If they do, I want them to do so on the basis of their programme of principles, specifically clause 2.3.4, and for the purposes of the hon member for Losberg, on page 4. [Interjections.] This clause reads as follows:

They go on to say, and this is what is so interesting:

This makes one wonder what they are going to tell the farmers of Waterberg and Soutpansberg once they have had an “efflux” of all their non-White workers back to their own countries.

Who is going to open the gates?

What is going to become of South Africa if that happens? The hon members should elaborate on that.

I should like to talk about the Apex Group Training Centre in Benoni. Before I do so, however, I should like to make a few general remarks in connection with this Vote. It is true that our country has experienced a serious recession during the past few years. Some people maintain that it has been the worst recession in our country’s history. It is true that many companies have been liquidated and that as a result, unemployment has sky-rocketed. It is also true that this has created despondency among individuals, as well as companies and managements. One can understand this, because no one enjoys being unemployed.

Despite all those circumstances, the Department of Manpower has a wonderful story to tell. They did not sit back with the attitude that the economy was not their fault and that they could do nothing about it. They used the opportunity to concentrate on training to an even greater extent. Although it is every employer’s task to train his employees, it is the department’s task to support and encourage them in various respects.

I should like to outline the extent of the department’s task briefly. In the first place it advises by means of training advisers. Secondly it provides financial assistance which amounts to a considerable amount of money. Hon members can read about this in the annual report. It takes place inter alia by means of tax concessions, cash allowances and subsidies. I do not want to talk about the department’s policy, however, because one can read about this in the annual report.

I should like to talk about the far-sightedness of the hon the Minister and his staff. While the economy was experiencing a recession, they decided to use the lean years to provide more training so that when we have good years again, we shall have a better trained labour force, which will bring about greater productivity. From 1982 to 1984, 2 714 000 workers were trained in the various programmes offered by the group training centres and private training centres under the auspices of the Department of Manpower. In 1986 alone, 737 000 people were trained in comparison with the 78 000 trained in 1978. A figure worth mentioning is that 407 259 unemployed people were trained in 1986. I think this is a splendid achievement. I understand that an average of 25% of those people have been placed in positions as a result of their training, and in certain fields of training, up to 90% of the people have been placed in positions. Surely that is a good and positive reflection.

This side of the Committee wants to thank the hon the Minister, his Director-General, Dr Piet van der Merwe, and their staff for their far-sightedness, which can only enrich South Africa in future. Perhaps what was done under very difficult economic conditions is not appreciated now, but time will tell what an enormous piece of work the hon the Minister and his department did in this connection.

In thanking the hon the Minister and his department today, I also want to thank the private sector and their training staff for what they have done. They have trained an incredible number of people. They do not train the unemployed, but people who are in their service. This improves these people’s chances of promotion and increases productivity. We can and want to express our thanks to the private sector for their close cooperation with the department, and we want to tell them that we appreciate this.

The Apex Training Centre is in the Benoni constituency, and celebrated its tenth birthday on 20 July this year. In the first place I want to congratulate the director and his staff as well as everyone who is involved with this centre. I also want to thank them for the excellent work they do. They provide training in 26 different fields. They are perhaps unique in that they are the only group training centre that trains hotel staff and provides courses for disabled people. At the moment they can train 120 disabled people per annum in various fields. I think that is a wonderful achievement. This training centre has expanded enormously within only 10 years as a result of the assistance it has received from the Department of Manpower.

The present director is Mr Joos Lemmer, and Mr Chairman, with a surname such as his, this centre cannot but attain even greater heights. [Interjections.] Permit me to mention one more person in the short time at my disposal: Mr Piet van Hoven. He has been doing his best for this training centre in Benoni since 1974 or 1975. He worked hard to get this centre established in Benoni. He became its chairman when the centre was established, and retired in January this year. Mr van Hoven has really made his mark in the annals of this centre, and it is because of him that this centre could expand to such an extent. I want to tell Mr Van Hoven that although he made his mark in many spheres in our community, he will never be forgotten for what he did for the Apex Training Centre. I thank him and his wife for what they mean to us there on the East Rand, and wish them a pleasant retirement. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, please just allow me to say that I support what was said by previous speakers of my party about the department under discussion. I am not going to repeat it.

I should like to begin with the hon member for Stilfontein. In his speech that hon member referred to the hon member for Durban Central and again raised the old story of Dakar. Well, it is an old tactical move to attack the opposing side when one is in difficulties, thereby drawing attention away from oneself. [Interjections.]

Order!

Well done, Arrie! Let him have it! [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us, however, have a look at what is going on in the ranks of the NP. Where is the hon member for Innesdal? He is sitting over there, Sir. He is the one, is he not, who said we should hold discussions with the ANC.

Where is your written documentation to support that? [Interjections.]

He said it, did he not?

Where do you get that? I challenge you to prove it!

And Prof De Lange went to hold discussions with the ANC. [Interjections.] The explanation for that, given in this House the other day—an explanation of how and why he held discussions with them—borders on the ridiculous.

Jolly good show, Arrie! [Interjections].

Prof De Lange held discussions with the ANC.

Good show, Arrie!

Another individual who has NP support, Prof Johan Heyns, went out of his way to hold discussions with the ANC.

Where?

How do you come by that information?

You are talking through your hat! [Interjections.]

Sir, what did hon members on the Government side do about this.

When did Prof Heyns go out of his way to hold discussions with the ANC? [Interjections.]

So far the NP has done nothing about it. The difference between the NP and the PFP lies in the fact that the NP is too afraid to tell the world openly what its standpoint is. They do all these things in a clandestine fashion. [Interjections.] The PFP, on the other hand, proclaims openly what it is doing. There is no difference in policy. One of the parties is just far more honest than the other. [Interjections.]

Good show, Arrie! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I have had the privilege of listening to the hon member for Stilfontein three times. He knows as little about what goes on in the labour sphere as a monkey does about religion.

Tell us about your toilet!

I have already told the hon member for Stilfontein that the statement he made here yesterday, for example, about someone being prepared to have his finger cut off in exchange for money, goes beyond the bounds of the ridiculous.

That is disgraceful!

No one would cut off a finger for the few cents’ compensation he would receive.

What about a trade union leader?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Stilfontein went even further … [Interjections.]

Order! Whether hon members agree or disagree with the hon member who has the floor is of no consequence. The fact remains that the hon member should be given an opportunity to make his speech. I therefore appeal to hon members to comply with this request. The fact that the presiding officer continually has to call hon members to order does not create a good impression. Hon members should realise that the hon member who has the floor should be given a fair chance to speak. The hon member for Carletonville may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I just want to say, however, that hon members will not throw me off balance. They are free to make as many interjections as they want to. [Interjections.] When, earlier on, the hon member for Ventersdorp pointed out that the NP had taken over the policy of the old United Party in its entirety, they also kicked up a fuss. The further the hon member proceeded with his speech, however, the quieter they became. It began to sink in that he was, in fact, telling the truth. This does not happen very quickly. It did, however, sink in that the hon member for Ventersdorp was telling the truth. They then began to realise that the NP was doing precisely what the old United Party supporters said was in the interests of South Africa. So those hon members do not disturb me in the least.

The hon member for Stilfontein went on to refer to me personally. He said that I was sitting here in the House as a former leader of the White Mineworkers’ Union. He also spoke of a strike that might have taken place. When I sit here listening to him, I am reminded of the fact that some people have referred to him as the voice of Harry Oppenheimer. I do not think he is only the voice of Harry Oppenheimer; he is now also the voice of Gavin Relly. That is what he does. He is continually propagating the policy of the African Advancement Corporation which has become so much a part of him. [Interjections.] I just want to put it to him now that the difference between the White Mineworkers’ Union and the National Union of Mineworkers lies in the fact that the White Mineworkers’ Union has always acted in a responsible way. They have always pulled their weight, bearing in mind South Africa’s economic position. [Interjections.]

He agrees with you, Arrie!

When we look at the circumstances prevailing this year, we see that the mineworkers wanted to strike for a 15% increase, but why do the Blacks want to strike—when hon members of the NP refer to Trade Unions, they are too afraid to indicate whether they are referring to Blacks or Whites—and why are they going to strike? Surely one cannot refer to the White Mineworkers’ Union and the NUM in the same breath!

Nor did I.

The White Mineworkers Union is the most responsible White Trade Union in South Africa and will always act in a responsible fashion, but it will never hesitate to act in the interests of White workers. We want to make that very clear.

The hon member also referred to 1922. That was uncalled for. I do not think he even knows what the cause of the 1922 strike was. [Interjections.] At the time the White mineworkers also acted in the interests of their own future, and what happened? The then Government had them shot, and the mineworkers rallied and put the National Party into power in 1924, a party which looked after their interests. We cannot, however, say that the NP of today still looks after the interests of White mineworkers. [Interjections.]

Nor does the hon member for Stilfontein know anything about the Labour Relations Act. He made certain statements here about the necessity for legislation granting workers the right to claim compensation for damages suffered during a strike. I do not want to elaborate on that; he should just read the Labour Relations Act. Again he does not have the interests of those who elected him in Stilfontein at heart. Now I know why they moved such a concerted motion of no-confidence in him. They know they cannot rely on him to defend their interests in White South Africa.

What was your majority?

My majority was 98, but I converted the NP majority of 3 000 into a majority of 98 for the CP! I am looking forward to the next election, and only the other day I told the hon the Minister of Manpower that I would be prepared to resign in Carletonville tomorrow and contest his constituency. I should now, however, like to issue the same challenge to the hon member for Stilfontein, and then let us see what happens. [Interjections.]

I now want to come back to the hon member for Durban Central. He made one true statement about which I want to agree with him, and that is that it is also my aim to bury P W Botha. He has never been closer to the truth: My aim and endeavour is to bury the NP in its entirety! [Interjections.] They are free to laugh. I see the hon the Minister laughing too, but if I had had a majority of 134, I would not be laughing.

It was 143!

The hon member for Durban Central also spoke about May Day; I shall be coming back to that when I discuss it with the hon the Minister.

Your day is coming! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Newcastle made the statement …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech. [Interjections.]

I thank the hon member Dr Golden.

I want to tell the hon member for Newcastle that he should do a bit of homework—I am not going to elaborate on that—and look at how many Black strikes there were prior to 1979 and how many there have been subsequent to that date, after they came to the fore with their labour policy. That is all I want to say about that. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Benoni said here that the CP had not, as yet, made any constructive contribution to their labour policy. If he had only listened, he would have heard that this had been clearly spelled out, and the only constructive contribution I can make this morning is not to react any further to what he said.

I now come to the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] In my time I have seen many Ministers come and go, and this hon Minister of Manpower and I have been very good friends. I have arranged many interviews with him, and I have always regarded him as a person of some standing. I have treated him with respect, but his conduct in this House has shown me that I can also be wrong. I now want to give the hon the Minister some good advice.

Let us hear it, Arrie, old chap!

When one is right, there is no need to get angry and when one is wrong, it is no use getting angry. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, a great deal has been said about strikes. The unlawful strikes will not stop until the other side of the House or the department takes the proper action. There is a Labour Relations Act that spells out when a strike is legal or illegal, and it states that action can be taken against illegal strikers. It is the duty of the Department of Manpower to ensure that the Labour Relations Act is implemented, but not to say that we have made the Act available but do not implement it. That is also ridiculous.

He does not know the difference between a legal and an illegal strike.

If I might just briefly refer to legal strikes: The department has been approached about making provision for the fact that people who are legally striking should be protected against employers who exploit them. Here I mean that when a person or a trade union and its members have gone through the channels prescribed by the reconciliation legislation, they should be granted protection and not be prosecuted, as the hon member for Stilfontein wants them to be. We are asking the hon the Minister to examine the legislation, since they are so eager to adapt and make progress. They should examine this legislation and implement it in such a way that if people are engaged in legal strikes, they should not be dismissed or thrown out of their homes.

Secondly, in regard to reconciliation boards, I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister. When applications are made for reconciliation boards to be instituted, they should be implemented as quickly as possible. This is the one aspect of the mechanism for establishing labour peace, but when trade unions have to wait for 10 or 12 months for the appointment of a reconciliation board, this cannot promote labour peace. We have pointed this out, but were then told that if an unfair labour practice took place, certain things could happen.

Thirdly, I spoke the other day about separate facilities and asked the hon the Minister to introduce legislation to the effect that if someone followed the guidelines laid down by the Government, he should be protected. The only way in which to protect him is by legislation. Now the hon members on the other side of the House cannot call me a racist, as they normally do.

Are you one?

I stand up for the Whites, and if the hon member wants to brand me a racist, he is welcome to do so here in the House, because he will not do so anywhere else. [Interjections.]

All we are asking is that legislation should be worded in such a way that if someone wants separate facilities—whether he be black, white, yellow or green—he can have recourse to the Act and request to have such facilities. I have no objections if there are Nationalists who want to use the same toilets and cloakrooms, but I feel that I can also insist on my rights in White South Africa. [Interjections.]

As far as the industrial court is concerned, we are asking for the legislation to be examined so that, as in a court, someone may ask for an urgent interdict to overcome problems which have to be solved in the labour field. The present procedure is too cumbersome and the matter should be examined.

Another important point is that of the protection of minorities. That is Government policy; they say, do they not, that they are going to protect minorities. One has a factory, for example with 10 or 12 White workers and 50, 60 or 100 Black workers. We are asking for provisions in the legislation to the effect that when a trade union represents only 10 people—workers are divided up into grades—it may represent its people, even though the Black trade union in that grade has more members. My trade union lost two cases, because it was said we were in the minority and could not negotiate benefits for those Whites. That is nothing short of discrimination, but that side of the House says it wants to protect minorities.

Now I come to May Day. The hon the State President very carefully chose May Day as a public holiday for the Black man.

It is his day.

A few days before 1 May, a few days before 6 May, the hon the State President said that he was declaring a labour day and that it would be the first Friday in May each year. Again I want to agree with the hon member for Durban Central in saying that each year the Blacks will take both 1 May and the first Friday in May as public holidays if this Government remains in power. The White trade union did, in fact, ask for a labour-day holiday not linked to May Day because there was a stigma attached to May Day. May Day is a communist holiday. [Interjections.]

No, no!

Read your history.

We asked to have the first Monday in September declared labour day, for example, but that was not done. When asked why the first Friday in May had been decided upon, the hon the Minister of Manpower told the world that it was done so as to afford people a long week-end. But that is not the case. It was because 1 May fell on the first Friday in May. If they had wanted to give people a long week-end, why did they not give them the Monday and do away with the stigma attached to 1 May?

Should we make it the Monday, Arrie?

I am asking today that we get away from that Communist holiday in May. Let us give everyone, at least the Whites … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Carletonville says we gave him no reason why the public holiday for workers should be on the first Friday in May, but why is he asking that it should be on the first Monday in September, if not to give workers a long weekend?

If the hon member had been listening, he would have known.

No, the hon member said absolutely nothing about that. [Interjections.] He had one thing right, however, and that is that he can also be wrong at times. He is wrong again. He has again made a mistake by becoming a representative of that party, because now he is merely a pawn of the AWB. That is the mistake he made.

You have AWB on the brain. [Interjections.]

Behind the hon member for Carletonville there is an hon member who has just spoken and who is a member of the AWB, but who was the legal representative of Black trade unions and made money out of them. Then the hon member comes along and tells us here that the CP wants to ban Black trade unions! The hon member says the NP does not want to adopt a standpoint on that issue, but when will the members of that right-wing radical party adopt a standpoint on Black trade unions? The question is: If the CP wants to ban Black trade unions if it ever comes to power one day, how does it want to do so? Is the CP simply going to declare them illegal, thereby causing them to start operating clandestinely, is the CP going to partition them out of existence or is the CP going to blow them to bits with machine guns? What is the CP going to do with the Black trade unions? [Interjections.]

It is not yet clear whether his party’s policy of partition means that they are going to move all the Blacks out of South Africa or whether they are still going to retain a few of them to work in our factories and elsewhere. I want to know what they are going to do, since the trade unions are a fact of life.

[Inaudible.]

That is the way an ostrich would argue. An ostrich buries its head in the sand and pretends not to notice a problem. The hon member must not live like an ostrich. He meant more to the White workers where he was than where he is now, because here he is not representing the interests of the Whites, but merely conveying the standpoints of the AWB. [Interjections.] Let me now refer to mechanisms for settling disputes in South Africa. As far as I am concerned, labour relations can be equated with the protection of the interests of both employers and employees on an equal footing. That is specifically what the laws governing labour relations in South Africa are geared to. I do not think there is any ignorance of the fact that South Africa has some of the most effective and sophisticated mechanisms in the world for settling disputes. Examples of methods of settling disputes are to be found in our industrial councils, our system of reconciliation boards, our industrial court and other formal and less formal methods.

I think there are certain factors proving that the mechanisms for the settlement of disputes in South Africa are extremely effective. The first is the large number of trade union registrations, particularly those of Black trade unions. The Black trade unions which are still unregistered today are altogether in the minority, because the trade union movement has confidence in South Africa’s labour legislation. They know that these are mechanisms they can use to settle disputes.

The second motivating factor I shall advance is that of the small number of strikes. The hon member for Ventersdorp quoted, from a report of the National Manpower Commission, evidence of a large number of strikes having taken place, but he forgot to state that the commission’s finding was that in the period 1974 to 1983 South Africa compared with the best in the world when it came to the small number of strikes that took place.

Yes, together with England.

The Netherlands, West Germany, Denmark—these are all developed industrial countries—and South Africa are the four countries with the lowest number of strikes of the shortest duration. In this period South Africa lost an average of 24,1 man-days per 1 000 members of the economically active population, as against a figure of 228 in the USA, 435 in Britain and 918 in Italy. Yet the hon members for Ventersdorp and Carletonville say that since 1979 there has been such an increase in the number of strikes. South Africa compares favourably with the best in the world when it comes to labour relations.

That is the truth!

It is true that this same report states that since the beginning of this decade politically-orientated strikes have increased. That is also true. It is true that that was also stated.

What is the position in Lebanon? [Interjections]

For all that, that same report states that the position here is better than in the majority of other countries in the world.

It is true that Black trade unions in particular, and specifically certain of them—but not only Black trade unions—are tempted to employ strikes and the trade union movement for political ends. It is also true that South Africa has a high rate of unemployment, particularly amongst Blacks—there are many unemployed Black people in this country, whereas the unemployment rate amongst Whites is still very small. There are many people in this country who do not have any work. Our country’s economy is up against a tremendous challenge, and we cannot simply allow strikes to be employed by certain trade unions to undermine the economy. In the interests of the millions of unemployed in South Africa we cannot allow this to happen.

We still have a very large Third-World component in our economy. As a result we do not have the same social infrastructure, the same “social security structure” as the developed countries of the world for looking after these people in the event of unemployment or strikes taking place.

I therefore think we are faced with a situation in which we shall have to make certain adjustments to our already sophisticated labour legislation to ensure that we are in a position to resolve this situation. For that reason we welcome the fact that legislation has been published for comment, legislation with which the standing committee is dealing at present, to ensure the establishment of a labour court which will be a subdivision of the Supreme Court. We shall have to carry out a very careful investigation into what constitutes a fair labour practice and what does not. The industrial court will have to be in a position to give judgements on whether a labour practice is a fair or unfair labour practice. This does not apply solely to employees. If an employer exploits his workers, this court should be in a position to give a decision against the employer, but the converse should also be true. If there is an unfair strike or unfair action on the part of trade unions or employee organisations, that industrial court should also be in a position, in this relationship of equality between employees and employers, to give a decision in favour of the employer.

I think it would be a good thing if he could also claim compensation for production losses and so on. That must happen. It is, in particular, the small employers in South Africa who tell us these days that they are powerless and at the mercy of these trade unions who wish to organise strikes for political reasons, none of the reasons being fair ones. The hon member for Carletonville referred to that aspect. I think we should take a very strict look at this situation.

I also think we shall have to ensure that there are political structures for the Black people through which they can realise their political aspirations so that they are not tempted to abuse the trade union movement in South Africa for political ends.

It is the NP’s standpoint that we must ensure that this happens in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with some of the ideas expressed by the hon member for Sasolburg, but before I go into that, I should like to deal with the matter mentioned by the hon member for Durban Central.

†The hon member expressed concern at the fact that no decision has been taken on what the new legislation will look like or what the nature of the legislation will be. He expressed some concern that it might happen that the Government might interfere with the process of negotiation. I can assure him that it is the policy of this department not to interfere with the process of collective bargaining, especially and in particular when matters related to labour are concerned.

Unfortunately there is a tendency among some Black trade unions to abuse the system and, when one reads certain of the resolutions adopted at a recent congress of the National Union of Mineworkers, one sees that they intend with these wildcat strikes to destabilise the economy and to bring the country to its knees economically in order to pave the way for a takeover by those people with whom the hon member for Durban Central had talks in Dakar and for no other reason. [Interjections.] I am sure that the hon member will agree with me that when that is the underlying motive for strikes, the Government would be failing in its duty if it did not act responsibly to protect the economy of this country.

*I should just like to make one remark about the hon member for Carletonville’s speech. In one and the same breath he asked the Government not to interfere in the trade union movement in South Africa, criticised the hon member for Stilfontein for having made certain remarks to that effect, and then asked the Government to give urgent attention to legislation in terms of which people could obtain separate facilities if they so desired. You see, when he can use the Government for his own interests, he urges the Government to do this.

Do you agree that we should have our own facilities?

Surely that is a matter for negotiation between the person concerned and his employers!

Of course.

Surely he is more familiar with the mechanisms for negotiation than any other person here. Why does he have a trade union? Surely he is familiar with the channels for negotiation. Why can he not utilise those channels?

I shall come and teach you.

Does he want the Government to do what he himself, as a trade union leader, could not manage to do? [Interjections.]

When one introduces an element of personal interest and cannot speak within the overall pattern of labour in South Africa, such things happen. Then one falls into the traps like the …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware of the fact that the Government promised the trade unions that separate facilities would be made available?

I am aware of all the promises this Government made. I am also aware of the fact, amongst other things, that the hon member for Brakpan mentioned the Wiehahn Commission’s report as one of the most logical reports he had ever read, or something to that effect.

Where did you read that?

The hon member should go and read his Hansard; he will find it there. [Interjections.] He said that one was struck by its logic. It is that very report that recommends that we do away with colour in the labour market.

Answer the question.

But I have just said who should be involved in negotiating those matters. The negotiations take place between the individual himself, his trade unions and the employers. If they cannot manage to do so, they must tell us what one can do about it.

The Government’s role is not that of a mediator in such situations. [Interjections.] The Government’s role is one of not intervening in arrangements between employers and employees, of not intervening in negotiations as far as possible. All it should do is confine itself to the regulation of certain matters. Having done so, it has played its part.

Now we come to the question of Black trade unions. When the report of the Wiehahn Commission appeared, Black trade unions were already in existence, but they existed illegally, even before 1979. The only thing the Wiehahn Commission did was to recommend that they be legalised, so that they would be subject to the limits and provisions of the industrial conciliation legislation.

Now that Black trade unions are striking, one encounters the utopian view amongst hon members of the CP that all one needs to do is to ban Black trade unions by way of legislation. All the unrest in the labour field would then supposedly disappear.

Those are mere pipedreams! [Interjections.]

Such pipedreams, as that hon member says, simply cannot exist in practice. Such solutions often put me in mind of the man who caught his wife and his neighbour embracing on the sofa. To solve the problem, he sold the sofa! [Interjections.] That is precisely the kind of solution put forward by hon members opposite. One cannot prevent people from organising themselves in the labour field. The only thing one would achieve by way of legislation would be to complicate the issue instead of simplifying it.

That is the way one talks if one is scared!

No, Sir, I am not scared; let me tell you who is scared. I have no fear of people of colour, but the hon members of the CP do. That is why they want to do away with everything that is Black in South Africa, and that is why they come to light with statements that can never become reality.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Order!

South Africa’s economic growth is of the utmost importance to us in these times in which we are living. [Interjections.] We cannot afford any kind of disruption of our labour patterns, thus causing disruption in our economic patterns as well. The job-seekers, as hon members on both sides of the committee have said, are increasing in number each year. We train people, but we have also created mechanisms to settle labour disputes. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman said quite a number of things with which I naturally agree. I just want to say that I can well understand that a certain degree of suspicion, or whatever, exists in relation to the activities of certain Black trade union leaders. However, Sir, let us be honest. Structures have been created and those structures are being used in a responsible manner by the majority of the Black trade unions. We are undergoing an essential process of adaptation at present, and it would be highly irresponsible—I am addressing the hon members of the CP and the NP—to over-react in the action taken against those Black trade unions which, in the opinion of hon members, are not adhering strictly to the principles.

We can do what we like, but there are two factors we cannot escape from, and one of these is, considering the overall history of the refusal down the years, in terms of Government policy, to recognise Black trade unions, that those people have never been in a position, as the Whites have, to receive responsible training and to become experienced in trade union practices. This is the price we are paying for that situation. This is not only true of the trade unions. We have also barred Blacks from effective participation in the economy. That was really and truly a wrong thing to do. There has been a refusal to use Blacks, and to train and acknowledge them as skilled workers. Blacks were not even permitted to carry on their own businesses in Black residential areas. We are now paying the price for having barred those Blacks, not only from the trade unions, but from proper participation in the economy.

The second factor to which reference was made here, was the fact that Blacks have been barred from participation in the political process. The hon member for Carletonville acknowledged that here today. He said he was on the side of the Whites in White South Africa—I do not know where that is. He said his White trade union had acted in the interests of the White worker. He said so repeatedly. “In the interests of their own future” were the words he used. How can the White mineworkers’ union or the other so-called White trade unions assert that they have the right to act in the interests of the White worker and yet maintain that a Black trade union leader does not have the right to act in the interests of the Black workers?

It is because we are not Progs.

That is blatant racism!

The hon member said himself that the NP had been brought to power in 1924 to look after the interests of the White worker. [Interjections.]

I am proud of it!

I want to join the hon member for Sasolburg in saying that until we create those opportunities for political expression on the part of Blacks, they will be tempted to use any means at their disposal to give expression to their political needs as well. The hon member for Sasolburg made that very clear. We cannot postpone that process indefinitely. If we want industrial peace, our highest priority must be to accommodate Blacks fully in the political arena as well. Then we shall rightly be able to say that they do not have the right to use any means whatsoever—trade unions or whatever—to attain certain political ends.

The NP is going to allow it.

The hon member for Kuruman rightly pointed out that there were Black trade unions and strikes long before this legislation came into effect. I cannot understand why the hon member for Carletonville does not take this fact into account. After all, the hon member knows the trade unions. He knows what happened to Kadalie’s ICU. He knows what happened in 1946, when the Blacks went on strike on the Rand mines, and what the political implications were. To now say these strikes were attributable to harsh labour regulations is, I am afraid, merely a denial of the historical realities of South Africa.

I also want to say that the hon member for Carletonville amazed me in yet another respect. He, of all people, ought to be aware of the interdependence of elements in the economy. I take it the hon member for Carletonville has very often worked with Blacks. I take it he realises that without the help of those Blacks he would not have been able to do what he has done. If he is willing to acknowledge that interdependence, surely he cannot adopt the standpoint he adopted here today.

There are quite a number of other things I want to mention, but I want to ask the Government kindly not to overreact to what they may possibly regard as irresponsible demands being made by certain trade union leaders. That would serve only to wreak more havoc upon us. Let us approach and deal with the matter calmly and let us not resort to violent or over-hasty actions.

I should like to raise another matter under this Vote, namely that of religious objectors, a question to which the hon member for Durban Central also referred. It was with great appreciation that I took note of the various details which appeared in the annual report, and I am also particularly grateful for the fact that the Department of Manpower has contributed to streamlining the process involved in the placement of religious objectors. I have noted with appreciation that a new procedure has been decided upon, as a result of discussions held with the leaders of the Jehova’s Witnesses, which will also result in many people being placed more quickly than before.

I have a slight problem with the figures in the report. There are certain discrepancies.

I want to express my appreciation, however, for the fact that certain methods have been developed in order to eliminate delays, and that those methods were developed in cooperation with the leaders of the Jehova’s Witnesses.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, before the lunch break I was dealing with category 3, “religious objectors”. In this regard I just want to say that the chief motivation of the hon the Minister and his department, in the placement of those religious objectors is, as it ought to be, to exploit their maximum potential and to utilise their services to the full.

Nevertheless there is already a punitive element in the length of the period for which they have to render community service. It appears to me that the categories of service into which those people may be placed, are altogether too limited. The hon the Minister knows that at the moment these categories relate only to the Public Service, the provincial service and local authorities. When the matter was being discussed in 1983, an appeal was made to the hon the Minister of Defence to extend those categories. At the time he said he was not averse to this suggestion, but that he first wanted to give the system an opportunity to come into full operation.

That system then came into operation and is running smoothly. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to extend those categories and, in conjunction with the hon the Minister of Defence, amend the legislation so that other categories of work may also be considered. I am thinking, for example, of the SADF, the CSIR, the HSRC, Iscor and Eskom which, as far as I know, are excluded at the moment. Moreover, I am also thinking of the large number of welfare organisations which could make good use of these people’s services and to which the people themselves could make a useful contribution.

I am not asking for a free rein to be given, but rather that the hon the Minister of Manpower be granted the discretion to transfer people to bodies which ought to benefit by such action. Every specific transfer should also be subject to his approval. I really believe that if we could do this, we would be rendering a material service, both to others and to these people as well.

There is a second point I want to make here. Although I am satisfied that in general the placement of these people is taking place in a proper manner, there are nevertheless still some instances in which people are being placed in positions which actually amount to a waste of their potential and training. For example, I know of someone who has an honours degree in industrial psychology, but who now has to do clerical work in a government department, keeping records relating to the motor pool, for example to whom the vehicles are allocated, when they come back, and so on. That is no solution; after all, it is completely senseless to employ a person with an honours degree in industrial psychology in that capacity.

The third aspect I want to touch on is the question of the medical care of religious objectors, and their remuneration. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier will have to forgive me for not reacting to his arguments. I cannot, however, omit to exchange a few words with the hon member for Carletonville.

My father was a mineworker, and in 1922 he was told by the trade union leaders of the day that he had to take up arms and fight for the freedom and rights of the Whites in the mining industry. He was to fight for the continued existence of the trade unions. I want to tell the House that when he was released from prison at the end of that strike he was out of a job and my mother was homeless. All he could do while in prison, was to carve out the coat of arms of the old fort on a stone. On the back of the stone he noted the names of all his fellow inmates, including the name Strachan. I do not wish to dwell on that portion of our history, but one name that was missing, was that of a very good friend of ours who died during the siege of the Newlands police station.

I should like to join the hon member for Carletonville around the conference table at some stage and have a little talk with him about this mineworkers’ union. If, once I have put forward my case, he is not angry at the trade union, it would, in my opinion, be because he was indifferent to the cause of the mineworker. [Interjections.]

That is not actually what I want to talk about. By way of introduction I would like to quote from the HSRC’s newsletter on affordable social security. This newsletter states that according to the capitalist view, people are expected to provide for their own daily requirements and also to make provision for those times in which they will no longer be able to meet their own needs through their own efforts. The assumption is that the State should interfere as little as possible in a free market system, except in order to create opportunities for people to work for themselves and to provide for their own needs. The report goes on to state:

That is true, and that is precisely what the State is doing. This Government has instituted a special job-creation project by way of the Department of Manpower, but the project has not been accepted by the CP. The CP maintains that the money should rather be used for the creation and employment of capital. The Government is doing that as well, but in conjunction with that, this money is also being used for emergency aid.

A short while ago—it was a year or two ago, when the economic pressure was at its peak—the CP and the AWB collected food from all quarters and distributed it among the poor. That was a fine gesture, but it is a pity that each one of those food parcels contained a note saying that it came from the AWB or the CP.

The real motive for the CP denigrating this job-creation project is the fact that it has said from the beginning that the Government is prepared to sacrifice everything for people of colour, but that it is doing nothing for the White man. They have gone from one platform to another proclaiming that the Government is giving the Black man everything and the White man nothing.

With this special job-creation programme quite the opposite has happened. The Government has created an opportunity for everyone in need, for everyone who is unemployed and needs to earn a living, to earn some, money in a special work programme and to give effect to the request in this HSRC report. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

Sir, could I just finish, please? I shall reply to the hon member for Carletonville’s question in due course. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is not prepared to reply to a question. The hon member may continue. [Interjections.]

If we take a slightly closer look at this job-creation programme and at what is being done in the local communities, by the State on the one hand and the community on the other, towards alleviating the needs of the people, I want to say that we should thank the Department of Manpower for its initiative in administering such a programme.

Mr Chairman, could the hon member tell us, in relation to this training assistance, how many Blacks, Whites and Coloureds were involved?

I am sorry, Sir; I should like to speak about the Whites who were involved. I can nevertheless tell the hon member that a total of 598 job-creation projects were initiated under this special job-creation campaign and that almost 35 000 people were given jobs.

Let me come back to the campaign which I want to offer as an example to hon members. A campaign was launched in the Maraisburg constituency in which volunteers came forward and, with the assistance of the State and the community, began helping those women who had been identified as the ones who were enduring the most hardship under the current economic conditions, encouraging them to lead independent lives. These women who, for the most part, were mothers, and some also single parents, had had no training and no other job experience, but were compelled to earn money. A food parcel with a note enclosed was not enough; they have to earn some money in order to support their families. It was against this background that this project was launched by volunteers, unfaltering in their confidence that with the support of the Government, a future could also be created for those White women.

They were successful in their efforts. During the past year of its operation, almost R100 000 has been spent on the project.

This money was obtained from the Department of Manpower and through voluntary contributions. For example, a woman who runs a motor business in my constituency has made a staff bus available for use in this scheme. That mini-bus is being used each day to deliver hot meals which are prepared for the aged. This is being done without any questions about politics, religious affiliation or sex being asked. Help is simply being given without regard to those factors.

The woman in charge of this operation is Mrs Hester Potgieter. We often speak about Emily Hobhouse, who did such great work at the end of the previous century. I do not want to compare her name to that of Emily Hobhouse, because I do not believe I can do so. I do want to say, however, that if we gauge the true value of her work within that particular community, there is in fact a strong resemblance between what she is doing and what Emily Hobhouse did.

One fact is clear from this whole enterprise, however, and that is that the State cannot provide this care alone. The State alone cannot take these job-creation programmes through to their logical conclusion. The community must become involved and must also offer assistance from within its own ranks. It is encouraging when a White community, in which there is such great distress, comes forward in this way to alleviate that distress. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Maraisburg, but he will forgive me if I do not deal directly with the points he raised.

I shall refer briefly, in due course, to some of the arguments put forward by hon members on the opposite side of the House.

I should like to exchange a few ideas on one aspect of unemployment that has already been very exhaustively discussed in this debate. The causes of unemployment have been viewed merely in terms of an imbalance between the supply of labour and the demand for it. The hon member for Ventersdorp has referred to the statistics and I need therefore not repeat them. Perhaps I could just sum up by saying that our total unemployment figure is of the order of 1,4 million. That figure comes from the same source as the one the hon member quoted. The reasons for this unemployment are to be found in a variety of factors. Some of these have already been dealt with; I shall therefore not deal with them again, but shall merely refer briefly to them. In the first instance, it was said that the present downward swing in the economic cycle was one of the main causes. I shall not pursue that argument, because it has already been debated. I believe the hon member for Alberton has also discussed the entire issue of populationgrowth. Consequently, I shall not pursue that issue either.

As I do not believe it was dealt with directly, I should just like to refer to the whole issue of disinvestment. This is a problem which it would not be possible for any other government in South Africa to solve. Neither the Official Opposition nor the PFP stands any chance of resolving the issue of disinvestment. It must be resolved in this country, with the co-operation of every inhabitant of this country.

The problem with some of the hon members of the Official Opposition is that they only speak on behalf of the White worker, as the hon member for Overvaal, who is not here today, has said during this session. The hon member for Brakpan spoke in the same vein. He said they were striving to achieve labour preference for people in their own areas. We often hear talk in this House of White people and of “own” people and I should just like to ask the hon members of the Official Opposition to spell out to us in due course what they regard as White. Are they going back to the word “European”, which was used in earlier years? What exactly do they mean by it? I do not want an answer right now, but we can discuss it at a later stage.

One gets the impression that they want to revive the old “Boerestaat” concept of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek. I have made a note somewhere of what the hon member for Brakpan said in reply to a question about which areas they had in mind. He said they were the areas that had traditionally belonged to the Whites. Unfortunately, I cannot support my statement with a reference, because I could not locate it in Hansard. I shall therefore leave it at that. It is nevertheless an old, hackneyed concept. The whole concept of a Boerestaat is an outmoded one. Hon members need only take a look at history. In 1940 such a movement was already in existence. The CP is backing the wrong horse. Apart from that, the CP would not be able to solve the problem of disinvestment with such an approach. They may as well forget it.

As to the PFP and their idea of one man, one vote on a common voters’ roll, with ultimate majority rule, that too will offer no solution to disinvestment bodies, because the protagonists of disinvestment are not interested in Black majority rule. They are only interested in radical Black majority rule.

Regarding the whole question of unemployment, as viewed in its international perspective, certain salient elements of this were also mentioned in debate this morning. I shall repeat them in order to give hon members a comprehensive picture. Certain groups—age groups and ethnic groups—are more detrimentally affected by unemployment than others. This is borne out by a certain Professor Piet Haasbroek, the economist of the South African Federated Chamber of Industries, who has said that half of South Africa’s population is under the age of 19, Black and unemployed. One wonders what the reason for this is. It is most probably due to the low level of competence which is attributable to various factors, including training. The hon member for Groote Schuur made a contribution in this regard.

In reality, socio-economic factors also result in the whole aspect of unemployment very easily becoming politicised. In fact, we heard some examples of that this morning. I shall also refer briefly to the hon member for Carletonville. He acts like an expert in labour matters. However, he fell into a trap when he referred to the 1922 strike. He said, inter alia, that the reason for the 1922 strike was that the Whites had wanted to safeguard their own continued existence. That is not quite the whole truth, is it, Mr Chairman. As we have grown accustomed to hearing from the Official Opposition, this was once again a half-truth.

Then tell us the whole truth!

I intend doing so. The hon member should just exercise a little patience and listen. [Interjections.] Yes, he should just sit quite still and listen. That situation was the result of a series of strikes which began in 1907, followed by further strikes in 1913, 1914, 1919, 1921 and 1922. That took place in a milieu created by the Bolshevik revolution.

For the benefit of those learned hon gentlemen on the benches of the Official Opposition—that naturally includes the hon member for Carletonville—I want to point out that Bolshevism is merely another word for communism, just as pagina is another word for page. [Interjections.] In any event, the real reason for the strike of 1922—the hon member for Carletonville would do well to listen carefully to this—lies in the fact that a radical element transformed a peaceful strike into a violent one. That is also the reason why they were fired on. The hon member for Carletonville does not know his history. He would do well to read upon the subject. He could even come and collect the sources from me. I would give him enough of them. [Interjections.] However, I shall leave it at that, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Now you really have old Arrie confused! [Interjections.]

Order!

In any event, Mr Chairman, I have only a little time left. In conclusion, I should like to make an appeal to hon members of the opposition parties. If the Official Opposition and the PFP are in earnest—and I have no reason to doubt it—about solving the unemployment problem in South Africa, they must realise that this is not a problem which the Government alone must deal with. It is a problem which the whole community must deal with. I repeat that I believe both opposition parties in this House to be serious about the welfare of this country. Let them therefore help us in our search for solutions. Let them come forward with suggestions. The hon member for Groote Schuur made a suggestion here. Just how viable it is, I do not know. However, I do believe we would like to see more of this type of thing from hon members of the opposition parties.

Mr Chairman, before I react to the contributions of individual hon members in detail, I should like to express my greatest appreciation on this occasion to all the officials of the Department of Manpower who succeeded in fulfilling their task in a laudable manner under really sustained pressure and amidst criticism which was frequently quite unjustified and unfair. I am truly proud of the officials of the Department of Manpower and I also wish to thank them for their personal loyalty and dedication.

I think it is necessary for me to say on this occasion that, as a result of the recession as well as the dramatic escalation in employment statistics over the past two to two and a half years and also because of an explosion, as it were, in the use of the machinery for settling disputes in terms of the Labour Relations Act, this department’s work doubled annually in many sections and in many cases. In this way we see that the number of conciliation boards almost doubled every year, and the same applies to the use of the Industrial Court in dispute settlement procedures. In some years it more than doubled. We also note that the number of claims for unemployment insurance submitted to the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner doubled in some years. We note further that this large number of workers was dealt with by the department without any appreciable increase in the number of officials. I have to mention this specifically. If ever there was an illustration of increased productivity and the utilisation of aids in easing administrative burdens, if ever there was an example of rationalisation and of serious self-examination to facilitate and expedite procedures, it was provided by the Department of Manpower. I feel I should be neglecting my duty if I did not mention the outstanding achievement in the exceptional increase in productivity at the department.

Furthermore this department and I were responsible for the job-creation and training programme under which more than R1 000 million was spent over the past two years. This programme also increased the work load of the department tremendously. It was dealt with very, very successfully. When I think of success stories and achievements, I cannot recall a greater success story than the jobcreation and training programme launched by the Government. I want to state categorically today that the single factor which had the greatest counterrevolutionary effect in South Africa was this job-creation and training programme. It kept idle people busy. But what is important is that by the end of March this year more than half a million unskilled and unemployed persons had been trained.

I could continue relating dramatic success stories to hon members all day about these unemployed who came to the centres. I saw them with my own eyes. Some of them arrived there without shirts—only trousers. We trained some of them within three weeks and others within five. What is important is that during those three weeks they attended prayers every morning. Within those three weeks an unemployed worker was elevated from a totally unskilled, degraded and dispirited person with no personal image left to somebody who at least had a basic skill. He was converted into a person who possessed qualifications which enabled him to obtain work, or which gave him a better chance to find it. The fact is that a minimum of 25% of these people obtain work immediately after their training. At some of our training institutions we have waiting lists of employers for people being trained by us.

This job-creation programme must have been one of the greatest gestures of humanity and generosity on the part of the Government to the unemployed and in particular to people of colour in South Africa. Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks benefited from these training programmes. Because of the population structure and the fact mentioned by the hon member for Bloemfontein East a moment ago, unemployment is found chiefly among unskilled Black people, so the overwhelming majority of people making use of these training and job-creation programmes were unskilled Black people. Now we are being reproached for this by hon members of the Official Opposition, but I make no apology for it because I am not talking in a sense of responsibility towards South Africa and I realise the extent of the revolutionary onslaught against us. I also realise what a breeding-ground unemployed, degraded people are for revolution, and that is why I am helping them. I am proud of this and offer no apology for it. We are acting in the interests of South Africa and we are not prepared to subordinate the country to someone’s making a little political capital out of this.

The time has arrived in this country when every person and every political party obsessed with colour and race is going to become totally irrelevant in the political situation in South Africa. These people with their racist and colour obsessions, like the Black Power and Black Consciousness Movement, like the Pan African Congress, like the AWB and the CP, are equally dangerous to South Africa.

Hear, hear!

It needs to be said here that we should not gamble with the security of South Africa; nor should we gamble with and speak lightly of the interests of more than 10 million workers in South Africa. Those who become irresponsible in the labour field and wish to politicise it are sabotaging the country. It is the sacred duty of each of us sitting in this House not only to advocate good labour relations but to realise that such relations go hand in hand with good ethnic relationships. They run on parallel courses.

We are not denying the fact that we have our differences; there are certainly differences but surely one can differ and be different without it being necessary to hate or despise or always speak derogatorily of one another.

Or permit him on the beach! [Interjections.]

Sir, there you have the mentality of that hon member for Brakpan. Sir, there we have an example of a man who has sat in that Chair. He has degenerated until he has become so small that I can no longer see him if I am not wearing my glasses. He has become a completely embittered person. I sympathise with the hon member because I know his frustrations are consuming him entirely. He was unable to progress to Cabinet rank when he was in the NP and I commiserate with him on that. I realise his remorse but I want to give him some good advice. He should try to rise above that remorse and had better consult a psychiatrist or some such person. [Interjections.] He may be able to assist him.

The hon member for Brakpan said that only 42% of the staff in our department were men, and that the figure was too low. It is a fact that we have a problem in recruiting enough men for the department but I did not like the tone in which he said there were too few men. I got the impression he was overlooking the fact that those women in that department, who comprise more than 50% of the staff are making an incalculable contribution and rendering an incalculable service to it. In contrast to the hon member for Brakpan, I want it recorded that I am paying tribute and expressing my thanks and appreciation to those women who keep the Department of Manpower going. Without their essential help that department would have collapsed.

They are women haters!

I do not think one should speak deprecatingly of the women. We should thank them. There are women who have made that department their career; there are women holding down promotion posts in that department and therefore it is unfitting to create the impression here that women are supposedly inferior to men. Surely we have long passed the stage at which we had the complex which led to our treating women as inferior beings. Our standpoint is, and I want to make it very clear …

[Inaudible.]

I saw the hon member shouting so purposefully there. He can relax now; we have taken note of him. [Interjections.] It remains strange that some people just have to have attention. Some people cannot bear it when they do not get attention. The hon member is snivelling, either because he has a wind or because his nappy is wet. [Interjections.]

I want to have it placed on record that this side of the House is not opposed to women in the Public Service and they have our thanks. We regard them as workers with human dignity making a great contribution to the development, building and functioning of the State. I want it on record that it is uncalled for and in poor taste to wish to imply that women are inferior workers. [Interjections.]

I want to proceed. The hon member for Brakpan said they would not accord trade union rights to Black workers. The hon member is obviously very ignorant on the question of trade union rights for Black workers. Today the hon member and all those hon members began to create the impression that the origin and the creation of Black trade unions could be ascribed to Dr Wiehahn and my predecessor, Mr Fanie Botha. Those two supposedly appointed a commission—this was the implication—and they sat up in Pretoria in an office and then came up with the idea of Black trade unions and created them. Now the entire country is supposedly burdened with this creation of those two gentlemen, and that is an enormous disservice to South Africa. [Interjections.] What those hon members do not know—if they do not know it, they are not only ignorant but perhaps wilful as well—is that Black trade unions in this country originated in the year 1917 AD. They were not created by the NP; they have been in existence since 1917 and arose spontaneously. They were here and they functioned. They were a fact.

That was before Arrie’s birth, one could almost say!

Sir, do you know how those hon members argue? They think it is a couch which one can sell, as the hon member for Kuruman put it. If a man is flirting with one’s wife, one merely sells the couch and the flirting stops. [Interjections.] How can they continue their flirtation without a couch? The hon members think no further, however. There may be another couch in the house or even a bed and then matters are going to become really serious. [Interjections.]

They now want to abolish Black trade unions. Black trade unions are an indisputable fact, like the nose on one’s face but now they are saying to the nose: “Look, you are not a nose, neither are you there.” That reminds me of the fellow who said …

It is an indisputable fact, like the ANC.

… they told him about elephants … What did that hon member say about the ANC?

They are as indisputable a fact as the ANC.

They are as indisputable a fact as the hon member’s admiration of the ANC, not so? Those are his friends, are they not? He is the White face of the ANC in this House of Assembly. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member of this House entitled to say that another hon member is the White face of a body which is banned in South Africa?

You are the red face of the ANC. [Interjections.]

Order! I have no objection to a little levity in the debate but we should not turn the proceedings in this House into a farce. Can the hon the Minister explain to me what he meant by saying the hon member for Greytown was the White face of the ANC?

Sir, because of the involvement of the hon member in the Dakar conference and the fact that he shouts “Amandhla!” with upraised arm at public gatherings …

I did not! You are lying!

… I identify him with radical Black groups. When I see him, I think of the ANC because of his involvement at Dakar.

Am I to interpret the hon the Minister as implying that the hon member for Greytown in any way identifies himself with this banned organisation, participates in it or is involved with it? Is that what the hon the Minister is saying? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, what I am implying is not that the hon member supports such organisations but that he associates himself with them.

Order! I think the hon the Minister had better withdraw the remark.

All right, Mr Chairman, I shall withdraw the remark.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member permitted to say the hon the Minister is lying?

Order! Which hon member said the hon the Minister was lying?

The hon member for Dakar!

I said so, Mr Chairman, because he was not speaking the truth.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I shall now say nothing further about the hon member who is so fond of the ANC—him and his associations with the ANC. [Interjections.]

The fact is that Black trade unions have existed since 1917 and since then every Government and every employer has negotiated with these people. Those trade unions have liaised, consulted and negotiated with employers regardless of whether they had statutory recognition or not.

There is another misconception. One does not need recognition under the Labour Relations Act to establish a trade union. Any group of people, even the Dakar travellers, can establish one and no one can prevent them. Another misconception is that one requires a trade union to be able to bargain. Nor does one need a trade union either to obtain a re-employment order and I want to mention one classic example to illustrate that in common law a trade union has almost the same bargaining rights as under the Labour Relations Act. It is merely a little easier under the Labour Relations Act.

The example I wish to mention is that provincial workers do not have trade union rights but they established a trade union at Baragwanath and then went on strike. They were dismissed but in terms of common law appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of this country granted that group of workers at Baragwanath a restitution order. The hospital authorities were obliged to re-employ them. They merely had to go about it another way.

The fact is, if the Labour Relations Act were to be amended today so that a Black person was not considered to be a worker and Black trade unions were consequently not recognised, it would not make a scrap of difference to the realities of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Someone was told that an elephant had a trunk and a tail but he could not believe this possible. He was convinced no such thing could exist. They then showed him an elephant and he admitted seeing it but he could not believe it.

That is like Arrie Paulus!

It is a fact that Black trade unions are a reality in South Africa and hon members should realise that when a given reality exists in a country one has to decide what to do about it. One may either leave it alone to be hijacked by dangerous radical organisations or one may recognise it and in so doing regulate and involve it in an orderly and stable system with possibilities for communication, contact and settlement. Let me say here today that last year saw over 1 200 conciliation boards …

What about political rights?

I saw the hon member long ago. I shall get round to him and he will also receive a little attention. Could he stifle those little winds for a while. [Interjections.]

More than 2 000 cases were taken to the Industrial Court. Industrial councils settled almost 200 000 disputes. If one takes into account that 200 000 disputes were decided by the Industrial Council, 1 200 by conciliation boards and more than 2 000 by the Industrial Court, one is dealing with over 5 000 disputes in the labour field which were nearly all decided, solved and settled.

Why was this so? The reason is that trade unions and dispute settlement machinery exist which may be used in settling disputes.

I want to make a statement here today. A great fuss has been made about strikes. The fact is that the South African strike statistics are among the lowest in the Western World—lower than in Britain which was held up here today by hon members of the CP as the model of how one should deal with trade unions. Our strike statistics are infinitely lower than those of Britain. [Interjections.]

We must not permit this illusion prevalent in current gossip about there suddenly being many strikes in South Africa to prevail. The number of strikes which took place in 1986 did not exceed those in 1973 by much.

We should be grateful to this new labour dispensation because it creates an opportunity to defuse a situation. It provides an opportunity for discussion and communication; something which is not only NP policy but accepted all over the world. There is obviously a great deal of tub-thumping and threats and the Press also enjoys the threat of strikes because they are newsworthy. Nevertheless this is an inseparable part of a game which we must see taking place in creating a balance between the bargaining powers of employers and employees.

Every system in South Africa aimed at giving employers total power will lead to revolution; and every dispensation in the country giving complete power to employees will just as surely lead to revolution. One has to strike a balance in life to enable people to bargain.

These matters are troublesome and unpleasant. They are difficult and trying and take up time but there is no other formula except that of bargaining to bring about stability and peace in this country.

The Labour Relations Act is criticised as supposedly benefiting only trade unions and workers but that is absolutely and simply untrue. The same protection that applies to trade unions applies equally to employers in terms of the Labour Relations Act.

Black trade unions are held up to us as a bugbear but they are a reality we have to live with. Let me say today that the department and the National Manpower Commission and I continuously monitor developments in the labour field, also those manifested by findings of the Industrial Court. We constantly keep a close watch on the situation so that the bargaining balance, the balance of power between employee and employer is not disturbed. That is why I shall be coming to Parliament shortly with proposals to amend the Labour Relations Act, amendments aimed at the improvement and better regulation of the situation as well as the restoration of balance to it.

†This is linked to what I want to say in reply to the hon member for Durban Central. I want to thank the hon member for his compliments to the Department of Manpower.

The hon member also posed a question concerning industrial relations in the Public Service. I want to say that the whole question of trade union rights and other right in the Public Service falls under the hon the Minister in the State President’s Office and at present the Commission for Administration is considering that matter.

As far as farm workers are concerned I have said repeatedly that the position of farm workers is being discussed with organized agriculture.

For how many years?

The period of time is not important. What is important if one wants to effect change—and I am continuously busy with that—one must do it gradually by convincing people and not by forcing people. My intention is not to disrupt agriculture. I will therefore only apply measures to farm workers which I can negotiate and agree on with the South African Agricultural Union which is the recognized body for organized agriculture in South Africa.

The question of public holidays—I am replying to the hon member for Durban Central—is under investigation by the President’s Council and I suggest that their report be awaited.

The hon member also mentioned the optimal placement of religious objectors. I can assure the hon member that their placement is also receiving constant attention. I must also mention, however, that to place those persons is not easy because there are many members of the public who object to being served by religious objectors. I have sympathy for those members of the public.

That is not very nice of them.

Whether or not the hon member regards it as not nice, I have said what I have said. If there are people who refuse to allow their children to be taught by religious objectors who are not doing their duty by their country on the border, I have sympathy with those people. [Interjections.]

Do you not agree that they are very God-fearing people?

That has nothing to do with it.

Of course it has.

Order!

The hon member for Alberton raised the important point of intimidation. Let me say here today that in my humble opinion the greatest single problem in South Africa at present is that of intimidation. [Interjections.] I can cite numerous cases in which 10 or 20 individuals out of 1 000 people intimidate thousands into strikes and stay-away actions. The perception then arises that the problem lies in the Labour Relations Act but the fundamental problem, however, is how a person is to address intimidation effectively in South Africa.

The entire question of intimidation is receiving urgent attention from the Government because I contend that support for radical groups among the Black people in this country is minimal. Nevertheless they use massive, barbaric means of intimidation like the necklace murders which instil a hellish fear into Black and Coloured people in this country. The problem to be addressed is intimidation. Furthermore I want to tell the hon member for Alberton that this matter is receiving Government attention at the highest level.

The hon member for Ventersdorp called for my resignation but I want to tell the hon member that the election campaign was waged in May. Obviously the hon member is suffering from delayed reaction. I want to tell him to accept the election results, and he can continue to represent Black trade unions in his free time for a consideration. [Interjections.] The hon member for Ventersdorp had a great deal to say about strikes. Or should I rather refer to the hon member for the AWB in this House? [Interjections.] The hon member tried juggling with statistics, but what he omitted to mention was that half of the strikes in South Africa were settled within a day. The average duration of strikes last year was only 3,1 days each.

The hon member for Newcastle spoke very well and gave a penetrating assessment of the training programme of the department and the contribution of the National Training Board. He emphasised the training of people at management level and I agree with him wholeheartedly. We cannot increase productivity in South Africa by training only people in the lowest categories. It is equally essential, if not more so, to train middle and high-level management as well in order to be sensitive to production. I agree with the hon member. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Koedoespoort referred to the historic inquiry—if I may call it that—into the training of artisans. I am pleased the hon member raised that point because, if ever a dramatic milestone has been reached in the field of trade training in South Africa regarding its modernisation and rationalisation, it is the recommendations made in this report. That is why we accepted nearly all those recommendations as they stood and the Government published a White Paper on them. In my opinion trade training will, under the new policy, undergo a dramatic change as well as an improvement in future.

†The hon member for Groote Schuur raised the matter of the stabilising role of employment and the key role of managerial and entrepreneurial manpower in job creation. I am pleased to say that the development and also the training of managers and entrepreneurs is receiving the serious attention of the National Training Board.

*I come now to the hon member for Benoni. He paid tribute to group training centres and in particular the Uitkyk Training Centre. I have also visited that centre and can only express my heartfelt agreement with the hon member. That centre, as well as the rest, makes an outstanding contribution to the training of people. The exceptional aspect concerning the Uitkyk Group Training Centre, however, is that the handicapped are trained there too. I saw there with my own eyes how people dependent on disability allowances from the State were transformed within months into people earning R1 000 to R1 500 a month, in fact, into taxpayers. The work being done in that regard is extremely laudable.

I come next to the hon member for Carletonville. The hon member and I are very good friends but of course we frequently differ with one another. To my mind the hon member was a very good trade unionist in his time and I wish to compliment him on this because he did a great deal for the mineworkers. I want to give the hon member some advice, however, because he gave me some too. I want to tell him there is no future for him in this place with his extreme racist approach. I wish to advise him to abandon that extreme racism. He should accept that people of colour also have human dignity and that we are here to live together in interdependence. We do not need to mix and sacrifice our identities. Good relations with people of colour do not mean sacrifice or surrender; they mean the building of a more stable community and a more stable South Africa.

Hear, hear!

That is my advice to the hon member for Carletonville.

Pietie, what about the evening you and I had dinner together? [Interjections.]

Oh, Sir, the hon member attended a function at my house. I was very pleased to receive him and I shall invite him again.

How did you talk about them then?

I shall invite the hon member again, Sir, but I want to tell him he should try ridding himself of his racism. It does him no good. The hon member spoke about the White worker. I want it placed on record here today—and hon members can look it up—that in the history of this country since its founding there has been no Government or party which has done more for the White worker of South Africa than the NP. [Interjections.] Almost all of the labour laws for furthering the interests of and protecting workers in this country were introduced by the NP. Anyone who says the NP is not guarding the interests of the South African worker is telling a blatant untruth.

The workers no longer trust you.

The fact is that I have a workers constituency, and I won it. I want to tell the hon member for Brakpan that their gossip and suspicion-mongering levelled at the Government among the workers of this country will boomerang on them because the workers are going to see through their lies.

Let us put that to the test!

The hon member is free to resign, stand again and put it to the test in this way, not so? The hon member has hardly arrived here, and already he wants to resign every day. [Interjections.] It seems to me the hon member does not feel at home here, because he wants to resign every day.

The hon member also asked why the Government did not take action in cases of illegal strikes. If the hon member had read the Act carefully and understood it, he would have seen that action in cases of illegal strikes did not fall within the province of the department but that the onus rested with the employer to lay a charge in the case of an illegal strike. It is as simple as that. The hon member ought to know this. The normal court mechanism can then take its course.

The hon member spoke about the protection of people going on a legal strike providing they had obviously acted fairly. The Industrial Court has already found that workers enjoy a very large measure of protection in cases of legal strikes. Every case is judged on its merits, however, that is why it is best to leave the matter as it is and to judge each case on its merits in the Industrial Court. It is not desirable to change an Act because one cannot define all circumstances in an Act as a court is able to judge the merits of each individual case.

This hon member referred to delays in the conciliation machinery too. This matter is being addressed in the new Act. A Conciliation Board will now become a matter of routine; it will be granted almost immediately.

The hon member also spoke about arrangements regarding facilities at the work place. This is a very sensitive matter. Nevertheless this Government pursues a policy of minimum interference in relations between employers and employees. In addition we say an employer should not change a labour practice without the concurrence of employees. This is a sensitive question; it has not only domestic repercussions but also extremely serious foreign …

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

Mr Chairman, I shall not even be able to get to all the hon members. I shall see whether I have time at the end of my speech.

This matter also has international implications and that is why I wish to appeal to that hon member to try bargaining with employers about it. If the hon member does not succeed there, my door is always open—as in the past—to be of assistance to the hon member where he fails in negotiating this for his workers.

I want to go further. In any case I have given instructions that in future all inspectors should be very strict as regards hygiene in the work place. Where there is a question of sharing facilities, only the highest standards of hygiene are to be maintained; those are my instructions.

So they can share!

No, that is not what I am saying. That hon member is putting words into my mouth. He knows very well what my standpoint is; I have stated it repeatedly and have just put it to him again.

The hon member for Sasolburg replied effectively to many allegations made here. He referred in particular to the effectiveness of the machinery for settlement of disputes which exists in terms of the Labour Relations Act and its successful operation in practice.

I come now to the hon member for Kuruman. The hon member commented very aptly and accurately on the role of trade unions on the one hand and that of the Government on the other as regards working conditions and circumstances. I wish to emphasise what the hon member said here. South Africa revolves around events on the work floor. If there is trouble there, the country grinds to a halt. That is why we should try to depoliticise our labour and labour relations as far as possible.

My policy and that of the Government is to refuse consistently to intervene in disputes between employers and employees because the moment one intervenes one politicises matters and each person thinks one is taking the other’s side. The State is then involved in a dispute which is a purely domestic matter between employer and employee. We pursue a policy of minimum intervention. Nobody is better able to settle a dispute than the two parties involved in it; nobody can come from outside. Our actual involvement is the provision of the framework and the mechanism to enable the two parties to a dispute to exchange thoughts with each other and bargain to settle that dispute in a proper, orderly, civilised and stabilising manner.

I come next to the hon member for Maraisburg who also referred to the matter of job creation funds. He spoke about the splendid welfare project in his constituency launched with such funds. I want to tell hon members I visited it, and one is touched to see what is being done for one’s fellow man by a group of dedicated women through the provision of food and employment to an entire neighbourhood of underprivileged people. I am pleased the hon member raised the point here.

Now for the hon member Prof Olivier. I am sorry time is catching up with me and I have to proceed very quickly. The hon member made the point that conscientious objectors should be placed more widely than merely with central, provincial and local authorities. I want to tell him that I am giving attention to this matter at present precisely because we often experience problems in placing these people.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North also made a most positive and constructive contribution. I am especially pleased that the hon member put the 1922 strike, which the CP attempted exploiting here for political purposes, into its proper perspective and pointed out that that strike was used by radicals for their own ends. It is happening again in trade unionism today that people want to hijack trade unions for their own purposes. The hon member also put the very important point that unemployment was not only a Government problem but involved the entire community.

Let that suffice. I wish to thank all hon members again for their contributions. I think we have conducted a very good debate and sound points were raised. The time available did not permit me to reply to each point separately but if there are members—from Opposition parties too—who desire more clarity on points they raised here, I shall be pleased to pursue this with them.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 14.—“Public Work and Land Affairs”:

Mr Chairman, permit me to begin by congratulating the officials of the department on an excellent report. One can learn a great deal from it and can read about what is good and what we have to be grateful for. We convey our sincere congratulations to them.

This afternoon I want to discuss something that means a great deal to us and that is monuments. There are certain people who measure everything according to the criterion of hard cash, people who later lose their souls. Fortunately there are also many people who have other values—spiritual values—in which history is of importance as well. We can rightly say that without the past there is no future. Even the Bible constantly reminds us that one has to remember one’s past. That is why altars in particular are of great importance in the Old Testament. Monuments can enrich one’s soul and one’s spiritual life. They are landmarks along the course of one’s existence. In my opinion the single greatest event in South Africa since Jan van Riebeeck came to the southernmost tip of our country, was the Battle of Blood River in 1838. It opened up the north for civilisation and opened up new prospects.

If we want to mention the name of a single person in Southern Africa who had the ideals of the White people, particularly the Afrikaner people, at heart, it was Stefanus Johannes Paulus Kruger.

He was a Coloured.

He was born on 10 October 1825 and died on 14 July 1904. I can indeed say that he was South Africa’s greatest son. I want to say a few things about him.

No other person was in public life for as long as Paul Kruger. He was involved in active politics for more than 50 years. As a 17-year-old young man he was already an assistant field-cornet. It was said of him in 1854 that he was the bravest of the brave. He was laid to rest in the Heroes’ Acre on 16 December 1904. This man placed Pretoria on the world map, and during his lifetime Paul Kruger—the young boy who had had hardly any schooling, who probably did not have the knowledge, but always had the wisdom—became a man of stature in the world.

In 1895 a businessman in Pretoria donated funds for a statue, and Anton van Wouw had the statue cast in Rome in 1898. When the Boer War broke out and the statue could not be conveyed to Pretoria, it remained in the Lourenco Marques harbour for years. In 1912 the statue came to Pretoria, and was unveiled in Princess Park, Pretoria West, on 24 May 1913.

The people felt, however, that this was not the place for the statue. Later, on 10 October 1925, they moved it to Pretoria Station. Still the people knew that this was not the right place. Deep in their hearts they knew there was only one place for this statue, because the plan was that the statue should stand on Church Square. On 10 October—President Kruger’s birthday—1954, it was moved to Church Square.

Now we hear that there is going to be another move. They want to move the statue to the southern end of Church square. President Kruger was not a man of the south; he was a man of the north, and I do not think he should be moved to the south. [Interjections.] They want to move him to the south, maybe to move him away again later, because they know: Out of sight is out of mind. It will never be possible to move Paul Kruger from the hearts of the Whites and in particular of the Afrikaners.

The rest of the comprehensive planning of Church Square in Pretoria is commendable. These are fine plans to which we have no objection. We do object, however, to the idea that the centre of Pretoria is to be a fountain. There are thousands and thousands of people who share this objection. The Church Square, Pretoria, Development Act, Act 53 of 1972, reads:

Sir, financial and other considerations may not supersede spiritual and inspirational considerations. There is a time in the life of a people when spiritual and inspirational considerations receive priority. There is a time when one does not calculate everything in rand-and-cent values. Man will not live from bread alone. I want to ask this Committee not to make the people unhappy. With thousands of others I want to request: Keep the statue of President Kruger where it is.

Sela! [Interjections.]

Sir, I find it very interesting that the joiners are making such fun of President Kruger. [Interjections.] I understand their derisive remarks about him only too well, however. [Interjections.]

Order!

The principles of a Paul Kruger will live in the hearts of the Afrikaners and I want to request that we retain his memory in the hearts of the Afrikaners and in the centre of Church Square in the beautiful city of Pretoria.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House have no fault to find with the hon member for Witbank’s sentiments on the stature of Pres Paul Kruger. This applies particularly to us as Afrikaners. What is interesting, however, and what should in my opinion be placed on record, is that the statue of Paul Kruger which is under discussion today is not only close to the heart of the Afrikaner, but that the first man who made a contribution to the erection of the statue was Sammy Marks. He was a mining magnate of Jewish descent.

Perhaps it was not advisable of the hon member to say that Pres Kruger was a man from the north. After all, he was born in the Cape Province. To tell the truth, he went to school here and only left at the age of 14. [Interjections] I want to tell him though that in my considered opinion he and I ought to make a good team, because if he sees to it that our rear guard is kept in order, I shall try to do the same for our future. [Interjections.]

Today, after having studied the annual report, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Director General of Public Works sincerely on the course they have adopted in the department. In South Africa everyone is talking about privatisation, but everyone is talking from a different point of view. The State would like to privatise those functions which are not profitable, while the private sector, on the other hand, wants to privatise all the operations that are making a profit. The Department of Public Works lends itself ideally to privatisation.

That was why I found it so encouraging to read that this department approached the position concerning privatisation in such a logical and practical way that in July of last year they established a task group to investigate all the functions of their department. On the basis of that investigation they decided which of their functions they could trim down and which of these functions they could give out on contract and also privatise.

We have the fortunate situation with privatisation as far as it affects the Department of Public Works, that both the State and the private sector will benefit if the activities are privatised. I am certain that the taxpayer, too, will benefit a great deal from such a situation. We must congratulate the department on having had the courage, particularly the Director General as a bureaucrat, to say that they were prepared to dismantle their empires in the interests of South Africa and in the best interests of all of us.

There is one thing we must fully appreciate, and that is that although we can privatise and farm out most of the functions of the Department of Public Works, there is one function we cannot privatise and that is the function of control. I think the more we privatise the stronger the function of control of the department will have to be. The nature and function of the control of the department will of necessity have to change considerably to adapt to the new circumstances.

I should like to elaborate on this. In the past the Department of Public Works acted as the planning and construction arm of the State, and also as the maintainer of the buildings of the State and of other schemes. For example they kept a land register. In the past the control function was in order to ensure that the physical work was carried out as satisfactorily as possible. Consequently there must be control to ensure that the right quantities of the right material of the right quality end up in the right place, and that there is physical supervision to ensure that the interests of the State are protected. The attitude was to ensure that the work was done as effectively as possible.

With the new dispensation, however, this executive supervisory function is being scaled down completely. The new situation is one of negotiation, planning and assurance that the State’s financial interests will be protected. This is being done, rather than to try to protect the State’s interests by successfully maintaining physical supervision.

In the old dispensation the department itself planned the buildings, did the construction work itself and controlled the quality of construction itself, and ultimately, too, maintained the buildings itself. This situation has gradually changed, however, and whereas previously the State itself undertook all the design, construction and supervision work, first the construction, subsequently the design and now even the supervision work is being given out on contract.

Recently this aspect of the functions of the Department of Public Works has gone so far that it is apparent from the annual report that they recently spent a great deal of money on leasing buildings from entrepreneurs. The situation has now gone so far that the planning and financing of projects are also being out on contract.

Hon members must understand this statement to mean that the nature of the function of the Department of Public Works has changed completely. Now it is unfortunately the case—an obvious fact, as the hon the Minister said earlier—that every specific task requires specific skills and qualities of those who have to perform their task.

Since we have now seen that we are moving away from a situation in which we needed technocrats, supervisors and engineers to give effect to the functions of the Department of Public Works, we are now experiencing that those in the highest posts must now have the ability to bargain, to negotiate and to exercise financial control. I think this situation requires special attention. I am glad I am not in the shoes of the hon the Minister, who has to bring about this change.

Finally I just want to give the hon the Minister the assurance that, I think, if his department begins the necessary in-house training in time, we shall perhaps be able to eliminate this problem area.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to react at this stage to what the hon gentlemen have said so far, since I wish to express a few ideas in regard to the Land Affairs Division of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs. They are concerned with those pieces of land, the terra firma on which all these statutes are being moved back and forth, and on which all these buildings to which the hon members referred are being erected.

The main objectives of this department is to ensure a fair allocation of land to all the respective sectors in this country. Once this allocation has occurred, this department must then ensure that the land in question is properly identified and surveyed. After that the department must ensure that proper proof of ownership, in the form of a deed, is made available to the land owner in question. This serves to prove that he is the owner of that land. In this respect a herculean task has been carried out by this department during the past year. When one reads the annual report one will observe that the Surveyor General’s office did a great job in this connection, particularly in regard to the surveying of Black towns. These are Black towns outside the trust areas and outside the self-governing territories.

A surveying project which was started in 1982, and which was estimated would last five years, made such rapid progress that it has almost been completed. This is a further indication of the dedication with which our land surveyors approached this project. By the end of June 563 930 plans had already been passed, while 85 069 site plans were in the process of being examined. For this we also thank the surveyor’s profession, as well as the officer of the Surveyor General. As a result of these swift surveying processes the registration of leasehold and land tenure rights consequently made good and rapid progress so that by the end of June 29 000 leaseholds had already been registered. These were in addition to conventional registrations of deeds of transfer, mortgage bonds and so on.

We are very quick to point a finger at our deeds registries when only the slightest delays occur. Yet I think that most of us are not aware of the volume of work that is being dealt with by the deeds registries. In 1986 alone 174 000 deeds of transfer were dealt with, 220 000 mortgage bonds were registered and 1 000 new sectional title registers were opened. These represent 19 000 dwelling units. Normally it takes approximately eight days to register a bond. At smaller offices it takes about six days. At the larger offices, such as those in Johannesburg and Pretoria, at which there is a heavy workload, it takes approximately 14 days in the case of Pretoria and 16 days in the case of Johannesburg. We have been informed that we are eliminating this backlog as well, thanks to the dedication with which the officials are doing their work in this connection.

In regard to the sale of State land, or rather the alienation of State land, the department has a specific policy which is that all redundant State land which we shall not require within the foreseeable future will be alienated. When there is State land of an agricultural nature available, this land is handed over to the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply to dispose of in the best way. This land is alienated by the department, primarily by way of tender or public auction. Sometimes land may also be sold out of hand.

Between 1982 and the end of last year the marketing campaign of the department had proceeded as follows: Approximately 1 332 urban State properties with a total surface area of 5 410 hectares had been disposed of for an amount of R50 627 518, while 892 rural properties, approximately 388 427 hectares in extent, had been handed over to the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply for making available to the farming industry. During the same period 108 rural properties, 2 017 hectares in extent, had been sold by the department for R1 298 804.

During the period 1 January to 30 June—that is the past six months—115 properties, primarily urban properties, with a surface area of 350 hectares, were sold for R6 351 706, while 1 621 additional properties are in the process of being examined. During this period 39 rural properties with a surface area of 9 981 hectares were handed over to the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply for making available to agriculture.

In 1985 an interdepartmental working committee was established to investigate the expedition of the making available of agricultural land for agricultural purposes. Hon members can deduce from the figures I have just mentioned what progress has been made in this connection.

The department’s idea is to afford the private sector an opportunity to share in this asset, the land which actually belongs to everyone in this country. An example of this is that at present there is a total of 107 000 hectares of State land along our State irrigation schemes such as those along the Orange River, at Vaalharts and at Douglas. Of this approximately 85 000 hectares are situated along the Orange River. Because this State land is used by irrigation farmers for grazing and is not being properly utilised—judicious grazing is not taking place and it is not being properly cultivated—the department decided to take it, subdivide it into economic farms and alienate it to owners. This vacant State land was not the property of irrigation farmers, they merely had grazing rights, the privilege of pasturage, over that land. The department has now acknowledged this privilege as a right and there are now, when this State land is alienated, going to divide 90% of the nett proceeds among the irrigation farmers in those areas, according to the number of hectares each one owns. Here I just wanted to furnish an example of how the department is prepared not only to sell and keep all the money for itself, but also to share with other sectors the privilege of this property ownership.

I conclude by saying that the department will continue the fair subdivision of properties in this country to various sectors and to owners for whom it may be necessary.

Mr Chairman, I just want to refer to the strange logic of the hon the Minister, who says that Black trade unions are not a bugbear, but a reality. He referred to their having been established in 1917 and only recently having received recognition. By way of an interjection I said the same applied to the ANC, in other words, they were also a reality and had existed since 1913.

1912.

They were never accorded recognition, and as the hon the Minister said, were therefore allowed to be hijacked by radicals, and had to go underground, precisely because they were not accorded recognition. If the hon the Minister moves a little to one side and attains a higher position one day, he could perhaps try to apply the other logic there, too.

I have been struggling for several years to get hold of the right hon Minister who takes decisions on housing policy. One never finds the right one, because every hon Minister one encounters always say he is only in charge of this small portion. When I look at the annual report it seems to me I may at last have arrived at the right hon Minister. If states that the SA Housing Advisory Council falls under the supervision of this hon Minister, and therefore I am going to pretend that this hon Minister is really the lord of the housing manor.

Order! The hon member may do as he wishes, but he must keep within the ambit of this Vote.

That is what I am going to try to do, Sir. If you could perhaps help me, I would be very pleased, because as I have said I have been trying for several years to find out which hon Minister will finally take the decisions on housing matters.

You went to look for them as far afield as Dakar! [Interjections.]

It is stated in the report, page 14, that the task and field of activity of this housing council includes: Norms, standards and income groups; financing of housing; land and land provision for housing; town planning and town establishment; costs of housing and services; housing methods; data acquisition; research in connection with housing provision; co-ordination; urbanisation, statutory requirements and regulations; and any other matter. Consequently I think I have at least found the right hon Minister.

I now want to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to something I referred to yesterday, when I was unfortunately dealing with the wrong hon Minister, when I thought I was dealing with the hon the Minister entrusted with housing, but was instead talking to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works. [Interjections.] One must give an indication because I have been struggling for a long time to find an hon Minister. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Greytown may proceed.

What I tried to say to that hon Minister—owing to uninvolvement he was not able to understand—was that when it comes to housing assistance to people on the part of the State the graph presents a very strange appearance. The hon the Minister must understand this well. There are various housing programmes, and the other hon Minister said I did not know about these programmes, but I want to tell the hon the Minister that I do know about them.

There are various programmes. Firstly Public Servants are being helped by the State, and this is a fact. They have a specific scheme in which they are involved, and what it usually amounts to is that they can obtain 100% loans in that the State guarantees the building societies 20% when a loan is raised, and an interest subsidy is also granted.

There are other programmes as well for other income groups. We are now referring to the R800 and higher income group where the first owners of new houses can obtain one third of the interest as a subsidy. For those earning less than R800, we find a series of benefits where people’s interest rates are linked to their income, and then, primarily for Black people, we have the self-help building schemes. This ought to help us to reach an agreement with the hon the Minister indicating that I do know about the various types of schemes.

If the hon member examines them he will see that the people who earn the least receive the least assistance from the State. A person with an income of approximately R400 per month, according to the interest per salary formula, can afford a house of approximately R28 000. What is strangest of all is that everyone earning an income of between R400 and R800 per month can according to the sliding scale in fact afford the same size loan—a loan amounting to approximately R26 000 up to R30 000. In that case one therefore has a diminishing subsidy. Does the hon the Minister understand that? A person earning R400 receives a larger subsidy from the State then a person earning R800. It varies between approximately R200 to R100 per month. The figures may differ a little, but all I am trying to say is that it is a diminishing subsidy.

It is less in the lower-income groups.

No, the one in the lower-income group receives a larger subsidy.

An income of R800 per month is the cut-off point, and here a new scheme begins. Under that scheme one receives a one third subsidy on one’s interest if one buys a new house. I agree with the other hon member, and I want to ask that we should extend this and make it applicable to second-hand houses as well. That is my first request. We must please extend the one-third scheme to second-hand houses, because at the moment additional houses are being built, simply because people want to make use of that scheme.

Are you now referring to the scheme for first-time home-owners?

According to the one-third interest subsidy scheme a person may only buy a new house. I am asking the hon the Minister whether this is not also …

It is own affairs.

No, the hon the Minister determines policy. The other hon Minister has already told me he does not determine policy. Did I not say that I had at last found the right Minister. I want to make quite certain. [Interjections.] Furthermore I want to tell the hon the Minister that if one earns R800 per month one receives a subsidy from the State of approximately R100, but if one has an income of approximately R1 600 and more per month, one receives a subsidy of approximately R200 per month from the State on a R40 000 loan. I hope that I have now made this point quite clear. The situation one now finds here is that the more one earns, the more help one receives from the State. A person earning R1 600 per month receives R200 in assistance per month from the State, but a person earning R800 per month, receives R100 in assistance from the State.

Those who earn R400 and less per month, for example the people in Khayelitsha, who have to make use of the building materials loan, receive a meagre loan from the State so that they can afford a house of approximately R2 000 or R3 000 or R4 000. Now I want to tell this hon Minister—I also told the other hon Minister, but he then said he was not able to determine policy—that this is the problem in South Africa. People look around them and see that those working for the State, as well as all those who are earning more, can get a house by means of a State scheme. The more one earns, the better off one is, or if one works for the State, the more one receives, but if one is a labourer working for the private sector, one receives less. At least one does not receive nothing, but definitely far less. The whole story of the “haves” and the “have-nots” is intensified in this way.

All I want to say to the hon the Minister is that this is the reason why everyone is saying that socialism is the answer, because the closer I get to the State, the better off I am. That is the point I wanted to make. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the problem the hon member for Greytown has is the following. As the seniority of every official increases, he receives more benefits. The more senior a person becomes, the bigger the carpet in his office, and the same principle applies in respect of that hon member’s problem. [Interjections.]

In reaction to the hon member for Witbank, I want to say that the Department of Public Works is the supply department. It provides services to all departments that require them, and the only way in which this department can be involved in the relocation of the statue—he made a good speech on the statue—will be with the actual physical relocation, and not in the decision-making on the matter. It is a matter which the Witbankers can safely leave in the hands of we Pretorians, because we are taking proper care of Church Square.

I said that this department was the supply department and rendered services to the departments requesting them. It is also the task of this department to make office and other accommodation available to Government departments requiring it. It is logical that this department will try to make it available to the consumer department in the most economical way. Since Pretoria is the administrative capital, it is primarily the seat of the public service and the Government departments and the question arising there is whether it is more economical to hire a building or to purchase it.

The hon member for Heilbron had quite a lot to say about privatisation. The businessmen of Pretoria maintain that it is not the task of the State to erect office buildings. That function must be left in the hands of the private sector. They have the expertise to construct the buildings and since at this stage they are the lessors of office space, the State can lease offices from them. No matter how much sympathy one has with that argument, it was nevertheless necessary for this issue to be settled at some time or other, and the department therefore asked the University of Pretoria to institute an enquiry into whether it would be more profitable to erect office buildings than to lease them. The finding was that it was nine times more expensive to lease a building than to construct it. It is also four times more expensive to lease a building through amortisation than to build it oneself. The hon member for Heilbron had quite a lot to say about privatisation, and he dealt with all these aspects. I can only associate myself with him by saying that this department should as far as possible make use of the private sector in respect of the planning and construction of buildings, as well as in respect of the furniture, the cleaning and the restoration of the building. However, it is to the advantage of the State and the taxpayer that the State should construct its own office buildings.

At present the State is leasing 70% of its office requirements in Pretoria at a cost of R58 million. At present the State is leasing approximately 675 000 square metres of office space in Pretoria. In the old days rent escalation was also included in the lease, in terms of which the rent was increased from year to year. Fortunately that has been rectified, and during the past year or two the rent has been revised on a market-related basis, so that the rent could also be adjusted on a market-related basis, which is to the advantage of the taxpayer. The rent escalation does not form part of such a lease any more. When we say that 70% of the office requirements in Pretoria is being leased at a cost of R58 million, and that it is nine times more expensive to lease than to construct and occupy our own buildings, it means that it would be to the advantage of the tax payer if in future we were to spend far more on capital works and if the capital expenditure under this Vote were to be far more than it is now. We must utilise it to construct our own office buildings.

I immediately want to relate two other matters to this situation. If we were in future to construct office buildings in Pretoria, we must at this early stage determine to construct the public service offices in Pretoria in a planned way. At present no such projects are being contemplated. At present the Government departments are distributed throughout the entire city of Pretoria, as far as Verwoerdburg. [Interjections.] The hon member for Greytown will not know about that because he does very little for his constituency. The hon member for De Aar will know, however, that if he comes to Pretoria once every three months during the recess and he has to pay a visit to four or five departments, it takes him a whole day’s work to get from one department in one suburb to another department in another suburb, for example in Verwoerdburg.

I think that if we plan carefully we could perhaps, according to the concept used in Washington, construct our Government offices in such a way, in Arcadia perhaps, in the vicinity of the Union Buildings, that there is at least more sense and purpose in the planning.

I want to conclude by making another request. It is that the State should not initiate large building projects in times of economic prosperity because the available capacity in the building industry is then fully, or almost fully utilised and then we only get the work done at the highest price. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to raise three matters here which fall under the Vote of this hon Minister. In a certain sense I want to differ with the hon member for Hercules in this respect that the existing State buildings in the central area of Pretoria form an integrated part of the whole economy of Pretoria. As the hon member for Hercules correctly pointed out, there are hundreds of thousands of square metres of building space in the central are of Pretoria that are leased by the State, which comprise State buildings. The interaction between the people working in those buildings, the State that pays rental for those buildings and the central city economy of Pretoria is of such a nature that I think the Government should in future—I want to advocate this strongly—give serious consideration to ensuring that the city centre economy of Pretoria is not prejudiced by a large-scale shifting of State buildings out of Pretoria.

It is true that we are conducting an ongoing debate on decentralisation in South Africa, but if I have to speak as a Pretorian from a selfish point of view, I should like to make the point here that we in South Africa should take in consideration that in most of our large cities, in contrast to the arguments frequently advanced in regard to overconcentration, there is a vast underutilisation of infrastructure. In a city like Pretoria, for example, we can still accommodate hundreds of thousands of additional people in the city centre complex of Pretoria. There are streets in Pretoria, there is an electricity supply, there are various other infrastructural services which are underutilised. In a country in which we have a tremendous need for capital and in which we are experiencing a major capital shortage we must be very careful and look at our city centres with great circumspection.

Consequently I as a Pretorian, a little selfishly perhaps, want to make a serious appeal to the Government to give very careful consideration, in its decentralisation activities and also in regard to the construction of State offices or the shifting of such offices out of the city centre of Pretoria, to the economy of the central urban area of Pretoria.

Perhaps I should mention very quickly that one private sector developer spent R17,5 million in the central area of Pretoria to renovate a single building complex in the city centre. This is a vast amount of capital invested by that private sector enterprise.

There is no way in which those people can ever get a return on their capital if there is not a lively economy in the city centre of Pretoria.

There is one thing when it comes to buildings and physical infrastructures I am very concerned about in South Africa and that is that we, with our decentralisation activities in a country that is experiencing a tremendous shortage of capital, are in my humble opinion utilising capital incorrectly in places.

I should like to raise this point about the central urban area of Pretoria because as has correctly been said, hundreds of thousands of square metres are being utilised by the State by means of leasing, and in its own buildings. I should like to express gratitude for the fact that the central Government is in that respect helping the administrative capital in Pretoria considerably with its economy.

I should like to convey my thanks to Mr Van Blommestein and all the officials of the Department of Public Works for the wonderful annual report they tabled here, and also for the excellent work that is constantly being done by that department in the interests of South Africa. Incidentally I may point out that that department happens to be established in one of the historical city buildings.

This brings me to a second point, namely the fact that the State also owns building. However, it is only a small percentage of these State buildings in Pretoria. I want to make the second point specifically in regard to those buildings, and make a very urgent appeal in this regard to the hon the Minister. I see in the annual report that a vast amount of money is being spent on renovating State buildings in Pretoria. As a Pretorian, and together with my hon colleagues who occasionally visit State offices in Pretoria, I just want to say that many of the State offices situated in older buildings which are very old do not really, in my opinion, impart the status we should like to see our Public Service have. In many respects the buildings are too old and perhaps dilapidated, and many of the old passages are perhaps dark and dusty.

I should like to advocate that in the coming financial year, and according to a fixed programme, the State will see to the renovation of our State offices so that we can produce an image in those buildings which does greater justice to these wonderful people in those buildings who are rendering such excellent services in various spheres to the public. It must also be a pleasure for the public of South Africa to be able to enter those buildings. The most important aspect of all is that the officials working in those buildings, senior officials, junior officials and all the other officials, must constantly feel that they are not being neglected.

I want to say with compassion and great respect that there are several State offices in Pretoria in which the people who work there perhaps feel that because the old building is so dilapidated, they are being neglected a little, while in the capital expenditure of the State this is really not the case.

I want to make an earnest appeal to the Government to consider renovating some of those State buildings. This is a very important aspect, because the image of the building in which one works, influences one’s attitude. A Public Service office that is old and dilapidated is not in my humble opinion contribute to a feeling that one belongs there, can enjoy working there and will be productive there. Nevertheless we know that the officials in the Public Service are doing their share.

The penultimate point I want to raise here today is concerned with Meintjieskop. I see it is mentioned in the annual report that the Government appointed a committee which investigated the position in regard to Meintjieskop, for example the vegetation in that area.

Today I should like to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister for the Government to consider buying up the whole northern slope of Meintjieskop, which is in my constituency, so that we can take it out of the hands of the present private owners. I appeal to the Government to consider putting a complete stop to all further private development against the northern slopes of Meintjieskop. Already there are a few large projects with which considerable progress has already been made. One is almost sorry that the city council allowed these projects to go so far. I get the feeling that even some of the officials of the city council are sorry that history, or whoever is guilty of this, allowed matters to develop in such a way that some of that land ended up in private hands.

I therefore want to argue earnestly, in view of the fact that the hon the Minister’s department already has a committee investigating the conservation of Meintjieskop, that the Government should consider ensuring that the northern slopes of Meintjieskop becomes the property of the State, and to put a stop to further development by the private sector. I really believe that Meintjieskop is part of the historical heritage of the administrative capital of Pretoria. Meintjieskop, as well as the Brynterion complex, have a particular significance in Pretoria, and I think it is extremely important to try to stop all further developments that can still be stopped. I think we must ensure that the State owns that land. In my opinion many of the private sector developments near the house of the State President are also undesirable. I am therefore advocating the further preservation of Meintjieskop and that the State should try to intervene and prevent further development there.

The final point I want to raise is one I have raised on many previous occasions. It could perhaps fall under other hon Ministers in a certain respect. In a certain respect, it falls under the Cabinet as a whole. I have raised this matter repeatedly in the inside circles. For example I was once talking to the hon the Minister of Law and Order, as well as the hon the Minister of Justice, and I see in paragraph 5.2.2 of the department’s annual report that this same subject was mentioned. It is concerned with the renting of houses.

I want to make an appeal to the Government to scrap the policy adopted a few years ago, ie that all police and prison officials should be provided with housing. I am not now referring to the prisons official who, owing to his work, has to live near to the prison, or the police officer or other officials working in a smaller place, where there is no turnover in private accommodation. I am referring specifically to the flat complexes and houses that are being leased as well as sold in a place like Pretoria, and placed at the disposal of the officials.

In my constituency there are blocks of flats that are being leased for police and prison officials, and my humble feeling is that those people are in that way being assisted in the short term, but that in the long terms it causes them to have difficulties by the time they retire. I therefore suggest that we should abandon that leasing scheme, and that we should rather help those people by way of loans from Public Service Pension Funds, or in other ways, to buy their own houses. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to thank all hon members who participated in this debate for their contributions. I think it was a very positive debate and to my surprise—I almost want to say to my dismay—no one spoke politics in this debate.

What really astonishes me is that a great fuss was kicked up during the recent election about the restoration of Stal Plein, the restoration of Newlands House and the restoration of Tuynhuys, and enormous amount or propaganda was made, implying that it was a tremendous waste of money by the Department of Public Works. It was said that luxuries were being created, and that the taxpayers’ money was being wasted. To such an extent was propaganda made that the CP published a pamphlet which they called Kolskote. Those shots were on target to the extent to which they were spot-on lies. In this debate, in which they are able to and should discuss those matters so that they can get the fact, the CP did not raise those matters at all.

Disgraceful!

Why did they not raise those matters here? They are afraid that if they did raise those matters here, the general public might hear the truth, and they would then not be able to make political capital out of these things.

Today I just want to mention one point briefly. The restoration of Stal Plein and Tuynhuys and the improvements, alterations and renovations made to Westbrook was not done to create luxuries for State functionaries. These were activities undertaken as a result of the sense of responsibility of the Government to preserve for posterity the few cultural heritages we have in this country. [Interjections.] Tremendous pressure was exerted on us by various members of the public and by many cultural and historically conscious organisations and institutions working for the preservation of this cultural heritage for posterity. In spite of the fact that the CP is making cheap party-political propaganda out of it, the Government and the department will continue as far as it is able, to preserve the cultural historical heritage of South Africa for posterity. We shall not sink to the level at which we cheapen our cultural historical heritage into political haggling.

The hon member for Witbank discussed the Kruger Statute in Pretoria. I want to congratulate him on being nominated to the position of chief spokesman of the CP on Public Works. That hon member spoke in a very sensible way here today and I hope that he will be able to convey that principle attitude he displayed here today to some of the other hon members of his party. [Interjections.] I should like to tell the hon member that I share his sentiments on the emotion which the Kruger Statute on Church Square arouses in our hearts.

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

Certainly.

I just want to ask the hon the Minister whether he agrees that the late President Kruger was a Coloured person? The point was raised a little while ago by an hon member on the opposite side of the House, by way of an interjection.

Mr Chairman, as I understood it, the interjection concerning a Coloured person was directed at the hon member, and not at President Kruger, unless I misunderstood it. [Interjections.] I just want to place on record here and state categorically that President Kruger was a White person.

The hon member asked me to ensure that we followed certain procedures in respect of the relocation of the statute. I should like to tell the hon member that that matter does not fall under mine Ministry, but under the Administration: House of Assembly. The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works in the Administration: House of Assembly deals with that matter. I shall convey the hon member’s request to him, and I want to ask the hon member to address direct representations to my colleague within whose sphere of responsibility that matter falls.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister? The hon the Minister told the hon member for Witbank that the fountain to be built where they are going to remove the statute of Paul Kruger is going to be called the P W Botha Fountain. Is that true?

No, I do not understand this. It seems to me the hon member, since his return from Dakar is not always with us. It seems to me that he sustained some kind of permanent damage when he crossed the equator. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, by way of introduction, I want to say that this is the first time I am dealing with the Public Works Vote since this responsibility was entrusted to me. I want to say that I am indeed proud of the Department of Public Works and the work it is doing under very difficult circumstances. It is one of the largest and most diversified departments in the service, with an enormous budget, which has a great deal to do with the daily accommodation, the lives, the weal and woe of many of our people. I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my special thanks and appreciation to the Director General and to all the other dedicated officials of that department for the dedicated service they have rendered, as well as for their personal loyalty to me and also for the assistance they have given me in making me conversant with matters after this new portfolio was allocated to me. It is also a great pleasure for me to have the hon the Deputy Minister, who is primarily responsible for land matters, with me. I also want to convey my thanks and appreciation to him for his help and support.

I come now to the hon member for Heilbron. He said that this department lent itself very well to privatisation, and he also congratulated the department for being prepared to privatise to the extent to which it is being done at present and to the extent it is contemplated in future. As regards privatisation, I think the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs is probably one of the most privatised State institutions that exists at present. The hon member for Hercules referred for example to the 770 square metres of surface areas covered by buildings that we are leasing in Pretoria, and to the fact that only 203 000 square metres—one could say that a quarter of that quantity—is State-owned property. The rest is all private property. Consequently we rely heavily on the property of the private sector. Furthermore we put all our hospital works such as the construction of buildings out on contract to private consulters and building contractors.

Previously maintenance services in their entirety were undertaken by the department itself. Today we are also putting this work out on contract to the private sector on an annual basis. They must now carry out that kind of maintenance. Since I had to leave the Chamber for a moment just now, like any other normal person, and unsavoury remarks were then made, I should like to draw the attention of this House to the fact that there are only three members of the Official Opposition present in the House of Assembly to represent their members.

How many Ministers are present? [Interjections.]

Consequently only 13% of the Official Opposition deem this Vote and these discussions important enough to be present in this House. [Interjections.] The other 80% of the Official Opposition is absent from the House of Assembly. I should just like to place this on record, Sir.

How many Ministers are present? [Interjections.]

The only Minister who must be here this afternoon is the Minister whose Vote is under discussion. The other Ministers are not going about gossip-mongering in the rural areas as the hon the Opposition are doing; they have work to do. They are going about their business in a productive way.

All 85 of them?

Now I want to go further, in the absence of the 87% of the Official Opposition and place these facts on record, and my apologize to my department, the Department of Public Works, for the fact that the Official Opposition thinks so little of this department that there are only three of their members present here. We shall most certainly bear this in mind in future when we consider representations from the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

For normal maintenance, as I said a moment ago, and for the renovation of buildings, tenders are called for from the private sector. With reference to what the hon member for Heilbron mentioned I can also inform this House that we have more than 95% of our planning of buildings done by private consultants. However, I want to emphasise one point very strongly. One can privatise—I am in favour of privatisation—but when it comes to activities such as those of the Department of Public Works—as well as Land Affairs, because that affects the alienation of land—a very large proportion of the work can be privatised and also to a certain extent decentralised, but there is one thing one cannot do with the Department of Public Works—something of which I have become thoroughly aware in these times—and that is one cannot easily pass on its functions. One cannot privatise it entirely. One needs a central expertise bank and a central experience bank, which can only be built up from many years of experience. That is why it is necessary, particularly in our country for us to retain a strong central Department of Public Works with an expertise bank and an experienced bank to exercise the necessary control, particularly in the case of privatisation.

If one gives an architect a free hand—I am not saying this negatively of architects—and instructs him to construct a building of so many square metres, without placing any limits on the cost, he will of course design and construct a tremendously luxurious building. Many years of experience have been accumulated in this department, with a view to economies and rationalisation, but also to functional effectiveness. I also want to add that large amounts of money are involved in this.

I want to come now to the hon member for Greytown, who referred to the previous Vote. I take it the hon member sustained some kind of damage when he crossed the equator. We are now dealing with Public Works, not with Manpower. Even then, however, the hon member could not get away from the ANC. That just goes to show how attached he is to the ANC. [Interjections.] He said the ANC was an indisputable fact, like a trade union. I said a trade union was a reality in South Africa with which we had to co-exist. Now he is telling me that what I said in respect of trade unions also applies to the ANC. He said the ANC was a reality with which we would have to co-exist. That is where the difference lies between us and that hon member. We say we shall not talk to the ANC until they renounce violence. We are not prepared to crawl after the ANC all the way to Dakar. We still have our self-respect. We will not allow an organisation that sets off a bomb blast in our streets which claims the lives of innocent people to acquire respectability and status through our holding discussions with them before they renounce violence. This is a fundamental standpoint. That is the difference between us and that hon member. We have principles; I do not know what his position is.

The hon member turned to me as ostensibly being his last hope, after he had seemingly been looking for a Minister for years to ask who was actually responsible for housing in South Africa. I should like to send the hon member a copy of the Constitution so that he can see that for Coloureds it is the House of Representatives, for Indians the House of Delegates, for Whites the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly, in the national states it is their Governments and in trust territories it is the Minister of Development Aid. However I am the co-ordinating Minister for housing, in other words, I try to co-ordinate and monitor all the housing activities. I try to get co-operation from my colleagues in order to bring housing onto a uniform level in regard to formulas, etc. For that, of course, I need the support of my colleagues.

The hon member made a few points and I shall have his Hansard checked. If the hon member made any material point—which I do not want to dispute; I do not want to form an opinion about it now—I shall send it to the South African Housing Advisory Council for study and consideration. Actually the hon member could simply have raised the matter in Dakar as well. Perhaps he could simply have asked the ANC what their housing policy was. [Interjections.] The hon member for Hercules touched upon a very important point, namely the argument that has been conducted for many years about whether the State should construct buildings in which it has rights of ownership or whether it should preferably lease all its accommodation. We have referred this matter to various experts and ultimately to the University of Pretoria.

The biggest expert.

There is no doubt—and I acquainted myself with the facts as well as the arguments in that report—that leasing is the most expensive method of acquiring accommodation for the State. But since the State does not have sufficient capital to provide all its accommodation needs it is obliged to enter into leasing contracts. Let me also add at once, with reference to what the hon member for Innesdal said, that since we are such a major lessee in Pretoria and elsewhere in the country, it is not our policy to disrupt the private leasing market if we can in any way help it. If we withdraw, we do so gradually, and if we enter the market, we try not to disrupt it.

The hon member made the point that it would be to the advantage of the taxpayer if we were able to construct more buildings. I agree with the hon member. However, our greatest problem is funds. The country has a limited financial carrying capacity, and we must choose between the priorities. We simply do not have enough funds for capital works. In the nature of things capital works are the first to be pruned when one is considering cut backs.

The hon member made a statement that we should organise the head office in a better planned way in Pretoria. I want to tell you that the ideal situation would be if we could have all the head offices together in one group—in Pretoria. It is a problem getting to the various departments, particularly for people who have to get to one department after another. The realities of the situation are unfortunately such that buildings of the right type are not available in the right quantity in close proximity to one another in Pretoria. One is then forced to lease scattered buildings. This also happens because of the situation of certain buildings belonging to the State.

The hon member said we should not initiate large building projects in a time of economic prosperity. The hon member’s time expired and I think he wanted to tell us to do so in a time of recession. We try to do this, but it is not always practicable. The preliminary stages of these building programmes can sometimes last five to ten years. One cannot suddenly turn on and turn off the building programme. It is a difficult process, which has to be planned long in advance. Wherever and whenever possible however the State tries, if it is able to do so, to give a little slack in a time of recession and to allow building to progress a little faster than in times of economic upsurge. In fact, we have during the past 18 months to two years, expedited certain State projects in the Port Elizabeth vicinity owing to the serious economic recession that prevailed there.

I share the sentiments of the hon member for Innesdal concerning the central city economy of Pretoria. As I said a moment ago, we will not and it is not our object to disrupt the leasing market. Of course the hon member made the valid point that we in South Africa should not duplicate infrastructure before we have fully utilised certain infrastructure. That would of course be the ideal situation, but in certain circumstances one is compelled, owing to other factors, to duplicate infrastructure in one’s decentralisation programme, in which other arguments become valid and in which the arguments of optimum utilisation of existing infrastructure are not more decisive than the other factors that have to be taken into consideration. However, I agree with him as far as our central urban complexes are concerned. I endorsed the point that we should keep our central urban complexes new, alive and utilised to the maximum extent. We must not waste money unnecessarily on infrastructure.

The hon member said that some of our State buildings did not present an attractive appearance. On that score, too, I agree with him. One of our major problems is that we do not adequate funds for the renovation of State buildings. I can only tell the hon member there is a programme according to which we are now working, in which we are trying to eliminate the backlog. In the time of my predecessor, special steps were taken to try to eliminate the backlog that had been built up. I am sorry the hon the Minister of Finance is not here today, and the hon member would do well to speak to him about this matter, because funds are and remain a problem. I can assure the hon member though that I am devoting serious attention to this matter. Incidentally, I could just mention to him that from a job creation point of view it is a fact that the renovation and renewal of buildings is exactly twice as labour intensive as it is to build. One uses twice the amount of labour per rand to renovate a building than to build it. For that reason the renovation, renewal and restoration of buildings is labour intensive. In the nature of things this is a high priority for our department, but we have to work within the framework of the allocated funds, and that is a different problem. I share the hon member’s sentiment in regard to the northern slopes of Meintjieskop. I shall go into this matter and ask the department to find out what is happening there.

The hon member raised one final point, namely that this official accommodation which is being provided—I hope I understood the hon member correctly—entails that many people never buy a house, and that when they retire, their position is not very satisfactory. That is a matter which is not dealt with centrally by the Department of Public Works. It effects a matter of policy of the respective departments. Nevertheless I took note of what the hon member said, and perhaps there is a place where that matter could be raised, namely the Co-ordinating Committee of Ministers on Housing.

Finally, Mr Chairman, I should like to thank all hon members once again for their contributions to this debate, and I shall content myself with that.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Unemployment Insurance Board, on which employer organisations and trade unions are equally represented, continually grants attention, in conjunction with the Department of Manpower, to the streamlining of procedures and the provisions of the Act. For this purpose the board appointed a permanent subcommittee to review all provisions of the Act on an on-going basis and regularly make relevant recommendations.

The aim of the amendments before Parliament at present is to bring about uniformity in the conditions laid down for the different types of benefits that can be paid out, at the same time replacing certain procedures, something which would prove to be more satisfactory to contributors and promote efficiency.

I shall merely deal with the more important amendments since the overall aims are set out in the explanatory memorandum. The existing section 34 (6) (b) of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1966 provides that a contributor is not regarded as being unemployed for any period during which he is undergoing training for employment under any scheme. Particularly as a result of the establishment of a special job-creation and training programme, the duration of some training averaging approximately three weeks and the daily allowances being low, provision is now being made by the repeal of subsection (6) (b) for unemployed contributors who qualify for or are drawing benefits to undergo the training and also to receive benefits. The intention is that such persons who undergo training for work in terms of any scheme, for example those under the Manpower and Training Act, 1981, who are both capable of working and available for work and who, through training, will improve their placement possibilities, may under certain circumstances claim unemployment benefits.

Clause 5 provides for the improvement of the conditions relating to the qualifying period for maternity benefits. Section 37 of the Act provides, at present, that maternity benefits can be paid to a female contributor for not more than 18 weeks prior to the date of birth of a child and for not more than 8 weeks after the date of birth of a live-born child, or 4 weeks after the birth of a still-born child. The proposed amendment entails that the stipulated periods, as well as the distinction which is drawn between the periods of payment to contributors who give birth to a live-born child or a still-born child, be repealed. The effect is that benefits will be payable for pregnancy and confinement for 26 weeks from the date on which the female contributor becomes unemployed, whether or not she is capable of working or available for work, provided application is made before the date of birth or within a period of 52 weeks from that date, ie the date of birth. The period within which an application for maternity benefits must be made is also being extended to bring it into line with the qualifying periods applicable to other types of benefits.

At present the Unemployment Insurance Act does not make provision for the payment of adoption benefits to contributors who adopt children and are obliged, by the conditions of adoption, to stop work so as to become properly acquainted with and to care for the children. Clause 6 inserts a new section 37 A which provides for the payment of adoption benefits, under certain circumstances, to contributors who adopt children. The main requirements for the payment of such benefits are the following:

1. 1. The contributor must be unemployed, but does not have to be capable of working or available for work.
2. 2. Benefit payments can commence on the date of legal adoption, extending for a period of 26 weeks, provided that the child is under the age of two years.
3. 3. Application must be made within 52 weeks of the date of adoption.
4. 4. The contributor must have been employed for at least 18 weeks during the period of 52 weeks immediately preceding the date of adoption.

Section 38 of the Act provides for the payment of death benefits to dependants of deceased contributors. At present a “dependant” means a widow or invalid widower of a deceased contributor. Clause 7 provides for the deletion of the word “invalid” so as to ensure that payments to the widowers of deceased female contributors may be considered on the same basis as payments in the case of widows of deceased male contributors.

That, in brief, is what the amendments entail and I trust they will meet with the approval of the House.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the CP supports the amending Bill under discussion. It comprises the rectification of shortcomings which should have been rectified a long time ago.

There has been a great deal of talk about unemployment this afternoon, and I really want to suggest something in this connection, viz that attention should be given to the payment of unemployment compensation. At present a person is paid 45% of his salary when he becomes unemployed. Unfortunately there are many people who make much more use of this fund than others do. There are people who have worked for 20 or 30 years and have never made use of this fund. I want to ask the hon the Minister for an investigation to be made into the possibility of paying compensation on a sliding scale. What I have in mind is that when someone becomes unemployed, one should begin with 45% of his salary if he has rendered service for a certain period. The longer he has rendered service without making use of the fund, the more he can get. In this way he can get 50% or, after 20 years of service without making use of the fund, 55% of his salary, for example. This would be an incentive for everyone not to make unnecessary use of the fund, thus depleting it.

I also want to make an appeal to that side of the House. In the two earlier debates, when the hon the Minister commented, I got the impression that we were in a circus and that someone was amusing them. That was why they were laughing so uproariously. We hope that when an hon Minister comments again, they will confine themselves to the House of Assembly and not think they are in a circus. With these words we support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, we have crossed swords across the floor of the House a number of times today, but I do want to correct a few things that were said on the opposite side. In the first place I merely want to mention that more people in my constituency voted for me than for the CP candidate. In case hon members think that that has nothing to do with this legislation, I merely want to say that I hope that candidate applied for unemployment insurance in terms of this legislation.

That is where you are making a mistake.

The hon member has had sufficient opportunity to talk and make a noise today. He can keep quiet for a little while now. When we are discussing this Bill, we are on a friendly footing.

In the first place I want the hon member to listen very carefully, because he did not listen too well in the debate on the Manpower Vote this morning. I do not know where his thoughts were.

This amending Bill is a direct result of the recommendations of the Unemployment Insurance Board. Both employers and employees have representation on this board. If the hon member wants to make certain inputs and certain recommendations, he can go to one of the employers’ or employees’ organisations and whisper a word in their ear, because he is no longer involved with any of them, and request that when they examine the Act again, they may consider such an amendment. They might welcome this.

What we actually have here is a very good example of how private enterprise and the Government are able to co-operate. When it comes to this specific fund, we as the Government act only as the trustees and the management. What it amounts to, therefore, is that this is actually the employers’ and employees’ fund. It is an insurance fund, and I want to tell hon members that it is like every other insurance fund: One insures oneself against something. It is just like home insurance; some people use it and others, unfortunately, do not. In any case, I hope that the people who insure themselves will not need to use this fund, because it is an insurance fund for certain purposes.

The most important amendments here are that benefits are now being paid to someone while he is undergoing training in terms of a training programme. As hon members know, he does not really earn much during the approximately three weeks in which he receives training; on the contrary, the unemployment insurance benefits amount to a little more than he gets in terms of a training scheme. The Unemployment Insurance Board therefore feels that such people should also get the additional fringe benefit.

An amendment that is very important—I am surprised that the hon member did not refer to it; they proved today that they are woman-haters, because they did not refer to women at all and, in fact, disparaged them a little—is the one in respect of benefits for women. There was an old obsolete system of stillborn babies and ordinary maternity cases, and then there were various periods for which claims could be submitted. We are bringing this into line with other periods for which claims are submitted. It is sufficient to know that they can now lay claim to benefits for any period of 26 weeks.

In the meantime we have also applied a little sexual discrimination in reverse, because although we are always trying to help the women, we have now tried to help the men as well, in that widowers now also qualify for death benefits on the same basis on which widows were entitled to these benefits in the past. I do want to say, however, that there is one area in which we could not do anything for the men, despite sexual discrimination, and that was maternity benefits. As science progresses, we shall have to consider this. It was not the appropriate time to do so now, however.

Sir, we should like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we in this party also support the Bill.

I merely wish to raise one aspect which the hon the Minister is no doubt aware of, and that is the problems which have been experienced, particularly in Cape Town, over the past few months with the payment of unemployment insurance benefits. I am referring to the cheques which disappeared and were never received by the intended recipients. I do recall that the department indicated that they would investigate those problems. There were rumours that it might be an inside job. I merely ask the hon the Minister to give us an indication whether they have looked into the matter and whether there is any suggestion as to how that can be avoided in future.

With those few words we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to thank all hon members for their participation in the debate and the contribution they made in this connection.

I want to begin by thanking the hon member for Carletonville for his party’s support of the legislation. The hon member proposed that the payment of benefits in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act be done on a sliding scale so that people who have not benefited from the fund for certain periods get greater compensation than people who have benefited from the fund more often.

The hon member for Stilfontein referred to the Unemployment Insurance Board which consists of an equal number of employers and employees, since employers and employees contribute equally to this fund. An employee contributes 9% of his earnings, whereas the employer transfers a similar part of the earnings of each employee in his service to the fund.

We shall ask the Unemployment Insurance Board to investigate that proposal. To tell the truth, there is a permanent committee that monitors the Act constantly and recommends amendments to the legislation to me.

I thank the hon member for Stilfontein for his support and his contribution. It is true that there was discrimination here against the male sex here, whereas previously the discrimination was always directed against the female sex. The widow of a deceased worker qualified for death benefits, irrespective of whether she was ill or healthy, but in cases in which the wife was the worker, and she died, her widower did not qualify for his wife’s death benefits unless he was an invalid, although she had been a full contributor. That was not quite fair, but now the word “invalid” has been deleted, which means that a healthy widower qualifies for death benefits if his wife should die while she is still making contributions.

I hope this will not serve to encourage certain men to weaken their wives’ position. [Interjections.]

Another important aspect of this legislation is that maternity benefits are now being brought more or less into line with other benefits which are obtainable in terms of this Act.

They are not for widowers.

Naturally these benefits are not for widowers. [Interjections.]

I think there was a degree of unfairness in that maternity benefits were not dealt with in the same way as other benefits which are obtainable in terms of the Act. That is also being rectified.

A very interesting aspect of this legislation is that provision is also being made for a woman to qualify for maternity benefits when she adopts a child under two years of age. This means that if she contributes to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, she also gets 26 weeks to look after that adopted child and get to know him, and to give attention to his upbringing.

In conclusion I want to say that this legislation is very important to the unemployed in the country, and I want to say once again that I am sorry that only two hon members of the CP are present to support this important legislation for the workers.

They hate the workers!

One would have liked to see that that party was not all that negative towards the workers of South Africa and that at least they would be present here, particularly since some of them represent workers’ constituencies. [Interjections.] In my opinion this amounts to a kind of contempt of the workers.

Fortunately, when one looks at this side of the House, one can see that we are looking after the interests of the workers of South Africa. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House are prepared to take care of the interests of the workers in South Africa also on Friday afternoons, even late on Friday afternoons. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Cape Town Foreshore Board established by the Cape Town Foreshore Act, 1950, was in the main entrusted with the orderly development of that part of Cape Town that was reclaimed from the sea and is today known as Roggebaai. The board was abolished in 1979 after it had carried out its task, and control over the development of the Roggebaai area was taken over by the City Council of Cape Town. The streets and public places were transferred to the City Council, and the few sites which at that stage had not yet been sold reverted to the State. Some of these sites have in the mean time been sold in terms of the State Land Disposal Act, 1961.

*When the principal Act was amended in 1978 to provide for the abolishment of the board and the transfer of its assets and liabilities it was deemed fit to keep section 10(2) on the statute book. That section provides that no portion of the foreshore which has been reserved or set aside for streets, open spaces or other public purposes shall be used for any purpose other than the purpose for which it has been so reserved or set aside, unless Parliament’s approval is obtained. This restriction today has no right of existence any more and is superfluous since the Administrator has enough powers in terms of the municipal and township ordinances to control the matter efficiently.

†Mr Chairman, the object of the Bill is, therefore, to delete section 10(2) of the principal Act in terms of which Parliament’s approval is required. The City Council of Cape Town has pleaded such deletion for some time now since the retention of the restriction inhibits the proposed development of the area. Deletion of the restriction is also in accordance with the Government’s declared policy on deregulation and the request is therefore supported.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the CP supports this legislation.

One could not help noticing that the hon the Minister was carrying on so with his circus act that, in his reply to this debate, he quite forgot to respond to the speech of the hon member for Durban Central. That is how he treats this House. He comes and goes as he deems fit. The hon members of the CP are attending a congress of the Natal CP in Richards Bay. The date for the congress was set more than a year ago … [Interjections] … but I shall report to my hon colleagues, when they return, that they did not miss much—they merely missed the antics of the chief clown of the Cabinet at his best.

Order!

I shall withdraw that, Sir.

Order! The hon member will not only withdraw it, but will also apologise.

I shall also apologise. The position, Sir, is that unfortunately you were not in the House this morning when the hon the Minister participated …

Order! I am glad the hon member missed my presence.

I missed you, Sir, but nevertheless I want to tell you that you did not miss much.

Since this new dispensation was implemented, a very important factor has become prevalent in this House, namely that there are never more than one or two Ministers present.

How many of you are present here today?

There are two other Houses, two other Chambers, where those hon Ministers have to be present as well, that is true; but neither of those Chambers is sitting today. Where are the hon members of the Executive?

Where are the CP members? [Interjections.]

That very same hon Minister sitting there is almost never here. Like his friend, Louis Nel, he is also productively absent. [Interjections.] It is a disgrace that the hon members of the Cabinet treat the House with as much contempt as they do. After all, they also represent constituencies; they also represent the workers. Why, then, are they not here? [Interjections.] That hon Minister, who retained his seat in the House by the largest minority, is practising cheap politics.

It seems to me that at your level you can understand that! [Interjections.]

No, Sir, that is the level to which the hon the Minister has reduced it. He did not even reply to hon members who participated in the debate. Instead he played the fool. That is the reason.

You are an old “bitterbek”!

It is the truth, Pietie; you do play the fool! [Interjections.]

No, it is not a question of my being a “bitterbek” at all; it is nifty footwork. When my hon friend here asked the hon the Minister whether he agreed that the hon member for Hillbrow had said that Paul Kruger was Coloured … [Interjections] … everyone heard that hon member …

Order! The hon member for Brakpan must come back to the Bill; he has made his point. The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

This Bill deals with the Cape Town Foreshore. [Interjections.] Sir, I wonder if I shall get a chance to speak. I shall be pleased if those caterwauling members will just give me a chance to speak.

Order! I feel the hon member should withdraw the expression “caterwauling members”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Sir, the Bill on the Foreshore … [Interjections.]

Order! I know it is late on a Friday afternoon, but there are hon members who really must contain themselves now. The hon member may proceed.

The Bill, which provides for the abolition of section 10 of the Cape Town Foreshore Act, is a very simple one. It really just means that when certain open spaces came up for discussion in the past, Parliament had to approve the decisions of the Cape Town City Council, which now controls the foreshore, before the council could carry out these decisions.

While we are talking about foreshores, I should like to raise another matter for consideration. We are being accused of racism. It is not racism, however, when we meet in other Houses; nor is it racism when a colleague of that hon Minister is prohibited from swimming at a beach (strandgebied) in Port Elizabeth. That is not racism! We are the only ones who are the cheap racists. That sanctimonious hon Minister is not a racist! He does not know what racism means. He is the holiest of all the little angels.

We want to say that although the explanatory memorandum that accompanied the Bill made mention of the fact that in the past Parliament had to grant approval before these properties could be sold, it did not mention that the reason for the deletion of section 10 is actually that there is sufficient protection in that the Administrator has the right to intervene, by means of ordinances, if these properties are dealt with in an illegal or irregular way. Since there is this protection in that the Administrator has to grant his approval if any of these erven or properties are sold, I feel it is not necessary for the matter to be referred to Parliament every time. For this reason CP supports this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to speak in support of this Bill this afternoon, especially since it falls under the hon the Minister of Manpower and Public Works. I have the greatest respect and esteem for him. As I sat listening to the CP, I got the impression that they just cannot leave this hon Minister alone. But I can understand that, because high up there in the Northern Transvaal, Lydenburg stands out like a beautiful little Leucospermum flower, a little pincushion among the marigolds (stinkafrikanertjies). [Interjections.] They cannot come to terms with this. That is why they must resort to these personal attacks on the hon the Minister to try to humiliate him. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we on this side of the House are very proud of him. I, in particular, am proud of the hon the Minister because he and his department opened their hands and their hearts to us during the difficult years in Port Elizabeth. We took cognisance of that, and I want to tell the hon the Minister and his department that they will reap the positive results of their actions. Despite its problems Port Elizabeth will become a beautiful city; it is a city of the future in the Republic of South Africa.

I also want to tell the hon the Minister that we have great appreciation for what the officials are doing. The department which falls under the hon the Minister has some of the best officials in the country. I should like to place my appreciation of them on record today.

The memorandum on the objects of the Cape Town Foreshore Amendment Bill, 1987, reads as follows:

The object of the Bill is to do away with the requirement that the approval of Parliament has to be obtained for the use, for such other purpose, of a portion of the foreshore which has been so reserved or set aside.

I should like to place on record our thanks and appreciation to the opposition parties as well as to the hon members of the other Houses for their support in doing away with this inefficient legislation. It is true that the Cape Town City Council, true to its tradition, went ahead despite this legislation and did certain things that it should not have done. All we are doing now is giving the Cape Town City Council legal authority to continue doing what it has already done.

The foreshore that we are talking about to day—incidentally, I want to tell the House that I regard myself as quite an expert on the beaches of South Africa—is known as the “Foreshore” or “Roggebaai”. [Interjections.] It is an area that has approximately …

May I ask the hon member, on the subject of beaches—with particular reference, of course, to Port Elizabeth—whether he believes these should be opened to all race groups.

Mr Chairman, this question was put to me during the election as well, and my answer to the hon member is that that is indeed my standpoint.

Well done!

I want to take this further, however. In answer to the question that was put to me during the election—this was marvellously exploited by the right-wing opposition who also put up a candidate—I said that this Act was currently being investigated by the President’s Council. I am in favour of opening those beaches, for specific reasons. The NP’s caucus will decide on that, however, and I shall have to comply with the decision taken by the NP’s caucus. My feeling, however, is that we should open those beaches.

Well done!

Mr Chairman, the area of that piece of land is approximately 65 morgen. During the late thirties the then Government decided to expand Table Bay Harbour. They began dredging and gradually pushed the sea back. In that way they reclaimed a large piece of land which was then drained. By the end of the forties—it was 1949, if I remember correctly—such good progress had been made with the draining process that the South African Railways took its portion—today that is the Culemborg portion—while the rest was sold to the Government.

This piece of land then became quite a topical matter. People argued and speculated about this land—so much so that one was reminded of the way the CP argued about the admission of Indians to the Orange Free State or of a Coloured man to a sports team. The people of the Cape cherished some grand ideals for the development of this particular piece of land. Various proposals were made, and this eventually led to the Government’s decision to develop what was then known as the Gateway to Africa. I just want to mention for interest’s sake that the Nico Malan State Theatre is situated on the exact spot where the Gateway to Africa was supposedly situated.

In 1950 the new NP Government passed the Cape Town Foreshore Act. The Cape Town Foreshore Board was then established. It was composed of representatives from the old Department of Lands, from the Cape Town City Council, from the SA Railways and Harbours—I just want to tell the hon the Minister, whom I see here too, that apparently there was nothing in which the Railways did not have a share—and the Provincial Administration. Perhaps they should have named this board “The Foreshore Board” (Die Raad op die Voorstrand), because in reality there is no beach; there is only a piece of land without any swimming facilities.

The task of the council was the orderly planning of the foreshore and the development of this ambitious project. The board had to create the infrastructure. As time passed they got as far as selling plots, and the proceeds were used to pay for the further development of the project.

Once again a great dispute arose. It received a lot of publicity and even the columns of Die Burger, which is a highly esteemed newspaper, were full of the project the board had launched.

Various committees were also appointed at that stage—a committee was probably also appointed to investigate whether a committee should be appointed, as is the case today. Publications were even made available about that project. Nevertheless, the sale of the plots continued and the money was ploughed back into the development of the project. Very little public money was involved since the Government was involved in a more indirect way. The entire project was a great team effort and by 1978 the task of the board had been completed.

We have now reached the stage at which we can give this land back to the Cape Town City Council for it to be administered as an ordinary portion of the old mother city. I am glad we can repeal this Act. It is with great confidence that we return this land to the local authority, the Cape Town City Council. I should like to support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to become involved in the domestic squabble between the CP and the NP. I must say it always amazes me how easy it is for the CP to get ammunition from the NP. Today’s debate since lunchtime has given the CP quite enough ammunition to use. For its part, the NP will say it is just gossip. The story that Paul Kruger was a Coloured and the one about CP supporters who are “stinkafrikanertjies” are just so much ammunition. In my opinion, it is stupid of a party to hand out this kind of ammunition to opponents. Yet they keep on complaining about gossip instead of concentrating on the debate itself. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? Does the hon member know that there is a beautiful little flower which we are very fond of called the “stinkafrikanertjie”? I was talking about flowers.

What connotation did you attach to it?

With your warped way of thinking, you will always attach connotations to the word “stink”!

Order! The hon member for Durban Central may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the two speakers who have dealt with the Bill explained its background and history. I do not want to repeat that and I merely want to indicate that this party supports the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members for their contribution to this debate and their support for this legislation on the Cape Town foreshore.

I should just like to tell the hon member for Brakpan that the memorandum admittedly contains no mention of the fact that the Administrator now has the powers, but it was mentioned in the Second Reading speech that the Administrator is in fact empowered to act in this regard.

I should like to thank the hon member for Newton Park for his support and also for the words of thanks he addressed to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs. The hon member gave us a very interesting account of the fascinating history of Mossel Bay. This testified to the fact that he had gone to a great deal of trouble in that regard. I should also like to thank him for presenting this account to the House in such an absorbing manner.

I should then like to thank the hon member for Durban Central for his support for the Bill under discussion. I would prefer not to comment on the hon member’s two previous comments about political ammunition. I shall simply let the matter rest. I have said my piece, Sir.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.