Mr. Chairman, basically this clause provides for the secondment of persons in the employ of an authority of a non-White territory to the Public Service of the Republic and for the transfer of officials and employees from the Public Service of the Republic to the Public Service of a non-White authority as defined in clause 1 of this Bill.

The secondment of non-Whites from a non-White Territorial Authority to the Public Service of the Republic does not appear to be a necessary provision having regard to the Public Service Commission Act as it stands. One must bear in mind that the Bantu employed by a Territorial Authority, such as the Transkei, are South African citizens. In terms of section 11 of the Public Service Act a person may be appointed to the Public Service permanently on condition, inter alia, that he is a South African citizen. In other words, the law as it stands now, does not make it impossible for the Public Service of the Republic to employ a Bantu.

The second aspect of this clause is the transfer of a non-White officer or employee from the Public Service to the Public Service of a Territorial Authority. In this connection I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to section 13 of the Act which contains one of the cardinal protections of any person, White or non-White, who is employed in the Public Service of South Africa and under the control of the Public Service Commission. This section provides that whereas the commission has the power to transfer an official or employee from one branch of the Service to another, that can be done only with the full protection of his status, salary and his other conditions of employment. It is true that this clause makes no provision for a transfer, although it refers to it as such. In fact, it makes provision for a secondment. In other words, the Xhosa teacher being employed by the Department of Bantu Education and teaching in a school, say, at Langa, can by means of a book entry be transferred to the Public Service of the Transkei and taken back on secondment to the Public Service of the Republic. Secondment of a person employed in the Public Service means that that person is going to be subjected to the rules and regulations of another body, a body over which the Public Service Commission has no control. The question of secondment is dealt with in section 13 (6) of the principal Act. The cardinal point of that subsection is that secondment can only take place with the consent of the official concerned. I want to repeat that that is there because it is basic to the Public Service and to the stability of the Public Service of this country that employees in that Public Service shall be protected as to their rights, their promotion and their privileges except in cases of wrongdoing or inefficiency, when certain penal provisions can be applied. It is for that reason that I believe that this clause would open up possibilities for potential injustice to 42 per cent of the Public Service controlled by the Public Service Commission if this power be granted to transfer without the consent of the official or employee concerned. Whilst one accepts that a transfer can take place and that it is desirable, for the very reasons which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education gave, to give opportunities for advancement, I submit that as this Bill does not protect the rights in regard to the salary grading and other rights of that person on transfer to the Territorial Authority, he should only be asked to take that transfer with his consent. For those reasons I move the amendment standing in my name—

While not agreeing with the arguments of the hon. member for Green Point in respect of several of the matters he raised on Friday and which he again raised today, I am quite prepared for other reasons to accept his amendment. I gave my reasons on Friday when this House was given the assurance, and I still have the assurance, that the Public Service Commission will, by virtue of its record and by virtue of its approach to these matters, give all the protection which is necessary to the people who are transferred to the Bantu Authorities. This has happened in the past. We have had no reason whatsoever to think that the Public Service Commission will bring about a situation which can be regarded as inhuman or unfair as far as the transfers are concerned, I want to reiterate that in view of the standing of this Commission, and its very responsible approach, we can accept, in terms of the Bill before the House, that this will in fact happen. But to ensure that the hon. member and other hon. members opposite will be satisfied, I am quite prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member, in saying that, I want to repeat that I think much of what the hon. member has said and the case on which his approach was built in the Second Reading, was an unfair one. I think it was unfair because the transfer of Bantu to the various Bantu Authorities in the various areas will indeed be a rather slow process. It cannot happen overnight. It was only in 1963 that the Transkei found itself in the position where it was given virtual control of a large number of Bantu who worked as employees in the Transkei. And in view of what happened in the Transkei we have every reason to believe that the Bantu authorities can control the situation quite well. There is no reason to fear what the hon. member and the hon. member for Transkei seems to fear, when they said that we have no assurance that the same conditions would prevail in the Civil Service of those Bantu areas and under those authorities, as prevail in the White areas where it is controlled by the Public Service Commission. Sir, I do not want to reiterate all the other points, but I trust that the hon. member, since I have accepted his amendment, will in turn accept the assurance given by this side of the House that we shall see to it that this measure is administered in a fair way.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for accepting the amendment which I moved, but I want to clear up one or two matters which he raised. The first is that in moving this amendment there was no intention on our part of casting any reflection on the Public Service Commission and its just handling o£ this situation. After all. Sir, this Government itself tied the hands of the Public Service Commission in the 1957 Act in so far as this question of consent is concerned. It was not suggested then that it was disrespectful to the Public Service Commission to insert that clause. This amendment does remove the element of compulsion which we found unacceptable. The other aspect which does arise, is this: I take it that we can accept that where a non-White official is transferred from our Public Service, with his consent, after having been trained in our Public Service, the purpose of that transfer will be to enable him to advance in the service of his own community in the territorial authority concerned. Similarly where a non-White official is seconded to our Public Service, he will be seconded here for the purpose of receiving his training, and that in due course he will be transferred back so that he can serve his own community in his own territorial authority area. My reason for raising this with the hon. the Minister is this: If these provisions are utilized in the restricted form that I have now suggested—and I accept the hon. the Minister’s statement that that is what is intended—we will still have to make provision in our own Public Service for the employment of a vast number of non-Whites who will be required to serve the urban non-White population in the years ahead. As the hon. the Minister knows, 42 per cent of the employees controlled by the Public Service Commission at the present time are non-Whites. I thank the hon. the Minister for accepting that amendment. It does remove the main objection that we had to this particular clause.

In the time at my disposal I should like to say a few words about the relationship between the Republic of South Africa and the emancipated Black states in Africa. Today the old saying that there is always something new out of Africa, is also applicable to the present circumstances. Today in Africa a pattern of inter-state relations between peoples is developing in front of our eyes, and the ultimate polarization of these relations will be of primary importance to the Republic of South Africa, Power politics, which was the means of colony building in the past, has once again made its appearance in Africa in an amended form and with a different object. The politically emancipated states in Africa which have come into existence during the past decade or more are in a melting-pot today. Gradually, according to the slow pattern on which foreign political and economic policy structures are shaped and developed, they will be led, by internal political and economic considerations, to determining their relations between peoples under the influence of the three major power structures which are developing in Africa.

The first power structure is Communism, which is openly offering its philosophy of life as an export article in Africa. Moreover, it is offering it on credit. Examples of this may be seen in Eastern Europe. The second power structure is certain Western powers which, with a variety of motives, are offering financial aid for development. Between 1967 and 1969 1 354 million American dollars were poured into Africa. The third power structure here in Africa is centralized with its nucleus in Southern Africa, where an economic, scientific and spiritual power structure is developing at present, which must eventually exercise far-reaching and determining influence on Black Africa’s national relationships policy.

The Republic of South Africa, together with the neighbouring states, constitute this economic power structure. Behind this power structure a momentum is to be observed which is astonishing, measured by standards we may uncover in history, This unfolding of an economic, scientific and spiritual power structure in Southern Africa is creating a new evaluation of national freedom and national relations in Africa. Black Africa will not be able to escape from this radiation from the South.

The Republic of South Africa did not, after a long period of colonial domination and influencing, see and accept its freedom as an ultimate object. The policy of political emancipation in which the Republic of South Africa is engaged at present in respect of White-Bantu relations, is not a cul-de-sac either. The reality of freedom in which the Republic of South Africa finds itself, is supported by economic, scientific and spiritual productivity, achievements and preparedness. No gift of money has been made to the Republic. The Republic need not butter up the various power political empires. The Republic need not run with the hare and hunt with the hounds or indulge in double-talk or try to derive benefit from a cat and mouse political game. It is the economic and the spiritual strength of the Republic and its neighbouring states which makes of this freedom of the Republic of South Africa a non-aligned freedom.

Economic dependency or economic inability or labour unproductivity or scientific or technological stagnation, coupled with a rapid increase in the population, is historical and, according to all contemporary considerations, irreconcilable to real freedom. The economic, scientific and spiritual power structure which is developing here in South Africa is not of an imperialistic nature either. We cannot be that, because the Republic of South Africa is in Africa and we are of Africa. This constellation of states in Southern Africa does not lay down any ideologies for Africa. We offer no agitators or a propaganda machine which will follow in the wake of our offer of co-operation. We are not engaged in power politics backed by military power or threats. We are not offering smart, trained diplomats to Black Africa. We are offering assistance for the development of those supports which will let Africa enjoy the full meaning of political freedom. South Africa and its neighbouring states appreciate Africa’s need for calm, productive labour and development of its vast physical and human resources.

I want to conclude by saying that at some time or other Black Africa will have to choose amongst the power constellations which are developing here in Africa. The Southland’s power structure has not and will not allow itself to be led to dominating others or to dictating. However, we shall not have others abdicate either. In future it will never be possible for Black Africa to fail to see the Southern Star. Let those who want to come to talk to us, do so. They are welcome.

Mr. Chairman, here are quite a number of questions we should have liked to put to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but unfortunately the time for this debate has almost expired. We shall perhaps seek an opportunity later in the Session to put these questions to him.

There are only two points which I should like to raise here briefly. The one is the question of South-West. On Friday the hon. the Minister raised the question of South-West pursuant to a speech I had made during the by-election in Windhoek East. There will be no time for me to repeat here the arguments which I put forward there. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I do not know of any standpoint I adopted there which I have to correct. I just want to mention one point. What I found rather astonishing was that the hon. the Minister tried to get away from that. The Government made an offer to the court in The Hague that it was prepared to hold a plebiscite in the Territory in which the entire population of South-West could choose whether they wanted to be governed by the Republic or by the U.N. Surely it goes without saying that, if people are asked to choose between two parties, in this case between the Republic and the U.N., the two parties must then be afforded the opportunity of submitting their plans for the future of the Territory to those voters. Otherwise there cannot be any question of an impartial vote which anyone would accept as the considered decision of the inhabitants of the Territory.

I must say that I cannot for one moment think that the Government intended that only one side—in this case it would be our side—would have had the exclusive right to inform the inhabitants during such a plebiscite, I do not think the court in The Hague would have allowed this if it had accepted the Government’s proposal of a plebiscite. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me in this regard.

Therefore I think, to mention only one example, that I was quite justified in mentioning jt as a fact in Windhoek, in reply to certain assertions in the election manifesto of the Government candidate, that the Government’s plebiscite proposal would, if the court in The Hague had accepted it, have involved the U.N. directly in South-West. I want to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he and the Government should be frank with the people in South-West rather than to beat about the bush concerning the implications of any proposal put forward by them in respect of South-West. I know the people of South-West. They are sufficiently experienced to deal with problems.

While I am on the question of South-West, I should like to draw the attention of the Government to something else. The court in The Hague will, perhaps only in a few weeks time, but perhaps any day from now onwards, give us its decision on the South-West case which has just been before it. I do not want to start any speculation about what the possible result may be; it goes without saying that all of us here hope that the result will be favourable or, at least, not too unfavourable. However, we know that this decision, even if it is only an advisory opinion, may lead to our country being placed in a very serious position. Up to now the Government has dealt with the whole question of South-West Africa quite on its own and unilaterally and has completely excluded the Opposition, or rather, Parliament. The Government had the right to do this and I do not dispute that right at all, although we have always doubted whether it was wise of the Government to deal with such an important matter in that way. We believe the Government has allowed itself to be led far too much by local party-political considerations in dealing with the matter of South-West. In the process it has taken steps which have helped nothing to bring the South-West question nearer to a solution. I think that, for example, it was a great mistake to weaken the local government of South-West. Be that as it may, it is not something we can discuss in the few minutes that are left. We have always believed that the question of South-West is of such overriding importance to South Africa, that the matter affects us so very deeply, that the government of the day ought to seek parliamentary unanimity before taking any drastic steps in respect of the Territory. I am not going to suggest today that the Government should establish an advisory committee on South-West, a committee which would be representative of both sides in Parliament; the power resides in the Government and the choice will be its choice. It may act in that way if it wants to, or it may act unilaterally as it has done up to now. All I still want to tell the Government, through the hon. the Minister, is that we on this side of the House have always been prepared in the past and will again be prepared to consult about such an important matter as South-West. However, the choice must be the Government’s. If it chooses not to do so, it is its right and then we are satisfied with that as well. In actual fact something like that only ties the hands of the Opposition. I want to tell the hon. the Minister frankly: We on this side of the House have our views as to what is in the best interests of South Africa. When the Government acts in a way which does not harm the interests of the country, we usually do not stand in its way. However, the Government must understand that we are not prepared, and now I am talking specifically about the possible decision there may be in respect of the South-West case, to be dragged along behind the Government in everything it chooses to do in respect of the affairs of South-West. If it takes steps which involve South Africa in serious difficulties, and does so without consulting this side of the House and Parliament as a whole, and we do not agree with these steps, we shall not hesitate to criticize the Government openly, crisis or no crisis. [Interjections,] I have already stated that the choice is up to the Government, but if it does not want to deal with this on a parliamentary basis, we shall be at liberty, completely at liberty, to make a political matter out of any steps taken by the Government, to criticize them, and if necessary to go to the people with it. [Interjections.] What are hon. members making a fuss about? I have been so kind as to give them the choice of consulting.

Then why are you making threats? You may do so if you wish.

We are not making threats, but we are at least entitled to notify the Government of our attitude.

Then I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we think the time is approaching that we should once again have a thorough debate in this House on the future of South-West and a solution of the South-West question; that is to say, if Parliament is not going to be forced to do so even before the end of this Session. We feel that, for our part, we want to bring this to the attention of the Government timeously.

Before concluding, I should like to mention one other matter. We have at last got round to establishing consular relations with Lesotho.

No, we are still discussing it.

I am grateful for the correction by the hon. the Minister, but we have gained the impression that we have already reached that stage with Lesotho. If we do get as far as that, it will be a very good step, but what worries me a little is our relations with Botswana. I cannot help remembering that shortly after Pres. Kaunda became the leader of Zambia—I think it was roundabout 1964—he offered to enter into diplomatic relations with South Africa. He couched the offer in rather strong language at the time, but his language was not stronger than the language now being used by the members of the dialogue group in respect of apartheid. The Government thought fit not to accept his offer at the time, and we all know what happened after that and how difficult it subsequently became to get Zambia within the Southern African circle again. Shortly after Pres. Khama became president, Botswana made a similar offer. Again nothing was forthcoming from our side. The impression one gains today, is that he is also gradually moving outside the Southern circle and seeking closer liaison with Zambia. I should like to point out that the matter of Botswana is of particular importance because of its border position. I want to conclude by just inquiring what the chances are that the Government will, in respect of Botswana, consider taking the same steps as in the case of Lesotho. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the plebiscite proposed to the World Court by the Government has already been discussed in this House by the hon. the Minister. Consequently I do not want to enlarge upon it, except to say that one would have thought the position would be clear by this time. The proposal was for a plebiscite to be held to ascertain the wishes of the people of South-West Africa in respect of the question whether they want to continue being led along the road to self-determination by the Republic of South Africa, or whether they want to be administered by the U.N. This question concerns a matter of principle. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is now arguing in exactly the same way as U Thant and his associates did. After all, one does not ask a question on a matter of principle and then anticipate procedures. When our opponents tried to play tricks of that nature we told them first to accept the proposal in principle before talking about procedures. The South African Government was at no stage opposed to any particular procedures, as long as it would be a system able to ascertain the wishes of the people objectively, fairly and efficiently. The U.N. had absolutely nothing to do with the implementation of the proposal. The U.N. is a party to the dispute, and how can it now be said that the U.N. should have had a say in the implementation of it? This proposal was made in the Court as a way in which proof could be furnished of the feelings of the people in South-West Africa. If one pages through the thousands of pages of U.N. records in which the policy of this Government is denounced as one of the most oppressive that has ever existed on earth and as one that forces people to revolt against it by means of terrorism, people who are only waiting for the moment of liberation, then surely it must be expected that they will eagerly seize upon such an opportunity of getting rid of this terrible Government merely by making a cross on a piece of paper. This is the first point.

The second point is the allegation made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that the people of South-West Africa do not know where they stand. This is a new argument. On 26th September, 1969, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote a letter of 300 pages to U Thant, the longest love letter he has ever received. This letter sets out categorically and fully, page by page, this Government’s policy, the progress made in South-West Africa in every sphere of life, and our legal standpoints in connection with South-West Africa. At the end of the letter the following is stated—

That is the unequivocal answer of the South African Government. It has repeatedly been presented in the U.N., in committees of the U.N., in communications by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and in the World Court.

I do not want to dwell on this any further. In the short time at my disposal I just want to say something about Mr. Ramsay Clarke, the former Attorney-General of the United States of America, who was here recently. He expressed himself on various matters in this country and he tried to dictate all kinds of recipes to us which even in America have not yet finally succeeded. I felt that this might be a suitable occasion for replying to that. Although he is no longer here, his friends, Nusas, will probably forward the reply to him. What I want to say in this connection, is that I do not want to present the American scene here as something ugly, wrong or oppressive and in the spirit of “you oppress, so we can oppress as well”—I do not want to do that at all. My point of departure is that the U.S.A. has totally different circumstances of life. They have a totally different set of facts. They have a small group of people of a different colour, the Negroes, who have been living with them for centuries, speak the same language and do not even know where their specific countries of origin in Africa are, because they were taken to America as slaves. One would have expected that it would have been possible for these people, who constitute only 10 per cent of the total American population, to have been readily integrated by America. It is in respect of them that that policy has not yet been implemented successfully. I am not saying that they are wrong in their policy. For them in their circumstances it may be the right policy. But I just want to read what was recently written by an authority on the situation. He is Dr. Richard Newman, a member of the academic staff of the Department of Human Relations of the University of Boston. That is the university in the East of the U.S.A., the so-called “Eastern Seaboard”, where people such as the Kennedys had strong support. With reference to the Black Power Movement, about which the member for Houghton frequently has much to say as well, he writes—

It is the country of Mr. Ramsay Clarke which is referred to here—

In the light of this I should like to tell Mr. Ramsay Clarke that a little more humility, a little more insight into the problems of other countries would do him absolutely no harm, particularly not when he comes to this country. This gimmick of American politicians to think that they must go to Africa, Israel, Italy and heaven knows what other countries for election considerations in the U.S.A. does not impress us at all— it does not impress us, nor does it impress the African leaders, who are slowly getting to know us better and getting to understand our true motives better.

I may also remind Mr. Ramsay Clarke of something else. We administer South-West Africa in such a way as to promote the welfare of its inhabitants. The U.S.A. also has a trusteeship area, by the name of Micronesia, which they also had to administer so as to promote the welfare of the inhabitants. Does he know what was said about the administration by the U.S.A. by the very U.N. committee that took the lead in the so-called termination of our administration of South-West, a step that was eagerly supported by people like Mr. Ramsay Clarke? A petitioner who appeared before the Trusteeship Council of the U.N. said the following about Micronesia, which has only 80 000 people, a mere handful, to be administered—

This is what is alleged. What were the conclusions of U.N. committees? It is explicitly stated in the records that the U.S.A. had not even fulfilled its trusteeship duties in the economic sphere. By way of explanation the ambassador of the U.S.A. made, inter alia, the following submission in regard to disparities in the wage structure—

But when we try to do the same in this country it is regarded as abhorrent. Then action has to be taken against us. I should like to tell Nusas and Mr. Ramsay Clarke that we are diligently and sincerely trying to find a solution to our problems in the light and on the basis of facts that exist here. We believe that they are trying to do the same in the U.S.A. We should like to see them find a solution to their problem on the basis of their methods and their circumstances, All we ask of them is this: Allow us to find our solution on the basis of our methods and our facts and our circumstances here,

I want to start with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, although I do not want to speak about the plebiscite again, especially since the findings of the court in this connection have been made known. The hon. member said we were inclined to beat about the bush concerning the implications of our actions in connection with South-West Africa and that he knew the people of South-West Africa. Well, we also know those people and up to now we have always received nothing but appreciation from them. Of course, we also realize the importance of the opinion of the court, which is expected shortly. We realize its implications. I have taken cognizance of what the hon. member said on behalf of his party about the offer of consultation. This is a matter for the Prime Minister and for the Government, of course, but I must also tell him that we have taken cognizance of what, he will admit, amounts to a veiled threat, namely the promise to criticize us if they do not agree with us.

It is not a threat.

It is his democratic right, of course, which they have exercised in the past in other spheres as well. We take cognisance of it.

As regards the relations with Botswana, I think the hon. member may safely leave these matters in the hands of the Government. I shall certainly not discuss this matter now, because it is one which also involves another sovereign state and it would be wrong of me to express myself on it unilaterally here. The matter is in the hands of the Government and you may safely leave it there.

I want to refer briefly to a report which appeared in Saturday’s Argus under the headline: “Criticism! Human failure blamed.” I made the statement last week that our policy of separate development was sometimes blamed as a result of the way in which it was applied by individuals. In this connection I spoke of errors of judgment, discretion that is exercized wrongly and discourtesy on the part of South Africans. I thought I had expressed myself very clearly in this connection, but now I read the following in Saturday’s Argus, and I should like to rectify it:

That is not what I said or meant, of course. We all know that our officials are conscientious and I am thinking in the first place of the officials in the homelands who have to implement our policy of separate development there. These people are known for that, and almost invariably they impress foreign visitors who meet them with their devotion, their diligence and their competence. Consequently I certainly did not have those or other officials in mind. I can mention examples of excellent conduct on the part of officials charged with the implementation of our policy. I am thinking, for instance, of the very tactful conduct of officials at our airports and at our customs posts. I am thinking of the tact and the patience displayed by our police, often under difficult circumstances and great provocation. Hon. members will agree with me that it was not our officials whom I had in mind, but I was thinking of the conduct of all South Africans, including myself, irrespective of the political party to which such a South African belongs, I was even thinking of Progressives. I was even thinking of the wife of the liberal in Johannesburg who had an interview with Allen Drury, the author of “A Very Strange Society”. I want to read to you, Sir, what he said in this connection on page 426 of this book—

This is the kind of conduct in regard to our non-Whites that I had in mind when I spoke here as a South African and in the interests of South Africa. That the appeal I made was not universally misinterpreted appears from an excellent editorial which appeared in Die Burger this morning and which I hope all hon. members and other South Africans will read. It is not written in a party-political vein; it is written in the interests of South Africa and in the spirit in which I spoke Last Friday, as appears from the following sentence that I want to quote from it (translation)—

I take it that applies to the Government as well.

I quote further—

I leave it at that.

The hon. member for Pietersburg pleaded, inter alia, that we should emphasize points of agreement, common aspirations, common interests, in the case of the United States of America. Both the Government and I fully endorse that attitude which he pleaded for, and I have said before in this House that this is also my endeavour as Minister of Foreign Affairs. The so-called controversial aspects of our relations with the U S A. in most cases do not concern really important matters. In practice these aspects concern, for example, visas and residence permits, and I have already mentioned in this House that I discussed them frankly with the American Ambassador quite recently, and I hope and trust that he now has a better understanding of our position and our motivation. There are, of course, matters of principle on which we differ very strongly with the United States of America, but that need not cloud our relations, for there are many important matters, many important objectives, which we share with that important country. There is therefore no reason why there cannot be a fruitful exchange of view’s between South Africa and the United States; there is no reason why there cannot be fruitful co-operation in matters of common interest. This is the way that we in the Government see our relations with America, and this is what is already being aimed at and done in practice.

The hon. member for Von Brandis had reservations about the disclosures concerning President Kaunda of Zambia. I want to say that when decisions are taken about the course of action to be followed in connection with such a delicate matter as this, such a finely balanced matter, it would be very unwise to discuss in public the considerations of the Government and of the Prime Minister in this connection. I also want to emphasize, as the hon. the Prime Minister has already done, that he left the door wide open for further contact with Zambia. Hon. members who are not so clear on that any more will do well to read up Hansard in this connection.

The hon. member for Von Brandis also referred to what happened in the time of Dr. Verwoerd in the case of the former Prime Minister of Nigeria, Sir Abubakar Balewa. However, he did not quite present the matters in its full context. For instance, he made no mention of what had occurred between Dr. Verwoerd and Sir Abubakar Balewa, the dialogue that took place between them. Neither did he give the full motivation of Dr. Verwoerd’s refusal to allow him to come here. Hon. members might still remember that matters were not conducted through diplomatic channels at the time, but that a public announcement was made.

The hon. member for Vasco referred to the establishment of a development hank for Central and Southern Africa, in which my good friend, Dr. Anton Rupert, was also concerned. I must say that I am not yet fully informed concerning the organization that is envisaged here. In general, however, I may say that we welcome interest in our relations with African countries. We welcome attempts to establish closer relations with them and to co-operate with them. However, I am unable as yet to express myself fully on this particular step.

+ As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I do not think she expects me to react to her speech. All I have to say to her is that I do not share her pessimistic views of a dialogue between South Africa and African leaders. Her pessimism may be the result of her experience during her visit to Zambia. I do not know. My own experience, however, based on discussions I have already had with several African leaders, makes me feel justified to be more optimistic than that hon. member.

I hope you are right.

The hon. member for Springs has apologized for not being able to be here today. He pleaded that we should consider making use of the surplus labour in Mauritius, especially in view of the shortage of labour in our own country. Mauritius is just a small country, of course, about 25 miles by 30 miles in extent, with approximately 800 000 inhabitants. The hon. member's idea is that raw materials from the Republic should be used for industries in Mauritius. This is actually a matter for the private sector, but the Government is also paying attention to it. In fact, it is something that is welcomed by Mauritius, as the Mauritian Minister of Foreign Affairs explained to me only last week.

I do not think it is necessary for me to respond to the speeches of all the members who took part in this debate. On this occasion I missed the contribution usually made here by the hon. member for Brentwood. But we are thinking of him and his wife in hospital and we wish them a speedy and complete recovery, furthermore, I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for the constructive contributions made by them, contributions that testify to study and serious reflection on our foreign relations. It will be worth while following up many of the things that have been said here.

There was only one discordant note in this debate, something which left a bad taste in the mouth. The hon. member who was responsible for it has apologized for not being able to be here this afternoon. I am referring to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He expressed himself vehemently on the action taken by the Prime Minister in respect of President Kaunda. I had gained the impression, although I might have been wrong, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by implication endorsed the action taken by the Prime Minister. In any case, he did not condemn it. I may say that many others in the world, including Africa, did not condemn it either. Whether or not the hon. member agrees with the action taken by the Prime Minister, I do not want to Quarrel with him about it. He is a young member and therefore I do not want to pursue the matter any further either. I wish to try giving him some advice rather than condemn him. I think it will take him many years in this House to remove the bad taste which he left through this ill-considered action on his part. The hon. member must realize that unless a member, no matter on which side of the House he is, can command and enjoy the esteem and the respect of his colleagues on both sides of the Home, he may as well pack his bags and go home. That is all I have to say for the moment.

Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half-hour? The discussion we are about to have on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Labour is now becoming more important than ever, because the problems affecting South Africa in the field of labour are becoming severe, and are having repercussions in every sphere of our life in this country. The hon. the Minister competently controls one of the four factors of production in South Africa. It is, however, not only his economic responsibility that one has to consider. We also have to consider the fact that, as Minister of Labour, he is responsible for the welfare and the happiness of the majority of the people of South Africa. It is with that in mind that I want to ask the Minister to consider with us some of the problems he has to face and to take the country into his confidence regarding his plans and hopes to cope with these problems.

We face a strange problem in South Africa. We have a growing and acute shortage of skilled and semi-skilled workers. We have also a comparatively new phenomenon, and that is that we are experiencing a shortage of unskilled workers, mainly non-Whites. While we are experiencing these shortages, we have the very strange phenomenon of growing unemployment among the Black people of South Africa. The Minister of Planning recently spoke at the Beattie Hall at the University of Cape Town during a symposium on labour, and mentioned that there were something like 97 000 unemployed people in the homelands or the reserves. Dr. Hupkes, the general manager of Federale Beleggings, has indicated that he believes, according to calculations that have been made, that there are something like 150 000 Black people unemployed in South Africa, Prof. Sadie of Stellenbosch, speaking at the same symposium as the Minister of Planning, indicated that there were about 1½ million Black people in this country who were either unemployed or else employed below their capacity and not earning enough to maintain themselves or their families at a decent standard of living. This is the strange distortion in the South African labour situation with which we have to deal. I have much to say in this regard but, knowing full well that there may be a tendency amongst hon. members on the other side to think that the approach of this side of the House is clouded and influenced by out political differences with the hon. the Minister, I should like at the outset to quote an authority whose impartiality and whose academic approach to this problem cannot be faulted. He is the head of the Bureau for Economic Research at the University of Stellenbosch whose findings and comments we all regard as authoritative. I refer to Mr. A, J. M. de Vries. Addressing the South African Institute of Management towards the end of March, 1971, he said—

It is not a natural shortage; it is not a truly economic shortage, but a shortage induced by the actions, the proclamations, the laws and the administration of this Government. Mr. De Vries went on to say—

Then he said—

The article further reads—

That is the gist of the problem which I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister owes it to the country to show that he has a solution to this problem. We can look upon the labour situation in this country as we like. We can talk of separate development. We can believe sincerely, as many hon. members opposite do, in the policy of separate development. But the one cardinal fact that we cannot deny or escape is the fact that the races in South Africa are inter-dependent upon each other. We cannot escape the fact that if we want to apply any policy towards the solution of our race problems in South Africa, including the policy of separate development, we need the money to carry such a policy out. For a long long time, no matter how the policy of separate development may progress—and I doubt whether it will ever progress sufficiently—we will need the money that comes from the existing industrial areas of South Africa to do what is right and necessary in seeking a solution for our race problems.

Under this Government, in spite of separate development, the inter-dependence is growing. Figures that were recently published in, I think, the Sunday Times, gained from official sources, showed that in I960, in all sectors of our economy, excluding agriculture, we had 987 000 White workers and 2 561 000 non-White workers. One can exclude agriculture because if agriculture were included, the picture would have been more startling then ever. However, by 1970, in one decade, the number of White workers had increased to 1 283 000 whereas the number of non-White workers had increased to 3 733 000 workers. The White workers had in ten years increased by 296 000 workers, but the non-White workers, during the same period, had increased by 1 172 000 workers. The non-White workers were increasing four times as fast as the White workers in spite of the policy of separate development. Note that these figures exclude, apart from agriculture, the Post Office, the Police, the Civil Service and the South African Railways. My hon. friend, the Minister of Transport, will confirm that there is an inter-dependence between White and non-White workers to make our great public transport organization continue to do its work and to flourish.

According to the experts the shortage of White labour in South Africa will increase even if we maintain immigration at the rate of 30 000 per year. We find that because there are not enough White workers in South Africa, the labour position is becoming warped. It is becoming warped, because unless there is an increasing number of White workers under the present laws doing the administrative, executive, skilled and the more highly semi-skilled jobs, we cannot continue to create the number of jobs necessary in South Africa to employ all the people of South Africa, including the non-Whites.

The extent of the shortage of labour is quite startling. We find that industry and commerce have between them a shortage of 100 000 workers. What do we find in the motor maintenance industry? South Africa has 2½ million vehicles, but only 30 000 journeymen to keep those vehicles on the road. In a highly developed country, which has the largest motoring population in the world, the United States of America, there is one journeyman, one trained mechanic, for every 50 cars on the road. In South Africa we have one mechanic for more than every 80 cars on the road. Every one of us in this House can testify to the fact that it is becoming more difficult, more uncertain and more risky to maintain a car in proper order. We are told that some motor dealers—not many of them—are charging the public rates based upon the wages paid to qualified journeymen, when in fact many of these jobs have to be done by people who are not paid as qualified workmen, although they do the work of Qualified workers. One of the tragedies of South African life today is that in the labour field the laws of South Africa are being openly flouted and the Government is powerless to enforce them.

Who are the people who suffer? It is the public; they have to be satisfied with this type of practice. We know that they need 4 000 apprentices in the motoring industry and we know that only about 1 500 are available. In December, 1970, SEIFSA made a survey of its own requirements, namely the requirements of the steel industry. They found last year that they were 27 000 workers short out of a work force of 350 000. They calculated that the shortage would be 52 400 by next year. I have already mentioned that industry and commerce are running short of 100000 workers. This situation, a shortage of labour which is certainly artificial in the case of the unskilled worker because it is a legislative shortage, a Government-caused shortage, is leading to grave distortions in South Africa's life.

It is the major cause of inflation. We have heard from some of the Ministers— this includes the Minister of Finance—that it is exaggerated to say that the major cause for our inflation in South Africa is the shortage of labour. There we simply have to agree to differ. Every economic authority, every leader of business, and every economist in South Africa is on the side of the Opposition when we warn the Government that the major cause of inflation in South Africa is the labour shortage. Not only does the shortage of labour mean that prices are rising, but also that the various laws of South Africa which are made to restrict the use of the labour available in South Africa are causing uncertainty amongst the entrepreneurs of South Africa. It is already leading to a decrease in capital investment in secondary industry. Because this situation causes inflation, the Government believes it has to do something to combat inflation. It tries to combat inflation by limiting consumption rather than by trying to increase production. We find that the measures taken by the Government are to a large extent calculated to cause a further spate of inflation in South Africa. Over the last year or so, with the various budgetary measures of the Minister of Finance and his colleagues, we have had tremendous additions to the cost of production in South Africa. For example, I find that the Railways have added another R58 million to the cost of transport, which enters into the cost of production. Communication is an important factor which one has to take in mind when one calculates one's cost of production and the Post Office has added another R50 million to the bill. Through sales tax the Minister of Finance himself has added another R47 million to the cost of things which the people use. With the tax on petrol another R13 million has been added to the cost of private and other forms of public transport. These imports which affect the cost of living in South Africa and which cause inflation directly will amount, apart from other taxes, to RI68 million a year. As a result we are already hearing from leaders in the trade union movement that the value of the wages and salaries is being eroded. They have warned the Government that another series of wage demands is becoming inevitable. As wages go up the value of the rand depreciates further and much of the increase the people receive proves to be illusory and is dissipated.

The other distortion caused by the shortage of labour is that, as a result of it, the Government is taking extraordinary steps to stop private entrepreneurs and public employers from taking into their service the labour that is available. South Africa differs from other countries which have labour shortages in that in those countries the labour shortage is real, but it is artificial in South Africa. Labour is available, but the Government refuses to allow South Africa to employ the labour that is available. As a result we are holding back our White workers; if we stop a non-White worker from doing a job which is at present being done by a White worker at a lower level, that White worker will have to stay at that low level. He cannot rise because then there will be nobody to do the job. This is what I call a waste. But even worse, by holding back people like this, we are holding back our non-White workers, especially our Black workers, from making the progress to which they are entitled. They are being held back from making the contribution to the progress and welfare of South Africa that they can make; they are being denied the rewards for that contribution to which they are entitled. This is dangerous. There is one thing on which all of us in this House agree and that is that if we want to maintain order and peace in South Africa we need continued progress for all the peoples of South Africa. A rising standard of living for all in South Africa is the finest and the nearest to a certain guarantee we can get for peaceful progress in South Africa.

But the Government, through its policies, is deliberately adopting a negative attitude and is preventing this from happening. It is against this background that I read with great interest about interviews given during the last week by two key members of our Cabinet in this regard. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs spoke at the graduation ceremony of the College for Higher Technical Education on the Witwatersrand and said some quite remarkable things. He said that we needed an urgent and bold policy to train our labour resources in South Africa. He did not use the words “a crash programme”, but he obviously meant that. I can still remember the bitter sarcasm with which the hon. the Minister greeted a suggestion which came from our Leader last year that we should have a crash programme to train the labour of South Africa. He stood up and sneered for half an hour. He spoke Afrikaans and would not even translate the term “crash programme”, because it is more sneering in his opinion to use an English term than an Afrikaans one. I can remember that so well. According to the Argus the Minister of Economic Affairs “warned today that a superhuman effort would have to be made to train South Africa’s available labour to prevent the present acute shortage of trained labour from becoming worse”. What labour? The Minister of Economic Affairs did not indicate what labour. Is it only to be White labour, or Coloured labour and Indian labour, because they are included in the definition of “employees" under the Industrial Conciliation Act, or does it include Black labour. I think the hon. the Minister owes us some explanation on that.

Then we had the delightful statement by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I can only call it delightful because I do have a sense of humour. He told us that the Government had a flexible labour policy. They can meet any situation. What does he mean by a flexible labour policy?

Made of rubber.

Is it a policy which will allow the statutory colour bar to be relaxed? Does it affect clause 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act? Does it mean that some relief will be granted to the industries of South Africa? Does it mean that the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act will not be applied as it is today in order to stifle industrial development in our existing urban areas? What does it mean? The hon. the Minister of Labour is responsible for the administration of this flexible labour policy. Perhaps he will take us into his confidence. Perhaps he will whisper to us across the floor of the House what this strange and startling statement means, because we have to remember that it is not only White labour that is scarce. As the Minister knows himself, he tried to relieve the situation of the building workers in the Transvaal by saying that they coud employ Coloured labour, but the Coloured labour was not there. We know that the authorities tell us that there is a fast developing shortage of Coloured and Indian labour. The only available labour is Black labour, Sir. Does a flexible labour policy take into account that while we have shortages of labour we have artificial bars and restraints against the use of Black labour? Does the flexibility include the use of Black people?

I want to say that we should face this problem honestly and courageously. The Government may face it honestly, but not very courageously, and the Government is certainly bluffing nobody by indulging in subterfuges to get around this problem. The Government is trying to make use of non-White labour, especially Black labour, even in skilled occupations, by a subterfuge, by bluffing the people; and that subterfuge and that bluff is the development of industries on the so-called borders of the African homelands. They tell us that if industrialists will go there they will not suffer the restrictions that the employers of non-White labour in the so-called White areas of South Africa suffer. The sky is the limit. A man can reach any qualification irrespective of colour, and he can do any work irrespective of colour.

But before I criticize that a hit, I want to bring in another authority to see whether the development of industry on the borders of the homelands, no matter how fast the Government does it, can under the policies of this Government, and with the achievements of this Government, meet and solve the labour problems of South Africa. Here I have a very interesting article in the November issue of baNtu by Prof. H J. J. Reynders of the University of Pretoria, who did a lot of excellent research for all of us in this article. He points out that if one wants, during the next 10 years, to absorb only the labour that comes on to the labour market from the homelands themselves, one would have to employ from 1970 to 1980 40 700 Black people per year, and from 1980 to 1990 53 000 Black people per year. But, if you want to absorb also the new labour coming on to the market in the White industrial areas, you will have to find jobs, from 1970 to 1980, for 88 000 Black people in the border industries and from 1980 to 1990 you will have to find jobs for 114 000 people in the border industries.

Sir, that is the need of South Africa; that is the problem that has to be solved. But what is the achievement of the Government? Prof. Reynders shows us and he goes back ten years; now you will see, Sir, how dose we are getting to giving employment to 400 000 and 800 000 people, as is necessary. He says—

The result of all that was—

The employment of 81 000 Black people was held out as a prospect but the need. Sir, is about that number a year. How can we hope to solve our labour problem and to supply the labour needs of our burgeoning economy by relying upon the subterfuge of establishing border industries in the White areas of South Africa, using Black labour from the Black areas of South Africa without restrictions? That is the first question that the hon. the Minister should answer.

The second one that he should answer is this; What is he going to do about the danger signs that indicate that even this plan will not work? Already we have great distress amongst the garment workers of South Africa because of the preposterously low wages being paid in the textile industry on the borders of the reserves. There is great distress. Sir, because in Umtata there is a homeland industry—or is it a border industry? Umtata is a White area so it must be a border industry. Although it is inside the Transkei, it is still a border industry! In Umtata there is a textile industry with none of the laws governing labour relations and wage de terminations applicable to it, and the result is that they are producing high-class clothing bought by some of the large departmental stores of South Africa for sale in our cities, being made by workers and labourers subject to no wage regulations whatsoever, no industrial agreements, no Wage Board determinations. Sir, here I have some interesting figures. In July of this year a new industrial agreement for the Transvaal garment workers will come into force, and the effect of that will be that garment workers in the Transvaal will have to compete with garment workers in the Rustenburg Beleggingskorporasie at Rustenburg—and I mention the names so that the Minister will know that I am being specific—at wages so ridiculously at variance that every textile industry in the White area of the Transvaal is being threatened by unfair competition. Sir, listen to the differences between the wages being paid in the White areas of the Transvaal and the wages being paid by Rustenburg Beleggingskorporasie: A beginner male marker, gets 58 per cent less; a qualified employee 47 per cent less; a female marker (beginner) 58,82 per cent less—next door to Johannesburg, in Rustenburg—a qualified employee 40,47 per cent less; a male machinist 61,28 per cent less as a beginner; a qualified machinist 45 per cent less; a labourer under the age of 18 years 54,55 per cent less; over the age of 18 years 64 per cent less.

But this is not because it is remote. It is not to compensate them because they have great transport costs. It is 40, 50 miles from Johannesburg. These people who are being employed at wages reasonably fixed under the enlightened industrial laws of South Africa have to compete next door against workers who are paid these ridiculously low wages. Can the Minister not see the possible conflict, the strains, the dispute which can develop there? What is he going to do about it? This is just for the sake of a subterfuge which will neither advance the policy of separate development, because it means economic integration at Rustenburg instead of Johannesburg. It certainly will not supply the labour needs of the whole economy of South Africa. Where are we going with this policy of the Minister? What will South Africa look like under this policy?

Can I put a question?

I am sorry; you can have ten minutes immediately after me. My time is very short. What will South Africa look like? We will not have a South Africa divided into White industrial areas and with border industries developing not on the actual borders of the Bantu reserves; we will have a South Africa with certain favoured White cities, like Pretoria, East London and Pinetown. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville carried on here in dramatic fashion today, as we have grown accustomed to from him. But now I must say that he said absolutely nothing new in his speech today, and made precisely the same speech he made last year. [Interjections.] hon. members can go and read it in column 3283. I took the trouble to read it. I say he repeated it. He put a lot of questions to the Minister, which were also put in a half-hour speech last year and replied to very thoroughly by the hon. the Minister. He said nothing new.

He came to light with the accusation that there was a terrible labour shortage at present, in regard to which we agree to a certain extent, hut we think it has been exaggerated. He referred to the building industry. He quoted people like Hupkes and De Vries here today, although it was Mr. Marais of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and Mr. Van Wyk of Sanlam last year. We know those old stories by now. But what does the Sunday Times say? They referred specifically to the building industry and said—

This was yesterday’s Sunday Times, and this is what one of those gentlemen said—

There you have it, Sir.

But during the Budget debate the hon. member for Yeoville also attacked us in this House on our labour policy. He then went further and accused this side of the House of having misled the voters of South Africa by having held the election last year instead of this year. We are now giving them a chance to prove this, let them go and test the misled voters at Waterberg on 23rd June. They can go and state their labour policy there. Then we can see whether the voters, the workers of South Africa, have been misled. But that they are not going to do; they are going to hide behind Mr. Jaap Marais, their ally.

However, I want to come to another matter. Time is short. I shall, as I have said, return to the hon. member, because they got hurt.

Who is your candidate at Waterberg?

That does not matter. Our candidate is there, and what is more, he will win. The hon. member knows as well as I do who it is. The Opposition tries to lay all the blame for the shortage of manpower on this Government, saying that it is a result of the policy of separate development and work reservation. Everything that happens they are trying to place squarely on the shoulders of this Government, and blame the Government for it. The hon. the Minister and we on this side of the House have repeatedly admitted that there is a manpower shortage, particularly in the engineering and manufacturing industries, but it is not so excessive as it is being made out to be.

As a result of the shortage in the above-mentioned industries a disturbing phenomenon is rearing its head in the private sector. I should like to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister. This phenomenon is occurring particularly in the Vaal Triangle, and also on the Witwatersrand. I want to refer more specifically to the area of the Vaal Triangle, because I am concerned with it and acquainted with it. This matter to which I am referring relates to enterprises which employ skilled labour in particular, such as electricians and other artisans, and then hires them out to industries, in other words, enterprises which are acting as labour brokers. Owing to the shortage of skilled labour, certain enterprises see their way clear to employing artisans and then hiring them out at a higher rate, for more than they pay those people themselves. Obviously they are making a tremendous profit from this.

As far as I know, there are no fewer than nine such enterprises in the Vaal Triangle, as well as several on the Witwatersrand. Let me explain what happens there. The average wage per hour for an artisan is plus-minus R1-35. To obtain artisans, it is obvious that the labour broker will have to pay a higher wage. Only in that way are they able to entice artisans away from industries. That is why they pay them up to R1-80 per hour and hire them out again at a rate which varies from R2-35 per hour to R3-50 per hour. That means that such a broker makes between 55 cents and R1-70 per hour profit on such a hired-out artisan. Because of the activities of these brokers the existing industrialists are unable to keep their people in their service. They are being enticed away by these brokers. This parasitic existence cannot be tolerated.

Another danger implicit in this system is that such an organization cannot offer its workers fringe benefits and there are actually many disadvantages for them in this system. Unfortunately, however, there are artisans who are interested only in the weekly wage they receive and not the fringe benefits they are losing. These brokers are not members of any agreement, and make a living solely out of their black market activities. In addition they are apparently not members of the employers’ organizations such as Seifsa, otherwise action would already have been taken against them. Their activities are of course a circumvention of the Industrial Conciliation Act because they are doing nothing to train manpower. They employ only artisans, but no apprentices. All they are doing is to prey on others and they are putting nothing back into the labour market.

What this phenomenon amounts to is an exploitation of the existing labour shortage and leads to an unnecessary increase in labour costs as well as consumer costs, and where can we find a greater stimulus to inflation than this? This causes problems in industry because the one artisan receives only R1-35 per hour while the next may earn up to R1-80. We can understand what problems this could bring in its wake. Moreover, the industry cannot under these circumstances maintain discipline. By way of summary I want to say that these labour brokers are contributing nothing useful to our industrial development, but are only out to make exorbitant profits, profits which industry and the consumer have to pay in the end. In addition to that, they are stimulating inflation and creating an unsound labour structure. That is why I am pleading with the hon. the Minister to go into this entire matter very thoroughly and to curb this phenomenon; it is very unsound for the development of South Africa.

There is another minor matter I want to refer to. Last year I made a very serious plea here to the effect that we should proclaim our Republic Day to be a statutory paid day for all workers. We know that every nation has a national day. The national day of the people of South Africa is Republic Day. However, there is a group of workers who are not enjoying the benefits of that national day. Thanks to the National Party they now have that day as a holiday every fifth year, but I want to make a serious plea in this connection, in view of the fact that we are celebrating the 10th anniversary of this Republic of ours this year. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to whether we could not in future enjoy a Republic Day every year as a specified statutory holiday in terms of the Factories Act. I do not think there should be any discrimination among the workers of South Africa. Whether a man is a factory worker, a mineworker or a shop clerk, should make no difference. I want to make a serious request to the Minister to comply with this plea of mine for the worker of South Africa.

Sir, had time allowed, I should very much have liked to have come back to the hon. member for Yeoville, but I am afraid that there is simply no time. I would have liked to have furnished him with a very thorough reply in order to explain to him what the difference is between the policy of the National Party and the policy of the United Party. However, as I have said, the opportunity is there to put this question to the test. Let us put this matter to the test in Waterberg on 23rd June. Those hon. members must not hide behind the H.N.P. They are allies these days … (Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have never before seen the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, the main speaker on labour matters on the Government side, floundering about so. He was on the defence all the time. He kicked up a little dust and then broached a local matter, which had absolutely nothing to do with the matter my hon. colleague broached. When his time was almost up, he referred again to this side of the House. We have never seen anything like it before.

I should like to return to certain arguments advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville. This labour shortage in South Africa has without doubt assumed serious proportions now. Scarcely a day passes without some authority or other in this field issuing us with serious warnings. Things cannot go on like this. We dare not delay any longer in regard to this matter. We must now face facts and act accordingly. It is becoming absolutely clear to more and more people in this country that the labour policy of the Government, if it ever was a coherent policy, has failed completely. In fact, the Government itself is now demolishing its own labour pattern. The Government has now reached the point where it has to admit candidly that it has led South Africa astray in the field of labour. If it does that, it must also have the moral courage to effect the necessary changes. If the Government is not capable of doing that, it should stand back and make way for another government which is in fact able to effect these changes.

It is clear that this Government, as a result of its short-sighted policy, has failed in three important respects. In the first place they have failed in regard to the White workers. The hon. member for Yeoville is quite right when he says that the Government only pretends that it is protecting the interests of our White workers, for in reality it is clear that the Government is undermining the long-term interests of our White workers. In terms of its own policy the Government is affording the White workers no real protection. That protection is nothing but a fiction and an illusion. Now, we want to ask a further question: To what extent is the Government preparing our White workers for the long-term adjustments which will be necessary for them in order to adapt to the modern technological age? Sir, we can put the Government’s policy to the test so easily. We can challenge this Minister, as I am now doing, to apply his labour policy of work reservation, in all its harsh reality. What will he do then? He will react as he reacted on previous occasions. In the first place he will ask: “Where must I get the Whites from to take over from these non-Whites? What must I do with the non-Whites who are going to be relieved from their posts in this way?" And when he does that, he will say that it is irresponsible to put such a matter to the Government. But it is not irresponsible to do this. This is after all an irresponsible policy presented to us by an irresponsible Government. Otherwise it would surely be impossible for him to react to it in that way. When it suits the Government, as was recently the position in the Transvaal in regard to the building groups, they jettison their entire policy, although they keep on saying that work reservation is an irrevocable cornerstone of their entire labour policy. It may be a cornerstone. But what they do not tell us, is that the house they are constructing, is built on sand. That house is falling to pieces here before our very eyes.

It is very clear what the Government is doing in terms of its present labour policy as far as the White workers are concerned. As the hon. member for Yeoville said, they are in the first place confining our White workers to certain types of work, when they are capable of doing better work and are in fact capable of earning better wages. I want to say at once that we on this side of the House will not do it in this way. We believe that our White workers are entitled to a better dispensation. We shall create opportunities for them so that hey can move upwards. What is the second thing the Government is doing with its policy? They are asking our While workers to work overtime on a basis as we have seldom seen before. Mr. Tom Murray recently pointed out that thousands and thousands of our White workers are working up to 20 hours overtime per week. And what does that mean? That means that those workers will complete a whole year’s work within six-tenths of the year, ft means that those workers complete a whole lifetime of work before they are 50 years old. We think that this is an unjustified burden which is being placed on our White workers by the Government with its policy. We will not ask them to make sacrifices of this kind.

But now we ask the Government what training they are giving and to what extent they are preparing our White workers for the adjustments which lie ahead? Recently the Government made an adjustment to its own Act. Apart from apprentices, whom we have been training for years already, I want to put this specific question to the hon. the Minister: How many of our present workers corps benefitted and to what extent, from the Act which the Government piloted through a year or more ago? Our standpoint is different. We shall introduce a purposeful training programme for all our workers in South Africa. We shall also establish a national manpower advisory council to help to bring about coordination. Recently the hon. the Minister referred very derogatively to the “crash programmes”. Now his own colleague has said precisely the same thing in Bloemfontein, however, only, as usual, to abandon it again. The difficulty is that the Government is not in earnest in regard to this matter. It is trying to play politics. It is continually trying to evade the actual problem. In this way South Africa has last 20 valuable years, years which we could barely afford to lose.

But in the second place the Government has failed in this regard because it is not improving the lot of the non-White workers. The skilled work which is at present being done by non-Whites, is being done despite the Government’s policy and not as a result of it. But this hon. Minister is after all not only Minister of White labour. He is Minister or all forms of labour. When a man like Prof. Sadie claims that there are more than a million Bantu who, although technically-speaking they are not unemployed, have an income which is so limited that they must for all practical purposes be regarded as unemployed, then we ask the hon. the Minister: What is he doing about this? Is it not his task to create avenues of employment? But his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Planning, is forcing non-Whites out of thousands and thousands of avenues of employment, while the hon. the Minister of Bantu Affairs is relieving non-Whites who already occupy posts, of those posts. What is his standpoint as Minister of Labour? What is he doing about this problem?

In the third place the Government has failed South Africa itself because it is with the short sighted approach putting a brake on our entire economic progress. Why do we have inflation today? Why is the cost of living soaring? Why do we have to pay taxes which are as high as those in any other country in the world? The replies to all these questions are the same: It is because the Government refuses to ensure the optimal utilization of our human resources in South Africa. They are aware of this. The first economic development programme which appeared in 1964 indicated clearly that its purpose was to indicate where bottlenecks would occur in our economy. Every specific programme which has appeared since 1964 has indicated the lack of skilled labour to be the principle bottleneck. Now, our charge against the Government is this: What has it done about it? We cannot go on like this. The Government has had 20 years to place our labour on a proper basis. All we have had from the Government is a house built on sand, which is falling to pieces here before our very eyes.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow makes the same speech in every debate.

What do you know about labour?

The hon. member for North Rand must please give me a chance to speak. I accept that the hon. member for Hillbrow knows a little more about labour than the hon. member for North Rand. The hon. member must just give me a chance.

The hon. member for Hillbrow repeatedly levels the accusation at this side of the House and the hon. the Minister that our labour policy has failed. But that is not so. Why is there labour peace and quiet in South Africa? I challenge the hon. member for Hillbrow to mention any other country in the world whose record can be compared with the record of this country. Why do hon. members say that the Whites are being held back as a result of our policy, while they say in that yellow booklet of theirs which they are now trying to hide away, “You want it, we have it”— and after the election “We have had it”— that they give the White workers in South Africa the guarantee that they will during the next 10 years not receive a smaller wage than they are receiving today? Any White worker who read that yellow booklet, rejected the United Party.

The third aspect of this matter to which I want to refer, is the Bantu matter. The hon. member for Yeoville, the main speaker on that side of the House, has just made a tremendous attack on border industries. That same party professes to believe in decentralization. The Bantu will be afforded every opportunity in their homelands in terms of the policy of this national Party. That is what the hon. members for Hillbrow and Yeoville are opposed to. They believe in economic integration and, ultimately, social integration.

Oh, no.

The hon. member for Turffontein is still too young to realize what these two hon. gentlemen are doing. I want to accept that the hon. member means well perhaps, but he is dealing with two men who are sly in politics. I say this quite frankly. They are sly in the sense that they associate themselves with men like Harry Oppenheimer.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “sly”.

I withdraw it. I should very much like to analyse the hon. member for Hillbrow’s speech which he makes so repeatedly in this House further, but unfortunately the time at my disposal is limited I have another very important aspect I want to deal with. I believe that the labour peace we have in South Africa has a lot to do with our labour laws. I believe our labour laws may be compared with the laws in the rest of the world in this connection. But it is not only attributable to our laws. It is important to realize that it is also attributable to the implementation and the administration of our labour laws. This is being done in an effective way by the hon. the Minister of labour and his Department. As far as I am concerned, the Industrial Reconciliation Act is one of the most important laws in this country because it affords the employer and the employee an opportunity of conducting a dialogue, because it affords the employer and the employee an opportunity of bargaining, because it affords the employer and the employee protection and because it fosters better relationships between employer and employee. Unfortunately the Industrial Conciliation Act is not applicable in the Bantu homelands in regard to the White workers. In my own constituency where tremendous mineral exploitation is taking place in the homelands—I am saying this here today—I have to deal with this problem that the White workers—and there are hundreds of White workers working as mineworkers in the homeland—do not enjoy the protection of the Industrial Conciliation Act in the homelands. I want to make a polite request to the hon. the Minister—and I have the greatest confidence in the hon. the Minister—to the effect that an attempt be made to see whether a solution cannot be found to allow these workers to fall under the Industrial Conciliation Act.

Hear, hear!

Now I want to go further and I want to make it very clear here that I support the principle of the training of Bantu in the homelands, whether in the mining industry or any other industry, 100 per cent; I support the policy of the Government as laid down, with the protective conditions in regard to the White workers in those areas. I want to make this very clear, so that there can be no stories told afterwards that I suddenly pleaded for something else. I support the Government 100 per cent in regard to the training of Bantu in their own areas, but the protective conditions established for the White workers—and everyone is aware of these conditions—are good conditions …

But you are on my side.

No, I am not on your side at all. All that I am saying is that if we could make the Industrial Conciliation Act applicable to the White mine workers in the homelands, it would set the minds of these people completely at rest; and I shall tell you why. During the past few months it has been my experience that certain politicians were sowing suspicion among these people and implying that we were selling them out. And it was not only the H.N.P. Hon. members of the United Party were doing this, and I was shocked by that. They did it in the provincial election last year. The hon. members for Yeoville and Hilibrow know that their candidate did in the provincial election. You know about one Senator who knows nothing about labour problems. You know who I am talking about, that veldskoen Senator of theirs. He went around hawking his wares and saying that the poor White miners would be deprived of their work and would be replaced. He did not even use the word “Bantu”, but used the word which the hon. the member for Point is so fond of using. But hon. members never repudiated him as a party, and that is the type of thing which makes the United Party appear ridiculous in the eyes of the mine workers. You come along and try to catch their votes, but I want to tell you that the White mine workers of South Africa reject you today for that reason. [Interjections.] They reject you as a party. My time is limited. Do not try to waste my lime with interjections. I want to state that the United Party is prepared, when it suits them, to join the H.N.P. in sowing unrest and suspicion among the workers of South Africa, and it is a dangerous game they are playing. The workers of South Africa, with their productivity and the services they have rendered to South Africa, deserve better than that. I have seen evidence of what you did in the provincial elections in my own constituency. The hon. member for Yeoville, as leader of the Transvaal, is aware of the fact that he had to get that candidate to come forward the next day with a different story, but by then the harm had already been done. The correction appeared in the Rand Daily Mail, but the poison had been spread that evening in the Agricultural Hall of Rustenburg, and who reads the Rand Daily Mail

It was rectified there and then.

Yes, Mr. Harry Schwarz had the courage to do so, but you as the Transvaal leader did not repudiate him.

I was not there.

No, but you did not repudiate him, and you are the Transvaal leader of the United Party. I want to say this, however, as far as the labour pattern is concerned. Last year, under the Mines Vote, we discussed the entire homelands matter here with a sense of responsibility. I thought that a sense of responsibility was perhaps being revealed here, but shortly afterwards, when an opportunity presented itself to exploit the situation, the United Party came along and sowed suspicion. They were the cause of innocent people moving out of that area out of fear. Those people will never forget their deeds. This party, on the other hand, looks after the interests of the White workers in South Africa. I should like to make this request to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] Sir, that hon. member is still wet behind the ears. He must first acquire a little commonsense between his ears instead of the bush of hair he is growing. Sir, I want to conclude with a request to the hon. the Minister to go into the possibility of allowing the White workers in the homelands to qualify in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act.

Order! The hon. member for Rustenburg must withdraw the words “veldskoen Senator”. He may not refer to an hon. Senator in that way.

I am sorry; I withdraw it,

Sir, we have observed a new phenomenon here today. The second speaker on the Government side is also shying away from the crucial issues that we are dealing with here. In fact just to demonstrate the interest on that side of the House in labour matters, the crucial matter in South Africa, look at the situation here before me; hon. members opposite are conspicuous by their absence. Sir, that hon. gentleman made only one comment of consequence, and that was an appeal to the hon. the Minister to make the Industrial Conciliation Act applicable to the Bantu homelands.

To the Europeans.

That has been our policy for years. If he feels that that will bring peace of mind to the workers and to hon. gentlemen on that side, then all that he has to do is to follow our programme. Sir, beyond that, the hon. gentleman raised so many platitudes which are so far removed from reality that I do not think there is any sense in responding to them. I want rather to return to the issues which I have raised here before.

There are important developments in the economic and labour fields in South Africa at the moment of which the Government does not seem to be aware. Indeed it looks as though the Government has a complete blind spot on so many of these issues. I feel that they have repercussions that go well beyond the field of labour and therefore it is necessary that these issues should be raised here.

Probably the most important single issue at the present time is that there should be rapid economic advancement for the non-White people of South Africa. Every single attitude survey that has been done shows that the non-White peoples of South Africa want two things; they want decent economic opportunities for themselves and they want proper education for their children. They are not clamouring for political rights at this stage. These are the things that are meaningful to them. When the people wanted bread at the time of the French Revolution, Marie Antoinette said, “Give them cake”, and when the non-White peoples of South Africa want jobs and opportunities for economic development, they are given national anthems and flags and a host of political trappings which are of no consequence. This new militancy, this new hostility, that is observable amongst our non-White people and that is gaining impetus every day, can be traced back directly to the fact that these people are being denied opportunities for proper economic development. When you stifle the legitimate aspirations of people in the economic sense, then they invariably turn to the political weapon and to the vote as a means towards an end.

Sir, there is a second important factor that we must accept. South Africa has one economy only. There is not a White economy and a Black economy; it is one economy; it is like our currency; we do not have White money and Black money. There is one economy only, and within this we will have to accommodate all people. Sir, there is ample scope for all or us to advance within this one economy, because we need the non-Whites today in much the same way as they need us.

But the third important factor from which we cannot escape is that the whole labour structure is changing. Sir, the Government is inclined to think of our labour structure as being represented by a pyramid consisting of a small group of highly skilled people at the top and a large mass of undifferentiated unskilled people at the bottom. It does not in the least look like that. The South African labour pattern could probably be better represented as a diamond. The large mass of people have moved up; they are no longer on the base line. Exactly the same thing happened in the United States of America. Some 30 years ago they had more than 30 per cent of the workers who were completely unskilled. Today it is only 14 per cent and it is diminishing even further. Exactly the same thing is happening in South Africa. Therefore the need for human skills is increasing all the time.

The fourth important development in South Africa is that the White people of South Africa are opting out of the industrial sector. They want white-collar jobs. To a lesser extent this also applies to the Coloureds and the Indians.

Nonsense!

That hon. member is making funny noises, but he should begin to look at the statistics. Some couple of years ago 30 per cent of the White workers in South Africa were engaged in industry in blue-collar jobs. Do hon. members know how many there are at the present time? Only 16 per cent of White South African workers are in those jobs. Who accounts for the remainder? Seventy-two per cent of the people in industrial jobs today are Black. These are things which we cannot argue away. What does the Government do about training them for these jobs? They are building universities for Black and other non-White people of the country, but they have a strange aversion to building technical training institutions for them. That is what they need. There are immense developments in this field and the number of people required for industrial jobs, for blue-collar jobs, will increase by 70 per cent over the next ten years. Based on the present pattern this means that almost 1 000 000 Black people will come in to take up those blue-collar jobs. In the meantime the Government denies that this is happening, while it is quite clear to everybody that in the foreseeable future nearly all these blue-collar jobs in South Africa will be done by Blacks.

Then there is the fifth important point. It is that economic growth in South Africa is still taking place in the existing industrial areas. Dr. Kuschke said only the other day that over the next ten years 80 per cent of South Africa’s industrial expansion will occur in the existing metropolitan areas. Of the remaining 20 per cent, the vast bulk of it will be in so-called border areas which are in fact part of White South Africa. Therefore hon. members opposite must not come with this bluff that the Black people can acquire skills, but that they must exercise those skills in their own homelands. There are no jobs for them in their homelands. The jobs where we need them are in the existing industrial areas.

There is a sixth important point. As you have industrial development, there is a need for more and more services. If this industrial development is here in White South Africa, the services are required here as well. You cannot transfer Johannesburg’s sewerage system to a homeland or to a border area. The more advanced we become, the more sophisticated these services become. You cannot do this by using a migratory labour force which is unskilled and untrained. When you come to this stage of economic development, you need a stable, better educated and more sophisticated workforce. The indications are clear that this will have to happen because last year, in 1970, engagement and employment in South Africa increased by 6 per cent. However, output increased by only 5 per cent. This is the consequence of the Government’s policy. There is no improvement in our productivity. We now have a negative balance which means that we are moving backwards.

In the seventh sense it is important that we should pay the non-White people more. To persevere with the present situation will bring dire consequences to South Africa. A few years ago, in Soweto, it was determined that 86 per cent of the people were living below the poverty datum line. In 1964 it was determined that the minimum effective level, which is the minimum you require for normal social services, was R83-30 per month. I ask this hon. Minister what proportion of non-White people today are earning more than R83 per month? That estimate was made in 1964 and the cost of living has gone up considerably since then. In most other established communities the difference between skilled and unskilled work payments is in the region of 20 per cent to 30 per cent In South Africa, in several cases, it is several hundred per cent. How can we allow a situation like this to continue? In order to cope with this there must be a greater degree of mobility not only in the vertical sense, with non-Whites moving into these more skilled jobs, but there must also be lateral mobility, we must move more and more from agriculture to industry. In the higher industrialized communities like America, agriculture accounts for five per cent, of the workforce in Japan four per cent and in South Africa the figure is 30 per cent. All this must be done, and we therefore ask what the plans of the Government are. What are they doing about it? We are left with the conclusion that they have no idea that these things are even happening. [Time expired,]

Mr. Chairman, the Opposition’s mentor, the Sunday Times, tackled them yesterday by saying that as from today they had to fight in this debate as they had done last week; they had to fight like tigers and the sparks had to fly. I am afraid that if the Opposition does not get cracking now, that Sunday paper is not going to be very satisfied with them. One of the reasons why they are not yet in the gear in which their mentor wants them to be—and there are several other reasons as well—is of course the fact that in South Africa things are going so well for the labour corps. It is for this reason that they cannot make the sparks fly. This is one of the numerous reasons why it has not been possible for us to have the attack which the Sunday Times wanted to have. As far as the whole is concerned, before we come to file particular, it is interesting when we take a look at our employment position in South Africa and contrast it with just two other countries, which, to a certain extent, bear a relation to us, namely England and America. In England there is at the moment a considerable and increasing rate of unemployment, and according to the latest publication there are 5175 000 unemployed persons in America, i.e. an increase of 39 per cent on last year. Let us now examine our own unemployment position. As far as White men and young men are concerned, our unemployment position is 0,01 per cent, and in respect of all groups, namely Whites, Coloureds and Indians, men and women, the unemployment position is 0,5 per cent. One can therefore appreciate why this attack of the United Party is falling so flat at the moment. This is but one of the reasons. The labour position in South Africa is such that shortages do exist. This is a matter which no Government body and no member on this side of the House has ever denied. We would rather have these shortages than have a state of unemployment such as they have in England or in America. If we had those conditions, we would have in this country a powder-keg of dissatisfaction, which would be unbearable to everyone of us. Actually, this tendency towards growth is something about which few people can complain. I just want to mention a few figures taken from the return of the economic development programme. Over the six-year period from 1963, the base year for the economic development programme, to 1969, the volume of factory production increased on an average by 8,4 per cent as against a target rate of 6,8 per cent. I grant that this made a tremendous onslaught on our manpower position. However, the position in regard to our manpower is anything but as gloomy and sombre as the United Party would like to suggest. We are watching the manpower position very carefully, and the research projects carried out in order to determine it, have indicated that according to an estimate the demand for White manpower will come to 1 112 200 in 1973. According to this estimate the supply will be 1 134 850, i.e, a surplus of 22 650. This estimate is based on an average growth rate of 5½ per cent per year, an average increase of 2,9 per cent per year and a net immigration figure of 31 600 per year, of whom 11 050 men and 3 400 women will be economically active. But we find this continuous nagging about the manpower shortage. That is why it is a good thing for one to retain one’s perspective in regard to this matter as well. An article published recently sheds a rather most interesting light on this question of the manpower shortage. I just want to refer to it briefly. It is an article which appeared in The Star of 1st April, 1971, under the heading “Hollard Street Journal”. This appeared under the heading “How much myth in the manpower shortage?” They pointed out that a proper analysis had been made of various industries, including the clothing industry. Then they arrived at a very interesting conclusion. They Said-

Then they went on to express this very illuminating opinion—

I cannot phrase this better, nor can I emphasize it more strongly. In fact, this is the plea which numerous members on this side and I have been making year in and year out, i.e. that the employer should take the initiative in introducing and carrying through those productivity projects in their factories and businesses. It is not the task of the State to enter every factory and introduce productivity schemes there. We can express the wish and take the lead by making some of our officials available, as we rightly do, but it is and remains the principal and primary task of these industrialists themselves to contribute their share.

May I put a question? May I ask the Minister whether he accepts the premise of that argument as he stated it there? Is that also his view?

Of course I accept the argument that we can enhance productivity a great deal more if more is done towards training the people in one’s service in the direction of higher productivity. That is the crux of this matter, the point which this article makes, [Interjection.] Listen now. They referred to the clothing industry. They said that if they had only increased the percentage in the clothing industry by a “modest” 2,2 per cent, the clothing industry would not have had this shortage of 8 000 at present. This is the statement and the view I endorse. This is an example and should, as it were, be an indication to our industrialists to improve their position according to this concept of self-production.

But before coming back to some of the standpoints taken up by the Opposition, I just want to refer, first of all, to two matters raised by members on my side.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred here to the unhealthy phenomenon of labour brokers trafficking, as it were, in labour. They are doing so to a large extent in the Vanderbijlpark area. What they are actually doing, is to entice workers away from industries and offer their services to other remployers at higher wages. It goes without saying that this is an unhealthy phenomenon, a phenomenon which will undermine the stability of the labour market, It also promotes inflation. As this is an irregular and, I can almost say, illegitimate phenomenon, I instructed my department to investigate this matter. It is possible for me to announce now that legal proceedings will be instituted against these people who are peddling labour in this manner.

The hon. member once again raised the question of Republic Day being a paid holiday. At the present moment Republic Day is a public holiday. To the majority of the workers in South Africa Republic Day is therefore a paid holiday, but factory workers and mineworkers have been excluded from this. This year, however, when the 10th anniversary of the Republic is being commemorated, mineworkers and factory workers will, in terms of the previous resolution we adopted, also get Republic Day as a paid holiday. Ever since 1966 representations have been made to the Government for making Republic Day an annual, paid holiday. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark pleaded for that only last year. It was also advocated at congresses of the National Party. In 1968 a deputation of the conservative-minded trade unions discussed this matter with the Prime Minister and myself in Pretoria, and on that occasion they pleaded once again for Republic Day to be an annual, paid holiday for factory workers as well as mineworkers. The Prime Minister informed them that he had every sympathy with their request, but pointed out that it was one of the important objectives of the Republic to become economically strong. The greatest service that could be rendered to the Republic, so he said, was to make it economically strong. But at the same time the Prime Minister promised to make a further announcement in this regard on the occasion of this year’s celebrations. That is why I am pleased today to be able to announce that the Government has decided that as from 1972 Republic Day will be an annual, paid holiday for the factory workers and mineworkers as well. Legislation to this effect will be introduced during the course of the present Session. I admit that this concession will entail a loss in production, but to that I want to add that the Government regards Republic Day as being of so much importance that it does not deem this concession to be too high a price.

The hon. member for Rustenburg raised the position of the White workers in the Bantu homelands, and in his plea he said that those While workers should also be able to enjoy the benefits of the Industrial Conciliation Act; in other words, those White workers in, inter alia that area to which the hon. member referred, should be able to enjoy trade union rights, rights which they have as members of the Mineworkers’ Union. That will enable them, for instance, to apply for the establishment of a conciliation board. Let me say at once that it has never been the intention of the Government to deprive our White mineworkers who are working in the Bantu homelands of their right to exercise their legitimate trade union rights. Although a proclamation was issued a year or two ago, a proclamation in which it was stated that the application of the Industrial Conciliation Act was being suspended in respect of the Bantu homelands—a suspension which also implied that it could be withdrawn again at any time—it has never been the intention of the Government that the Whites employed in the mining industry in the Bantu homelands should be without any conciliation machinery. The actual reason for the suspension of the Industrial Conciliation Act in respect of the Bantu homelands, was mainly that we regarded the Industrial Conciliation Act as being such an advanced labour measure that it did not really belong with the developing Bantu peoples. It was felt that the Bantu homelands should actually make their own labour arrangements in accordance with their own development. At the same time I want to make it very clear that the Government intimated very clearly last year that as far as the Bantu homelands were concerned, the Government was prepared to draw the logical line for the Bantu in their homelands right through to its terminal point. In other words, last year we intimated very clearly to all concerned that, as far as the economic labour position of the Bantu in the Bantu homelands was concerned, we would, in the economic life and in mining industry in their own areas, afford them the opportunity of advancing to the topmost rung.

At the same time the Government has never been prepared to leave the White mineworkers in those areas without their recognized bargaining machinery. In fact, when earlier this year a deputation of the Mineworkers’ Union had talks with me and my colleagues, i.e. the Minister of Bantu Administration and the Minister of Mines, I as the Minister of Labour gave them the assurance that the Government would continue to respect their trade union rights. I told them that if any labour dispute were to arise in the Bantu homelands, a dispute in respect of which a conciliation board could normally be applied for, I would still, through my department, arrange it in that way with those mine authorities. At the beginning of the year I also told the deputation of the Mineworkers’ Union that that was the spirit in which we would administer this suspension, which could be withdrawn at any time. I also gave them the assurance that during the discussion of this Vote I would make the matter known in public. Since then my colleague the Minister of Bantu Administration and I had further discussions on the matter. As a result of those talks we held on this matter, an amending proclamation will be published in the Government Gazette next Friday. The object of this amending proclamation is to make it clear in no uncertain terms that the White mineworkers in those Bantu homelands may still avail themselves of the machinery of the Industrial Conciliation Act as regards any labour dispute which may arise. In other words, if any dispute were to arise between the White mineworkers and their employers in any Bantu homeland, application may he made for a conciliation board. That request can, as was the case in the past, be complied with. I therefore trust that this statement, together with the amending proclamation, will remove all doubt about the Government’s objective. Just as clearly as the Government intimated its objective, i.e. that in their homelands the Bantu may advance to the highest rung, it also wants to inform all parties concerned that the White mineworkers who are working in those areas will still have the existing bargaining machinery at their disposal. The Government considers such an attitude to be fair to the mineworkers and also in the interests of industrial peace, the maintenance of which still remains the responsibility of the Government.

Now I am coming back to the Opposition and the two speakers who have taken part in this debate up to now. I am referring to the two hon. members who received the instruction from the Sunday Times. Amongst other things reference was made to the question of training. Quite dramatically reference was made to the appeal made by my colleague the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in regard to more training having to be undertaken. This is a plea which I myself have already made on numerous occasions and which I cannot support strongly enough. Then the hon. member for Hillbrow went on to ask what training had been done in this regard. For that reason I should like to furnish certain information, which I hope will convince him that a particularly great deal has been done in this short period. Training funds under the Amendment Act piloted through in 1970, were established by way of ten industrial council agreements in respect of the iron and steel and engineering industry in the whole Republic and the building industry. As far as the latter is concerned, six separate funds were established in various areas. Furthermore, in respect of the clothing industry, one such fund was established for the Cape Peninsula and another for the Transvaal, Such a fund was also established in respect of the motor transport undertaking in the Transvaal.

At every meeting of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council a report is made on the progress made with these training schemes. The Government and this body are devoting the maximum attention to the progress of these schemes and, as a result, progress is being made. Now I want to mention one single fact in regard to apprentices.

We are not talking about apprentices now.

I have already said what schemes were established. Give me another year and then I shall furnish the hon. member with their results,

We want to know what training has been done.

I am furnishing other information now. Does the hon. member not want to hear something positive as well? Or does he only care for negative stories? After all, that is what the hon. member supplies to the Sunday Times. Surely, it is not my task to supply the hon. member with such stories. The hon. member should do so himself. Let me furnish these positive facts. During 1970 the number of apprentices enrolled was 1490 more than the figure for 1969. It is true that there is a tremendous demand for the labour of these young people. But it is also significant that there has been an improvement in the number of enrolments. This has been possible because the conditions for apprenticeship are gradually being adjusted to the requirements of the times.

Now I want to refer to one particular matter, which was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville once again raised the question of the clothing industry and the border areas. Of course, basically the hon. member is opposed to border area development. To him and to the United Party there is only one single thing, i.e. to utilize the “available manpower” in the metropolitan areas. This is the United Party’s express premise. That is why they have no liking for the border areas and that is why they are disparaging and denigrating border areas to the limit. But let me just say this to these hon. gentlemen. It is true that at the moment there are only approximately 80 000 in the border areas. However, in regard to this matter, too, it will interest the hon. member for Hillbrow to know that in the years that lie ahead we shall be able to mention progessively better and larger figures because this border area policy is now gathering momentum, and decisions which the Government will announce in this regard before long, will prove that it is in fact going to be the asset to us which we expect to have.

Will it be in the Transkei, or in Rosslyn?

It will be wherever there are Bantu homelands. There it will come into being. It will come into being everywhere, and I know that the hon. members do not like Rosslyn because all those plots were sold out and it is a total success. That is why the hon. members do not like it. After all, this is another positive matter.

But let me now come back to this question of the clothing industry. It is true that the Wage Board investigates the clothing industry from time to time. Over the past few years it did so on a number of occasions, and at the moment the Wage Board is investigating the bargaining position of this clothing industry once again, because the one thing we shall definitely uphold at all times, is that these border industries will not become unfair competition to the established industries in the metropolitan areas. This is a premise which we have been stating over and again, and because we are in earnest, this matter is once again being investigated at the moment.

Are they investigating Umtata as well?

They investigate all matters, and if the hon. member’s case is at all a substantiated one, he can submit it to this board and it will be investigated properly. But let me say this. The hon. member for Yeoville rose here today and started by; saying that I had to take the country into my confidence in regard to our labour policy. In that regard we on this side have no difficulty. The policy of this Government is crystal-clear to everybody who wants to listen to it. Our policy in this country is that of protecting the White worker. It seeks to effect controlled employment In this country, and not to open the flood-gates, as the United Party wants to do, to an uncontrolled inflow of Black workers into the White areas. [Interjections.] That is our policy, and with that policy we shall proceed.

But what policy do we get from the United Party? I think that whereas they want us to take the country into our confidence, which we are in fact doing, it is, after all, also necessary for the United Party to take the country into its confidence as to their objectives and how they want to carry out their plans. If the United Party—and the hon. member for Yeoville, to be specific —tells us that we should take the country into our confidence in regard to our plans, surely we are justified and have good reason, to ask when the United Party is going to start taking the country into its confidence in regard to its plans. When is the United Party going to rise in this House and give us an honest and frank analysis of the effect of the abolition of job reservation, to which the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Hillbrow have now committed themselves repeatedly? When are they going to rise in this House and give us an explanation in that regard? [Interjections] You, who continually rise here and want job reservation to be abolished, would you now, on this occasion, inform us as to what your plans are and how that abolition of job reservation is to improve the position of the Whites in this country?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in stating the case in this House, said that, once they had abolished job reservation, the safeguards referred to by the United Party would be that instead of job reservation they would give the workers other guarantees, which they believed would be more effective than section 77. Now, this sounds very good, but how are they going to implement it? They say that they will, in the first place, entrust those guarantees to the trade unions. These guarantees are now to be entrusted to the trade unions, but what is the position of the trade unions in this country? Tucsa controls 50 per cent of the trade unions. The mixed trade unions, the Coloured trade unions and the Indian trade unions are affiliated with Tucsa, and the result is that Tucsa can speak on behalf of approximately 50 per cent of the organized workers in this country. It is the T.U.C. which has been attacking the Government in season and out for not wanting to permit non-Whites—Blacks, to be specific—to enter skilled spheres of employment in White employment areas. These are the people who are now going to be consulted. Sir, will the United Party take us into their confidence and tell us how they will proceed once they have abolished section 77 and when they are going to consult the T.U.C.; what protection is that going to afford White workers in South Africa? Will the United Party have the courage to rise in this House and to tell us how they will protect the White workers after they will have abolished the statutory job reservation and consulted the T.U.C.—these people who are so liberal that they are actually pink? Is that the protection which the United Party wants to afford the White workers? We are being told—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself said this on a previous occasion—that the only instrument for combating inflation is the greater utilization of all available labour. Sir, what would happen if we were to combat inflation by these means, by abolishing job reservation, as we once again heard here today? According to the United Party job reservation is the thing which stands in the way of the Whites, who should supposedly rise to higher positions. They are supposed to rise so high that they will come out of the chimney like smoke. I think that the United Party should take this House into their confidence and tell us how they want to combat inflation once they have abolished job reservation. How are they going to combat inflation once they will have managed to get the Whites out of the way, either through the back door or through the chimney? How are they going to bring about this U.P. Canaan? Surely, Sir, before one has this U.P. Canaan, one should expect the White workers to rise in revolt under this U.P. recipe. The White workers have brought industrial peace to South Africa, because they have confidence in the National Party’s labour policy. This is the main reason why we have this industrial peace in South Africa today. But if one took that job security away from them and, over against that, put into operation the United Party’s policy, i.e. the abolition of job reservation, what recourse would one’s workers in this country have other than resorting to the only remaining weapon, namely that of strikes? I want to ask the United Party these questions: Is that how they want to combat inflation? Is that how they think they will be able to bring about increased productivity in this country? Sir, I am glad that there are still a number of hours left for this debate; I am going to listen with interest in order to hear whether the United Party is taking the country into its confidence on this cardinal question.

I want to say thank you to the hon. the Minister for his announcement that in future the 31st May will be a holiday for both mine and steel workers. Sir, we were very glad to hear about this, but what struck me is that when the Minister made this announcement the United Party members were as silent as the grave, while this side of the House said “Hear, hear!” Sir, through you I want to ask the United Party whether there are no United Party supporters working in the mines and in the steel industries that will now also be able to celebrate Republic Day from this year onwards. But as they have always maintained their silence at the call of the worker, so have they maintained their silence and will they maintain it in the future.

From the speeches of the two hon. Opposition members who took part in this debate this afternoon, it is very clear that they are pursuing an open labour market for Whites and non-Whites. I accept the fact that this is their policy. This Opposition always sits on the touchline of the football field. They are always the best judges of the game because they sit on the edge of the field and in the pavilion. But they never really take part in the game. But if they do take part in the game, they do exactly what they have done here today. They throw open the sluices for Whites and non-Whites in all the jobs in this country.

We have peace and quiet in this country. Why do we have peace and quiet? It is because the National Party is honest in its conduct, not only towards the White worker, not only because it is protecting what accrues to the White worker, but also because it is honest towards the non-White worker. In the past decade various opportunities have been created for the non-Whites. When I speak of the non-Whites, I am speaking of the Bantu. I am not even mentioning the Coloureds, who have been trained for many decades and who form a worthy part of the building industry in this country today. I am thinking of the Bantu trained by us, not only as construction workers, not only as electricians, but also in various other spheres so that one day they can work with their own people and be of great benefit to them. That is why the Bantu have, to a large extent, built their own Bantu townships and even laid on the electricity. They themselves did all the work that was usually done by the White artisans. These are opportunities the National Party created for the Bantu years ago in order to educate him so that he can also be a fully- fledged artisan in his area and at a later stage in his homeland. We did not flinch from the problems we were faced with and neither shall We flinch from future problems.

But let us analyse the speeches of the hon. members for Yeoville and Hillbrow. If we analyse those speeches, it is clear that they have a policy of “fling the doors wide”. They have thrown in the towel long ago. They themselves do not know what they envisage. But if one has listened thus to the hon. member for Hillbrow, it is clear that he read yesterday’s Sunday Times. The hon. member is now doing something he has never done before. He makes so many gestures with his hands that I am sure that he is practising for television. But it was another Jacobs and another member for Hillbrow that we saw today. I want to tell him that he succeeded fairly well. If the gestures he makes with his hands and fingers and his handclapping make as much of an impression as his speech, his policy could perhaps succeed one day, possibly on a television programme.

The Bantu, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians are being looked after. It was said here a while ago—and the hon. member for Hillbrow also said so—that we are building universities, but no technical colleges where these people can be trained. I just want to know whether the hon. members have read reports in that connection. Apparently they have not. If they had done so, they would have seen that the aforementioned institutions have been established and that the people can be trained there.

Where are they? Are they in the homelands?

If I can get my training as an electrician in Cape Town or in Johannesburg, I am going to get it there.

But they cannot work here.

No, let us now be frank and say that those hon. members are as scared of homeland development as the devil is of holy water. They are afraid it is going to succeed, but the proofs of that success are already there. We heard an announcement in that connection today. It will succeed and we surely do have faith in that. The difference between the National Party and the United Party is that the one has faith in what it believes to be right, while the other only gropes around in the dark without any sense of direction and is consequently always lost. That is the reason why the voice of the public has, for the past twenty years, rejected that side of the House at the polls every time. They were rejected because what they say here in the House of Assembly differs from what they say in Johannesburg, Hillbrow and Houghton. I want to ask another question. If these hon. members are all that honest with their policy, and if they see so great a danber, i.e. that we will succumb because we do not want to accede to their labour policy, I challenge them to be brave enough, once in the year 1971, and have the courage to nominate a candidate in Waterberg. Then it will be on record that the hon. members had the courage to nominate a candidate in Waterberg. Do it now! We have nominated one. Adries Treurnicht, but now those hon. members are fighting under the banner of Jaap Marais.

But he is verkramp.

Verkramp or not, he remains a Nationalist who has confidence in the future. Those hon. members are not verkramp or verlig and that is why one cannot do anything with them. Then I want to echo the Scriptures: “I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth”. We are honest as far as our policy is concerned, and when we take a stand in respect of any race group whatever, we are honest with them. We believe, and we are convinced, that these people still have to learn a great deal, and here I mean the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians in particular, who still have to learn a great deal because they have a great backlog to catch up on, and who should be given the opportunity to catch up on that backlog. They must be given the opportunity to qualify so that they can make a better living in this country. There is work for everyone in this country. There is not such a big labour shortage. We only hear about a big labour shortage from the United Party; it is a labour shortage that they create. This labour shortage is not nearly that big. I want to say again that the person who does not work today, whatever race he may belong to, is the person who does not want to work. For my continued existence and for what I have sacrificed, I cannot but ensure that the homelands be developed. This must take place as rapidly and as quickly as our funds permit.

You are speaking ...

Keep quiet, Mr. Hillbrow! [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do so wish with all my heart that thousands, tens of thousands of the workers of South Africa could have listened today to the hon. the Minister and to the two previous speakers on that side. Once and for all that party opposite would have been exposed as not the friend, but the enemy of the worker in South Africa. The hon. member for Stilfontein also spoke, but the reflex action we are always getting from members on that side was strangely absent, for there was no thanks to the hon. the Minister. He did not thank the hon. the Minister for what he had said in connection with the partial application of the Industrial Conciliation Act in the homelands at the moment, of which the hon. member for Rustenburg had spoken. The hon. member for Rustenburg does not seem very grateful either. And why not? The first reason is that it has always been the policy of the United Party that we have one economy in this country, in other words, according to our policy the Industrial Conciliation Act should always have been applied in the Bantu areas as well. This has been and is our policy and now, years behind the time, the hon. member for Rustenburg also asks for it. The hon. the Minister also came along with a watered-down version of it and the hon. member for Stilfontein did not have a word of thanks for it either. Why was there no word of thanks? How is the hon. the Minister going to explain his words where he said that the Industrial Conciliation Act was going to be applied in those areas, in other words, section 77 as well, which deals with job reservation, but said almost in the same breath that the Bantu in those areas can rise to the top rung in the mining industry? I do not understand the contradiction in that observation by the hon. the Minister.

The second matter that the hon. the Minister thought would give his followers cause for gratitude was when he said that Republic Day would in future be made a paid holiday for all workers. But does he not remember how the United Party has been asking for it year after year for five years and even longer, how it has always been part of our policy, and also how it has been refused by that side of the House? Therefore it is no wonder that there was not one word of thanks for that from the hon. member for Stilfontein.

The hon. the Minister also made great play here of job reservation, which is supposed to offer the White worker of South Africa such great protection, and wanted to know what our attitude was in regard to that. Does the hon. the Minister still not know that job reservation story of his is the greatest political bluff ever perpetrated against the White worker of South Africa? What percentage of the White workers are affected by job reservation—50 per cent, 40 per cent, 30 per cent, 20 per cent or 10 per cent? No, not even 5 per cent. Ninety-five per cent of our White workers are not covered by job reservation. In spite of this the hon. the Minister says that the White worker in South Africa would be ruined if job reservation were to disappear.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, not in a ten-minute speech. The hon. the Minister’s confidence in section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act is evident from his own deeds. He is undermining job reservation by making numerous exceptions in connection with it. He himself admits that the way in which he applies job reservation is totally undesirable. Then the hon. the Minister wants to tell us that the workers in South Africa are doing well. They are doing badly, as is every citizen in South Africa who has to suffer under the excessive taxation, the high sales tax and the new burdens amounting to R168 million which were mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville. Wage increases are of no value if they are all swallowed up by the higher cost of living resulting from the policy of this Government.

Furthermore, the hon. the Minister tried to prove by means of statistics that employment opportunities in South Africa are better than in other countries. His argument seems to be that there is less unemployment in South Africa than in those countries. I want to tell the Minister that his Government has no proper and adequate statistics in connection with unemployment in South Africa. It has practically none in connection with the unemployment figures for the Bantu. I should like to inquire of the hon. the Minister what acceptable statistics there are in connection with unemployment among the Bantu today. The only statistics in connection with White unemployment are those in the hands of a few labour bureaux. They do not even cover the whole country either. No comparison can be drawn between the unemployment figure in our country and that in other countries. Besides, we must always remember that we have a growing economy in which there ought to be no unemployment, while Britain and America have established and in many respects almost stagnant economies.

Then the hon. the Minister actually tries to tell us that the shortage of manpower in South Africa is not so serious, and he quotes one or two authorities. Why does he not rather quote the people who are concerned with that manpower shortage, for example the industrialist, the factory owner, the men who are struggling to find employees, the men who approach us Members of Parliament to take deputations to Pretoria and to the Department of Bantu Administration to ask for more workers to be found for them, otherwise their factories will deteriorate. Why does the hon. the Minister not ask persons who are not favourably disposed toward his party? Why does he not ask Mr. De Vries of the Bureau for Economic Research of Stellenbosch, quoted by my hon. friend the member for Yeoville. Why does he not ask Mr. Jan Marais of the Trust Bank, of Dawie de Villiers of Sasol? Why does he not read Volkshandel? Why does he not ask the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut? Even the National Institute for Personnel Research of the C.S.I.R. has investigated this problem of labour in South Africa. I should like to inquire of the Minister whether he has read their findings as well.

Then I strongly object to the hon. the Minister’s blaming the industrialists of South Africa for the lack of growth and productivity and the difficulty in connection with the labour problem in South Africa. The industrialists of South Africa are not the ones who passed the Physical Planning Act. The industrialists of South Africa are not the ones who say that the Bantu have to be sent away and sent back to the reserves and the border areas. The Government alone is to blame for the fact that we have this tremendous crisis in South Africa today.

The hon. the Minister says it is the policy of the United Party, on the other hand, to open the flood-gates and to allow the uncontrolled influx of labour to the large cities. But surely, Sir, it is absolute nonsense to say that this is our policy. We have always said that we believe in influx control, that we believe that it also offers the Bantu worker in the cities protection against the influx of cheap labour. It is out of ignorance that the hon. the Minister levelled that charge at this side, namely that we want to open the flood-gates. But now I want to state here that if any member on that side of the House repeats that charge after this, he will be telling a lie. Now they know what the position is. I hope they will not tell that lie.

We find ourselves today in one of the greatest labour crises we have ever had in our country. It is a labour crisis, although of a different nature than the second greatest one we have had, namely in the depression period in the thirties, when there was also a Nationalist Party Government in power. But this is a different kind of labour crisis. There is a tremendous shortage of White workers, a shortage of 150 000; as regards engineers alone, there is a shortage of 1 000 in the country, but on the other hand there are tens of thousands of unemployed in the homelands, to such an extent that the Chief Minister of the Transkei has to say; “Please do not send any more Bantu to the Transkei, because there is no work for them in that area.” This is the way that the Government’s policy is functioning today. Productivity is lagging. The machine of our economy is squeaking, creaking, knocking and grinding to a halt. And in the meanwhile the hon. the Minister is throwing sand into the machinery. There is the Minister of Economic Affairs, who gives the country 98 octane petrol, but the economy only 50 octane. There is the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who breaks off parts of that machine and tries ever harder to destroy it. No wonder our economy is going to rack and ruin today! [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since I am making my maiden speech in this House, I believe you will allow me to associate myself briefly with the fitting tributes already paid in this House to the memory of my predecessor, the late Minister Basie van Rensburg, What was said of him also reflected the feelings of his constituents, with whom he was associated over a period of almost 18 years. His constituents knew him as someone who was humble in his greatness. This quality one does not acquire through wisdom, diligence and brain-power alone. His greatness and strength were founded on an unshakeable faith and his endeavours were towards a noble end, not for worldly praise, tribute or glory, Out of an inner conviction he performed his life’s work humbly but with the greatest devotion and earnestness. This is the way his constituents knew him. Therefore, mindful of my own limited abilities as compared with the great qualities which he possessed, I realize the magnitude of the task resting upon my shoulders in having to attend to the interests of the same constituents, whom I am now representing here.

I should not like to venture discussing the points at issue in this debate. I would rather uphold the good traditions of the past here. Particularly in view of the lively note just introduced into this debate by the hon. member for Orange Grove I would not venture to discuss these matters. Consequently I believe the hon. member will understand why I am not going to respond to his speech.

Sir, from time to time concern is expressed about the productivity of the White workers in South Africa. Government bodies, employers, economists, and even members of this House, as well as all who are interested in labour in this country, express themselves and voice their opinions on this matter. When we reflect on the productivity of our labour force, we must be clear in our minds as to where the emphasis should be placed. Employers and employees form a unit in the determination of the productivity of the labour force. It would therefore be wrong to place the emphasis on either the employers or the employees alone. After all that has been said and written on this subject, I am afraid the impression exists that the spotlight only falls on the employees of this country as far as greater productivity is concerned. The right attitude of the worker towards labour is, of course, a basic factor which determines the standard of productivity. An industry can have sufficient capital and the best and most efficient equipment at its disposal, but if the attitude of its manpower is negative and indifferent, such an industry might as well write off the possibility of success. However, the economic growth and development that South Africa has experienced over the years belie the impression that the White workers of South Africa display a wrong and negative attitude towards labour. They deserve full credit for South Africa’s achievement in the economic sphere. A country such as South Africa, which is faced with a manpower shortage, should, however, endeavour to obtain the highest productivity from its workers. With the right attitude towards labour, knowledge and skill remain cornerstones for stimulating productivity. In the first place it is the task of the authorities by means of their labour arrangements to create the climate which will cultivate and encourage the right attitude on the part of the workers. The labour peace and quiet among the workers of South Africa is sufficient proof that this climate does exist in South Africa.

In the second place it is the task of the authorities to create or help create the facilities to provide the workers with knowledge and skill. If an analysis is made of State and State-aided institutions established to achieve these objects we find that South Africa is well equipped. At present we have 56 educational institutions which are subsidized by the State, that is to say, four colleges for advanced technical education, 34 technical institutes and 18 schools for special education. In addition there are 59 institutions, including 26 technical colleges, which are fully supported by the State. In addition, I may just mention that the opportunities for university training are unlimited today for those who are able to qualify themselves there for the labour market.

One of the most important factors, however, is the responsibility resting with the employers to enable and encourage the employees to make use of these facilities. Just as the employee must have the correct attitude towards labour, the employer must display the right attitude towards the employee.

I should also like to emphasize the importance of in-service training of the workers in the administrative divisions of the various economic sectors. I am aware of the fact that the Government sector is attaching increasing importance to the training of its administrative labour force. When full justice is done to this aspect of training, the results are forthcoming in the form of high productivity and efficient streamlining and functioning. Only efficient functioning can lead to high productivity and a concomitant saving in labour units. However, what applies to the public sector, also applies to all other industries in the other economic sectors.

I do not want to overlook the fact that there is a large shortage at the moment of qualified and specialized labour units for the purpose of providing training. The fact that the demand far exceeds the supply at the moment, is a good sign of the growing realization that the true value of training in this direction must be appreciated. However, the fact remains that this is a field which is still undeveloped. Emlpoyers should ask themselves whether they are doing enough on their part to encourage the training of staff for teaching purposes and to make it possible for them, to undergo such training. In relation to other vocational groups and in view of the importance of this service, larger numbers of students should attend universities for training. Attention should be paid to greater publicity for this vocation, on the part of employers as well. Heavy demands are being made upon the White workers of South Africa in the intellectual sphere. The best utilization of our intellectual resources is essential in order to meet the demands of the future. This is and will remain the joint responsibility of the Government, the employer and the employee.

Sir, I would like to wish the hon. member who has just sat down everything of the best in his future career in this House and congratulate him on the very moderate and efficient way in which he has delivered his maiden speech. He has clearly made a proper study of labour problems and I am sure the House will benefit from his knowledge.

Sir, I was interested to hear the hon. the Minister telling us something about the Government’s plans with regard to the future of the African mineworkers in the Bantu homelands. I should like him to tell us how he proposes to solve the dilemma in which the Government has found itself, namely of promising that the African workers will be allowed to reach the full heights of productivity and of skilled work, while at the same time fulfilling the desire of the White workers in the homelands to maintain their privileged position. Sir, I believe that these two aims are likely to be mutually incompatible and I wait with interest to see what the future is going to bring in this regard. I see everything being passed on to the Industrial Tribunal, which will come back with the suggestion that the status quo should be maintained. I wonder how in this way the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration is going to fulfill the promises that he has made to African workers in the Bantu homelands as far as the mines and the jobs which people are permitted to do in the mines, are concerned.

Sir, the hon. member for Rustenburg, once again came here with the proposition that South Africa was enjoying peace and quiet, and the hon. the Minister has repeated this as well. I want to issue the warning that I do not think we ought to be quite so sanguine about this situation, because there are definite signs that the growing disparity between the wages of White workers in this country and the wages of non-White workers is leading to increasing discontent. It is no good denying this fact and closing our eyes to it. I do not happen to believe in the ideological theory of a multi-national South Africa, but I certainly see before my eyes evidence that we are two rations in one respect, and that is that we are a nation of “haves” and a nation of “have-nots”. There is no doubt that this disparity is growing all the time. If I have time later on. Sir, I would like to quote some figures in this respect to the Committee.

In the meantime I want to raise with the hon. the Minister the very important issue of wage levels amongst those people who are employed in South Africa. There has been a lot of talk about how little unemployment there is in South Africa amongst Whites, Coloureds and Indians. We do not know, as the hon. member for Orange Grove has said, the degree of unemployment among Africans, hut we do know that the wages of those people who are in employment in our industrial areas are far too low to enable them to meet the present cost of living. These people are not only denied the benefits of collective bargaining, but they are always somehow left out when the final wage agreements are reached by industrial councils, or the wages which they ought to be getting are not awarded to them by wage boards or industrial councils. I want to point out that they have to suffer all the effects of inflation, the increased cost of living, sales taxes, higher transport fares, higher bus fares and higher rents. The squeeze is becoming well-nigh unbearable in most of the major cities of South Africa and also—a point which we often forget—in the smaller towns where the cost of living is not very much lower than it is in the big cities and the wages are often very much lower under wage determinations and wage board agreements.

I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the poverty datum line, which has now gone up to R73-42 per month is simply not the wage level which has been reached by the vast majority of unskilled workers in this country. This is obvious from the wage determinations which have been laid down over the last year or so. I know the hon. the Minister is going to tell me that the Bantu Settlement of Disputes Board has managed to get some three or four million rand added to the pay packets of African workers. That is true enough, Sir. He is going to point out to me that in terms of some of the Industrial Council agreements wages have been raised. That is also so, but they have never been raised to such an extent that they have caught up with the increased cost of living. Let us look at the wages which were paid to Africans in construction and manufacturing at the end of 1970. Sir, it was R48 per month in the one case and R50 in the other. This is R1 more than the previous year, and the cost of living has gone up far more than R1 per month since the previous year. I mentioned in the previous debate the absurd wage determinations handed down by the Wage Board for 97 unskilled occupations on the Witwatersrand, whereby they laid down a wage rate of R8-30 per week for male adults, R6-20 for male juveniles and R6-25 for females. I want to give a few more examples of determinations made in the main areas in 1970. In the commercial and distributive trade the amount is R9-20; in the metal-container trade it is R10-35; in sweet manufacturing it is R8-00 and in the chemical industry the amount is R10 per week. In the country districts the amount is as low as R4-60. Industrial council agreements have resulted in iron, steel and engineerings in an amount of R9 45 per week being paid. The highest I could find was in the printing industry, namely an amount of R12-06 per week for an adult male. These householders are just not able to maintain their families at even the poverty datum line which, as we all know, makes no allowance whatsoever for anything but the bare essentials. In fact, the minimum effective level is now considered to be R98. It has increased and is more than the amount the hon. member mentioned. We can take the Johannesburg municipal workers as an example. They are the unskilled workers who form the biggest group of all, and include the pick-and- shovel workers, the street sweepers and the office cleaners. They have recently been awarded the miserable amount of R43-86 per month. The African municipal policemen, who is after all supposed to do a responsible job, has been awarded the wage of R55-29. I could quote examples from industry after industry in this regard. In Natal the wage rates are very low as well. The garment workers recently won a victory by holding a large meeting with the result that their starting wage is now R8-50 per week in one of the categories and R7-50 in another category of unskilled workers.

I do not know why these wage Board and Industrial Council Agreements set these wages. I can only say that this is an historical continuation from the time when every African worker who came into a town was a migrant worker whose family was sustained in some measure or other by what the African homelands could supply them with. This is no longer the case. The vast majority of these workers are either permanently urbanized workers, who have nothing to fall back on as far as the homelands are concerned, or they are migrant workers, and as far as they are concerned, I can tell the hon. the Minister that the homelands supply their families with very little in the way of additional sustenance because of over-population, erosion and over-stocking.

Something must be done by the Government to set a decent wage-level. I know that the answer is going to be that there is no law against paying these workers higher wages. I will be asked, “Why do you not tell your rich industrial friends to pay higher wages?” I am always interested in this aspect because it is a nice metamorphosis for me. From being the near-communist agitator, I suddenly become the exploiting capitalist. I do not mind that at all. I say it is the Government’s duty to set the minimum, decent level at which wages must be maintained. If the Government sets that level, the industrialists will follow suit. They are not philanthropists and will not pay more in wages than their competitors. There are good employers who do this but the majority of employers do not. Therefore it devolves upon the Government to set a decent, minimum living wage below which no one should be employed in South Africa.

In this regard I do not only refer to industrial workers, but I also include farm labourers and mine-workers. Even taking payment in kind into consideration wages paid by both of those major employers of African labour are far too low as well. I do think that something must be done to draw the Wage Boards and Industrial Councils’ attention to the fact that the wages they are laying down are well below the poverty datum line in the urban areas. If this is not done, we are going to have friction in this country and peace and quiet is not going to be maintained. There is, as I say, a growing, sullen resentment as a result of the fact that there is this obvious disparity in the wages of White skilled workers and the wages of unskilled Black or Coloured workers. It is the hon. the Minister’s responsibility to set the tone and see that something is done in this regard.

I said before that the disparity is increasing all the time. I want to point out that in 1970, according to Dr. Sheila van der Horst, the average wages of Coloureds and Indians in manufacturing and construction were 26 per cent of White wages. Twenty- five years ago they were 40 per cent of White wages. Twenty-five years ago African wages were 25 per cent of White earnings in construction and manufacturing. Last year they were 17 per cent of the White wages. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the determination of the worker’s wages, he always has my sympathy, I cannot verify the figures supplied by the hon. member for Houghton, but I think it would be a very good idea if the hon. member, as far as wage increases are concerned, would turn to that financial giant she has in her party, i.e. Mr. Oppenheimer. I think that if the hon. member would begin with him she would probably have made a great deal of progress as it is. Then she would also be doing the Coloureds and Bantu a service.

Before going further, I first want to refer to the hon. member for Hillbrow, That hon. member asked what protection this party gives to the White worker. There is, of course, job reservation which is a great deal of protection in itself. Then there is also the White worker’s own working capacity. The initiative he displays is also a protective characteristic in itself. But now there is something I want to know from the hon. member for Hillbrow and his party. That hon. member’s party is fighting for the abolition of job reservation and for that sluices to be thrown open whether the workers concerned are skilled or unskilled and White or non-White. We surely know what the outcome of that would be. What would the position be when we have strikes? What is the hon. member’s solution in the face of strikes? It will be a repetition of 1923. They will simply open up on the White workers with Maxims again and blood will again flow in the streets of the large cities. It will be 1923 all over again. That is the protection they gave to the White worker of South Africa.

I want to confine myself for a moment to that industrial giant in the Eastern Cape consisting of the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage and Despatch complex. I now find it so striking and regrettable that not one of my Opposition colleagues of Port Elizabeth is present at the moment. I can understand it if the hon. members for Newton Park and Walmer are not present, because they are more interested in agriculture. But I at least expected that touchy young member from Port Elizabeth Central to have been present this afternoon when we are engaged in such an important debate and are representing such a big industrial city. There is tremendous industrial expansion. Since the Physical Planning Act was put into effect, there have been more than 200 phases of development in Port Elizabeth in the past three years. Thirty-two new factories were also erected. This is great progress indeed. These factories today supply work to thousands of Whites. Coloureds and Bantu. For the sake of interest I want to furnish a few figures. There are at present 20 505 White men in that complex and 5 921 White women. This gives a total of 26 436 White workers in the factories. We hear so much about Coloureds who are unemployed. There are no fewer than 30 934 Coloured men employed. There are also 9 597 Coloured women employed. This gives a total of 40 413. There are 475 Asiatic men and 338 women, a total of 813. There are also 28 295 Bantu men and 3 269 women employed. This gives a total of 31 564. The total number of male and female workers in that factory is 90 209 and 19 017 respectively. It is also interesting this afternoon to know that mediation between the workers and the trade union organizations has eventually succeeded in establishing an industrial council for the assembly plants. We are grateful for this. An agreement was reached that will be published shortly. I trust that collective bargaining will succeed in eliminating differences about conditions of service.

In this connection I also just want to refer to the fact that at those factories we have large dining halls where Whites and non-Whites are served separately. All workers are given one hot meal per day. This is particularly the case at the assembly plants of the Ford Company, General Motors, Volkswagen and other factories in Port Elizabeth. Those meals are supplied at the minimal cost of about 10 cents per day.

The Opposition, particularly with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as spokesman, said that we should do away with small apartheid. After the hon. the Prime Minister asked the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to define small apartheid, he said that small apartheid constituted discrimination on the grounds of skin colour. We should now like to know from the hon. Opposition whether they are going to follow the policy of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and do away with the separate dining halls at these factories? We are worried about this and we should like to have a reply. Does the Opposition now want Whites and non-Whites to have their warm meals in those dining halls without any separation? We should like to know from the Opposition whether they are going to do away with the separate cloakrooms and other separate facilities that we have established for our factory workers?

You are doing all of this in terms of our Acts.

We should like to have that reply, because we are now in the difficult position of having an Opposition with three leaders. On the one hand we have the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who tends towards the liberalistic side. Then we have the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who refuses to say to which side he wants to lead his party. Then we also have the hon. members for Port Natal, Hillbrow and Wynberg. These three members are engaged in a complete movement to the left. If I were to give them a name I would call them the “koeksuster regiment”. We now want those hon. members to stand up this afternoon and say whom we must now follow. Must we follow the hon. member for Hillbrow who is moving altogether to the left past the leader of the Progressive Party? Or must we follow the hon. member for Bezuidenhout? Or must we follow the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who does not want to say what his party’s policy is?

As I have said, it is very regrettable that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is not here this afternoon, because that hon. member has always succeeded in reading a speech in this House that has been written for him by someone else. I expected that hon. member to stand up here in the House this afternoon in order to tell us which of the three Opposition leaders he supports. When I think of this hon. member I involuntarily also think of the Biblical history of Jacob and Esau. When the hon. member speaks, one hears the voice of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, but the hands are those of Esau; it is not his speech, it is a speech that has been written out for him by someone else. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, comes from Port Elizabeth North. However, if one listens to his speech one has to ask oneself where he really comes from. One asks oneself how long he has been in South Africa. Does he really mean to tell us that he is not aware of certain conditions which have for many years existed in South Africa? He comes here and takes great pride in telling us about the economic integration which is taking place in the Port Elizabeth area. By the way, he does not believe in economic integration, but he comes here and boasts about it. He also tells us about the separate dining-rooms and he asks us whether we are going to abolish them when we come into power. Surely the hon. member is not a young man any more, and does he still not know after all these years that those separate dining-rooms were established in terms of legislation which the United Party had placed on the Statute Book? And what is more, it is the hon. member who comes here and talks about leaders. With followers like the hon. member no one can be a leader, because such a man cannot be led because he does not know enough to be led.

The hon. member comes here and says that this side of the House will again throw open the flood-gates when it comes into power. Of course, it is no use saying that the hon. member is talking so much nonsense, because he simply wants to accept that this side of the House is in favour of integration in South Africa. As a matter of fact, I do not mind their saying so, because the more they say it the more the people will know that the Nationalist Party makes propaganda by talking nonsense. The people will not accept it, and I am satisfied that that will be the case.

Then there is something which I find really a tragedy. hon. members on this side of the House, particularly the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Hillbrow, advanced forceful points as far as the labour policy and the labour position in South Africa are concerned. One statement after the other was indisputable and irrefutable, but the tragic thing is that we are still waiting for a reply. We are waiting for a reply from any hon. member or even, with all due respect, from the hon. the Minister. Not one of those hon. members has tried to furnish us with a reply, nor has the Minister.

What were the statements that were made? Basically the statements were to the effect that the labour question in South Africa cannot be viewed or discussed in isolation. It is part of the overall economic structure and whatever policy one pursues in South Africa, whether it is the policy of this side or of that side of the House, one will not have at one’s disposal the material things to implement such policy unless one succeeds in keeping the economic machinery running at a high speed. This afternoon I sat thinking of the days when Churchill asked the American people for aid. He did not ask them to give him people: he did not ask them to buoy him up and he did not ask them to give him intelligence, because those things his country had. But he told them, “Give us the tools and we shall do the job.” The only thing the country of South Africa asks from this Government, no matter what policy it applies, is: “Give us the tools and South Africa and its workers will do the job." That is all. But do not run away from the facts.

The second fact is that inter-dependence in the field of labour is increasing all the time. Moreover, it is being intensified by the day. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North comes here and tells us in a boastful way about the economic integration which has taken place. It is taking place to an increasing extent throughout South Africa. Whites and non-Whites are promoting and developing the economic structure in South Africa. Another point, and this is a fact which is as plain as a pikestaff, is that South Africa is dealing with the most serious labour shortage ever. What does the hon. the Minister say? The hon. the Minister actually told us this afternoon that the situation is not as gloomy as all that. Let us now assume the hon. the Minister is correct. What did the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, his colleague, mean when he said, “We require a super-human effort”? He did not want an ordinary effort, but a “super-human effort”. If the situation is not gloomy, why should the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs go out of his way to hold out to us this picture as far was the labour shortage is concerned? The hon. the Minister says, however, we are laying it on too thick. He says there is practically no unemployment among the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indian workers. That we also know and we agree with him that the hon. the Minister is, after all, not only Minister of White, Coloured and Indian labour: surely he is the Minister of Labour for the whole of South Africa. Does he not know of the unemployment which does in fact, if I may express myself in this way, exist on a fair scale among the Bantu?

Where do you get your figures from?

The hon. member for Carletonville asks where the figures come from, but I want to point out to him what was said by the hon. the Minister of Planning.

Of Statistics.

Yes, of Statistics. Surely he cannot be wrong. He says the figure is close on 100 000. However, there are people who put this figure even higher and say that there are almost one million people who are either not working or unproductive or not sufficiently productive. Is the hon. the Minister not aware of that figure? To me the situation certainly seems serious. If the hon. the Minister tells me that I am wrong, that he is aware of the situation and that he is providing training facilities, I want to ask again whether the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is not aware of the training planning programme on which the hon. the Minister of Labour is working? Why then did he speak out of turn when he said: “We require a super-human effort to train available manpower in South Africa?” He was not talking about White people, Black people or Brown people. The hon. member for Yeoville asked the hon. the Minister to whom the Minister of Economic Affairs was referring, but the hon. the Minister said absolutely nothing about it. He did not say a word about that. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs was speaking in the light of the existing climate in South Africa, i.e. that the labour position is serious. The hon. the Minister did not give us the reply this afternoon when he spoke about his plans.

The hon. the Minister also said that it is his policy to protect the White workers, but he said absolutely nothing about the argument put forward by the hon. member for Yeoville, to the effect that the very thing the Government does not do is to protect the White worker. The hon. member for Yeoville said that the Government was putting obstacles in the way of the safety of the White workers through the very policy of decentralization. The hon. the Minister did not reply to this at all. The Minister asked what our policy was, and immediately said that we on this side of the House wanted to consult the workers’ unions. He then asked what we were going to do about TUCSA. TUCSA is not only liberal, but it is pink, and to be pink in South Africa is something terrible. The Minister asked how we were going to consult that pink organization. This afternoon I want to ask the Minister in all modesty and with all due respect whether he is prepared to tell South Africa that the organization of TUCSA, representing tens of thousands of White workers, is prepared to write off the White worker in South Africa.

They are not the protectors of the White workers, and I say this very clearly,

I appreciate the meaning of the hon. the Minister’s words, but he does not reply to my question. The implication of his words is: How dare we consult TUCSA, which is not really interested in the White workers. I now put this simple question to the hon. the Minister who, by virtue of his position, should be able to give a reply to it: Is he prepared to tell the White workers of South Africa that TUCSA wants to sell out the White workers in South Africa? [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Maitland, who has just resumed his seat, said that he has not had the replies to the questions put here this afternoon by the United Party, but he surely knows as well as I do that this is not true. He has surely had the replies to the questions put in respect of the policy of the National Party. But I am still waiting for replies to various questions I asked the hon. member for Maitland last time under a private motion, questions he has not yet replied to. All that he said is that the laws in connection with job reservation were introduced by the Smuts Government. But then he forgets that when the Industrial Conciliation Act was piloted through Parliament in 1954 and 1956, the United Party spoke of labour now being placed in a strait-jacket. Is that still their argument? An hon. member on that side of the House said, moreover, that section 77 of this Industrial Conciliation Act could be compared with chapter 12 of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”. That is what was said here, and they are still saying it today.

If there is one thing the White worker of South Africa is very insistent about, it is that his position should be protected and that we must guarantee him that position. Another thing the White workers of the Republic of South Africa are very interested in, is that there should be no such thing as unemployment. The Minister pointed out this afternoon that the kind of training the United Party desires would promote unemployment. Now I just want to read to you what happened in Britain according to Hoofstad of 10th May (translation)—

That is what the United Party wants. But let me ask them the following question. Job reservation was introduced for the mines in 1926, and from that year onwards the Whites in the mines have been protected. In 1925, before we had introduced job reservation, there were 300 500 people employed in the mines, 10,5 per cent being Whites and 89,5 per cent being non-Whites. What is the position in 1970 under job reservation? In 1970 684 000 workers are employed by the mines, with 68 000 or 10 per cent being Whites, 609 000 or 89 per cent being Bantu and 7 000 or 0,1 per cent being Coloureds and Asiatics. I now ask this question: Are they going to abolish job reservation in the mines? It would create chaos.

This Vote we are discussing this afternoon is a very important one. It is said everywhere that education is the mother of all professions. Well, I say that labour is the mother of life itself. Labour is life itself. That is where man can fulfill himself. That is what he lives under. It is his whole life. That is why I want to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and his Department for this fine report which we received, in which we take note of the methods for combating the manpower shortage. In the biggest industries, such as the motor building, engineering, metal, explosives, sugar, electrical and coal industries, and in Government undertakings, the apprenticeship training period has been reduced from five years to four years. Moreover, exemption from the Apprenticeship Act has been granted so that persons of 19 years and older can be trained as bricklayers, plasterers and carpenters in the building industry for 18 months and subsequently qualify as artisans.

Sir, here I just want to mention, incidentally, that at Westlake the training per person costs R1 500 per year. In addition, exemption from the Apprenticeship Act is granted so that school pupils and students in the motor and metal industries can work in related industries during school holidays. Pupils in the motor industry can qualify as artisans after 2½ years by doing trade tests. In 1970 a total of 10963 apprenticeship contracts were registered, i.e. 1 490 more than in the previous year. The building and motor industries were responsible for more than half of the increase.

One of the Department’s most important objects is to promote the efficient utilization of the country’s manpower source. Hence there is a specific division of the Department, i.e. the professional services division, which does this work with its academically and practically trained professional advisors in the fields of aptitude testing, vocational guidance, staff slection, rehabilitation of the retarded, surveys and analyses and the provision of employment. Large numbers of young people, i.e. particularly people under the age of 19, approach the Department every year for help with respect to their choice of a suitable career and with respect to obtaining work. They receive intensive vocational training with the aid of all kinds of psychological techniques. In 1970 a total of 25 800 vocational guidance interviews were conducted. Psychometric tests alone totalled 7 000, Even military camps are visited where vocational training is supplied. During the year more than 3 000 national servicemen were assisted in this way. As far as staff selection is concerned, more than 30 Government departments referred almost 2000 officers to the Department’s offices for selection.

In the case of rehabilitation, a total of more than 16 000 interviews were conducted with physically and mentally retarded persons. Interviews were conducted with almost 1 400 ex-prisoners and 400 persons from asylums. As far as placement in the open labour market is concerned, 400 ex-prisoners, almost 1 900 retarded men, 330 women, 700 boys and 200 girls were selectively placed in employment. In addition more than 600 men, 90 women, 50 boys and 10 girls were placed in sheltered labour. Almost 1 900 professionally maladjusted persons Were given help and advice by vocational advisers. In the sphere of rehabilitation an inter-departmental committee exists, giving special attention to retarded persons. The Departments of Labour, Health, Prisons, Social Welfare and Pensions, National Education and education of the four provincial administrations and South-West Africa are represented here.

As far as the co-ordination of activities are concerned, the Department of Labour is represented by the professional services section consisting of the following, infer alia: the National Readjustment Committee and Vocational Board of the Department of National Education, the Special Schools Committee for Basic Curricula, also of the Department of National Education. [Time expired.]

Mr.

Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, made one remark which certainly interested me. That was where he said that labour was the mother of all our activities. I thought that that was a very intelligent remark, something which is a little strange, coming from the hon. members opposite, because their speeches so far in this debate have been particularly lacking in intelligence In facing the problems that we have in South Africa.

What concerns me most is the hon. the Minister himself. The hon. the Minister is responsible for this very important portfolio, but he does not accept that there is a labour crisis in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister does not accept this fact, in spite of all the authorities, the authorities which support his side, the Government, and those who support our side. All the authorities in South Africa have been warning now for months on end about the mounting labour crisis; yet the hon. the Minister can calmly and coolly get up and brush them aside. He says it is not a problem at all. If it was not so serious one could say that time would rectify this problem; but the problem we have leaves us no time whatsoever. This is why I believe that what the Minister says, is in fact a very dangerous state in which we find ourselves today. The hon. the Minister ignores completely that the nation’s strength is in its manpower. It is impossible that one-sixth of the population can go on carrying the burden of the other five-sixths. It just does not work; it never worked anywhere else and it certainly cannot work here. I would suggest that if we want to survive in South Africa, we must make use of all our manpower. It is no good the hon. the Minister and members opposite coming forward and saying that we are going to open the flood gates—they know that this is absolute nonsense. I would suggest to those hon. members that it is about time they applied their minds to this problem, not as Nationalist politicians, but as South Africans. If they applied their minds to this problem as responsible South Africans, they would realize that it is no good getting up and making the same trite remarks year after year and which are getting us absolutely nowhere at all. The problem is that we have to make use of all our manpower. To make use of our manpower, we must train them. Unless we do so, I would suggest that we are heading for very dangerous waters indeed. If the problem means that we must educate our Whites to accept this change in pattern, we must do so, because the changing pattern is to the benefit of every White person in South Africa, as well as to those non-Whites whom we intend training. It is no good carrying on as we are and having debates like this year after year, with this side of the House warning the Government of the problems that lie ahead and the Government merely brushing them aside for political purposes. We are under-paying our non-Whites in South Africa because they are untrained. If we train them we could make better use of them. They could be better used by the community and we would be able to pay them more. I would like to suggest that the only reason why we will not train our non-Whites in South Africa, is because the Government fears the consequences. And I would suggest too that the greater threat to South Africa is in fact the untrained non-Whites. It is a greater threat than any we might face from the outside. The greatest threat to South Africa is the mass of untrained labour earning below economic wages. It is about time the Government faced these facts and told the White workers in South Africa that their policy is pegging down their own advancement, because if the Government would only change its policy, there is not a single White worker in South Africa who could not advance his standard of living. This is the problem and the crime that the Government is committing against the workers of South Africa. It holds in one hand the fear of the mass of non-White labour, and at the same time deprives us of that very White labour, the skills of that labour, which we need so much. It holds them back; it pegs their advancement to a minimum. Either the Government must yield its labour policies or it must yield the government, because it cannot do both in the interests of South Africa. Speaking entirely from a selfish point of view, what is the position in Africa today? We find an increase in the cost of living; harbours blocked; trains cancelled; homes not built because we have not the labour; a telephone crisis and services deteriorating in almost every sector of the economy. There is a breakdown of our standard of living. Then we hear comments, such as those that the hon. member for Brakpan made in this House when he got up and said that the White worker forms the majority of the Nationalist Party’s supporters.

Of course.

He went on to say that the Nationalist Party would not be doing its duty if it allowed non-Whites to take over White jobs. I suggest that the Nationalist Party, for a change, should do its duty to South Africa. It owes more in its duty to South Africa than it owes to its White supporters.

In any case, under the latter course, the Nationalist Party is quite prepared to make concessions. It made particular concessions in areas such as Newcastle. The Nationalist Party calls us on this side of the House integrationalists and accuses us of wanting to open the floodgates, because we talk of breaking down job reservation. In Newcastle the Nationalist Party has allowed a construction firm, which gets many Government contracts to employ African bricklayers but it will not allow them to be employed anywhere else. They are only allowed to do so for this particular firm, which lives off Government contracts to a very large extent. This firm claims in its prospectus that it can build at a lower cost than any other firm. It can for the simple reason that it pays approximately 30c an hour to its Black bricklayers, which it is not supposed to have in the first place. How does this firm get away with it? It gets away with it because it gives to these Black bricklayers an instrument, which is not recognized in the building trade, namely a flat piece of iron with a handle attached. The firm claims that, since those workers are not using a trowel, they are not bricklayers. This cock-eyed thinking is costing South Africa dearly. If this cockeyed thinking is going to save the White race in South Africa, I suggest that the Nationalist Party erect a monument. At the top of this monument it can show this piece of flat iron, which is not supposed to be a trowel, because this piece of equipment is saving the White race from extinction. The Government are hypocrites in this particular respect.

Order!

The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw the word. Does this particular firm in Newcastle, Bester Homes, perhaps get away with it because it has undue influence or how does it get away with it? Is it happening in other areas as well? As I said just now, Government policy will forever condemn the White workers of South Africa to second-grade positions and a second-grade standard of living. The only way to save the White workers of South Africa from the self-inflicted wounds of the Nationalist Party is to train the non-Whites as speedily as possible, because only in this way will, not just the non-White workers but also the White workers and every one else in South Africa, be able to progress. [Time expired.]

I had thought the hon. member for Port Natal would swing this debate in a slightly different direction, but in reality the hon. member merely repeated what those who preceded him in this debate had said and what had already been said in three debates this session; a shortage of labour, training and wages. Those hon. members must tell us now whether they endorse every word said here this afternoon by the hon. member for Houghton. Do they endorse the plea for equal wages she made here this afternoon? They will have an opportunity to do so, because I think this debate will last another hour. They have the opportunity to tell us now to what extent they agree with the hon. member for Houghton. Sir, I am glad to see that the hon. member for Hillbrow is back in the Chamber. When the hon. member for Stilfontein referred to him a short while ago, it seemed as though he was disturbed and perhaps even slightly annoyed, if I may call it that, because the hon. member had told him that he should not act as if he were on television. I want to associate myself with the hon. the Minister and say to the hon. member for Hillbrow: The English Press is watching you in this debate. The English Press is not going to take notice of the way you swing your arms during your recital, or of your inflections or of your indications of tremendous concern. They are going to judge you on the substance of what you said. What I have just said applies to the hon. member for Yeoville as well and for as long as the substance of their speeches does not change, for so long they are going to be attacked by the people who have built them up and have brought them to here where they are today.

In regard to the Republic Day festivities and the public holiday now being granted to certain people, I should like to address a request to the hon. member for Houghton. I am doing this because I do not think there are hon. members on the other side who will respond to this. I want to ask her to appeal to those people who want to boycott Republic Day, to go to work on that day so that there would be no need for them to sit around at home. In that way they would at least be able to make use of that public holiday. If the hon. member wanted to do that, she would be doing the country a favour.

I now come to another point. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the way in which he handled the bus dispute in the Johannesburg urban areas. Sir, you will remember that the Municipality of Johannesburg kicked up a tremendous fuss last year about the shortage of bus staff. According to the United Party City Council, and those people opposite, there was only one solution and that was to use Coloured drivers. What they wanted to do there reflects the very thing they want to do in respect of every facet of our labour pattern in order to prove that separate development is not succeeding. What they wanted to do was to bring to bear tremendous pressure so that the demands would eventually have to be met for Coloureds to be employed on White buses. At that stage the hon. the Minister used the machinery available to him. He asked the industrial tribunal to take action in this matter, and what did we find? That fuss blew over. I understand that while that fuss was being made, as many as 3 600 buses per month were cancelled, while at present fewer than 500 buses per month are cancelled. The possibility no longer exists that the available male and female staff of those buses will resign from the service, which would have necessitated the employment of Coloureds. The matter was solved in co-operation with the trade unions. Savings were effected and planning was undertaken in various ways, and friction which could have arisen, was eliminated. Racial friction could have arisen between official and passenger or between official and co-official on those buses, but that difficulty was eliminated by the action of the hon. the Minister and the industrial tribunal.

Why not ask the opinion of the passengers who have to wait for buses that do not arrive?

Sir, many people still have to wait in the streets. I saw them again in the past week, but the hon. member for Houghton should turn to the people sitting next to her. There was one complaint before the hon. the Minister and that was that there was a shortage of certain staff. Through his intervention by means of the industrial tribunal that problem was solved. There are hundreds of other matters which that United Party municipality can rectify in order to improve the bus situation in Johannesburg.

Earlier on when he was making his speech the hon. member for Yeoville kicked up a tremendous fuss. He pointed out, inter alia, the tremendous demands which were going to be made by the workers. He said that sooner or later this Government would not be able to resist the pressure any longer and that at such time large-scale salary concessions would have to be made again. In this regard I should like to quote from the report of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council of February, 1971. The report reads as follows (translation)—

Then this important statement follows—

Here we have a group of authoritative people telling us in anticipation that the hon. member for Yeoville is mistaken. No unreasonable, unfair pressure will be brought to bear. As in the case of this single example of the Johannesburg bus staff, so the trade unions not being led by Tom Murrays and others, will act responsibly because they are as afraid as we on this side are of the possibility of unemployment, of the possibility of racial conflict and racial friction in the sphere of labour.

There is much talk in this House of labour in various spheres. But in no debate have hon. members on that side of this House satisfied me with regard to the question of labour, because when they speak of labour, they head only for the economy. The first instruction to file first human being was to work. The instruction was: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread- For that reason labour is an inherent part of man’s existence. For that reason every person wants to and shall work. The National Party recognizes that principle, i.e. that the people do not work only for the economy, but that they also have a need for it as well. Man does not work only for food, clothes and accommodation. These things are of basic importance, but man also works to serve the community in which he lives. The South African community is a particularly complex one. We have racial problems. We must continually warn against the possibilities of racial conflict. Our workers realize it is our great task and their great task to approach labour in such a way that each will do only his best on his own level and receive his wage for that.

But are hon. members opposite prepared to tell us where they want to draw the line in respect of the plea made by the hon. member for Houghton, i.e. that there should be equal wages for everybody? Should it be applicable only to the bricklayer, or in the highest circles of technical and administrative workers as well? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the hon. member for Westdene who has just sat down, whether he has ever walked along a bus queue in Johannesburg trying to find out what the people, who are standing there waiting for the buses to come, think about the bus service in Johannesburg. All they are concerned about is getting to and from their work. They do not care a tinker’s damn whether the bus is going to be driven by a White busdriver or a non-White busdriver.

In the remarks I wish to address this House, I would like to direct hon. members attention to the position of the Coloured workers in the Western Cape and particularly the position of the Coloured workers in greater Cape Town, Although the statistics available in regard to the details of Coloured workers and their position in industry in the Western Cape, are not up to date as the 1970 statistics are not yet available to us, there is no doubt that this area has to rely more and more on Coloured labour for its semi-skilled work requirements. It has to rely more and more on Coloured workers even for its skilled labour requirements. Important industries such as the clothing industry, which is the largest industry in this area, and the footwear industry are already virtually entirely manned by Coloured workers. Other important industries, such as the construction industry, the building industry and the ancillary trades connected with the building industry, are increasingly leaning on the Coloured people for their skilled and semi-skilled labour requirements. What is significant about the position in the Western Cape is that although the advance of the Coloured people into skilled and semi-skilled work has taken place very definitely and very clearly, it has also happened gradually by way of evolution and, most important of all, it has happened peacefully.

The industrial history of this area has, to my mind, tended to prove three things. Firstly, it has proved that the Coloured people are increasingly providing the backbone of the blue collar work force. In some industries they provide the complete work force. Secondly, it is proved that this evolution of the Coloureds coming into industry and providing the skilled and semiskilled work force has not been to the disadvantage of the White workers who previously were in those industries. It has not been to the White workers’ disadvantage, because they have moved into more skilled jobs and have moved into more responsible jobs and they have moved into the white collar jobs. Thirdly, history has tended to prove that the intermediate period, when both White and Coloured workers were working in the same industries doing the same jobs and very often working there side by side, has been a peaceful intermediate period. Let me say that this evolution has been peaceful not because of the Government and its policies, but rather despite the Government and its policies. It has been peaceful because of the good sense and the responsibility of the workers, the trade unions and the employers.

This evolution of the Coloureds advancing and being integrated in the economic activity of the area is as inevitable as night following day. The Coloureds have the innate ability to do these jobs and with the relatively faster increase in their population, it is natural that they should provide the dominant numbers of workers. This process is not stopping with blue collar workers. It is already happening and it is happening to an increasing degree that Coloured workers are entering the white collar grades in commerce, finance, banking and the distributive trade.

This is something which should be recognized by the Government as being inevitable and the hon. the Minister should stop playing King Canute and trying to push this tide back. What is required is recognition of the fact that this development is taking place, recognition that it is desirable and recognition that it should be encouraged because it is to the benefit of everyone, the Coloured workers and the White workers alike. Instead of using measures such as the Shops and Offices Act to put obstacles in the way of this evolution happening, the Government should be preparing the ground so that this advance of the Coloured people into more responsible white collar jobs takes place smoothly and peacefully.

One of the chief worries of the White workers as the result of Coloureds coming into areas which have been traditionally White areas of work is that their wages will be undermined. This is far more important in their minds than the need for physical separation between Whites and non-White workers on which the hon. the Minister places so much emphasis. I think that this is a very real and justified fear. I think it is regrettable and shortsighted that the wages of the Coloureds, although they comply with the minimum requirements of wage determinations and industrial conciliation agreements, are generally being set lower than the wages and salaries of their White counterparts doing the same work. It is regrettable, because it induces a sense of insecurity among the White workers. It is regrettable because it encourages bitterness among the Coloured workers, and it is regrettable because there is no basis of equity or morality in paying less for equal work just because the Coloured labour is more freely available. I think it is regrettable that this is being done by so many employers in this area, including, I might say, employers who are known to be members of the Progressive Party. Nothing could be more calculated to lead to friction than this practice, and it is for that very reason that it is a cornerstone of the policy of this side of the House that the rate should be paid for the job. I would like to appeal to employers to observe this principle voluntarily, because it is in their long-term interests to do so. While the hon. the Minister may have no legal powers to enforce equal pay for equal work, I do regard it as his duty, in the interests of the prosperity of the country and its progress, and in the interest of industrial peace, to set a lead by using his considerable influence to encourage the practice of paying equal wages for equal work to Coloureds in white-collar jobs in this part of the country.

We have now finally heard from the hon. member for Constantia that what the United Party wants' is “the rate for the job”. I hope the Afrikaans worker, the White worker in South Africa, will take note that this is the new policy of the Opposition. Sir, the debate up to now has shown us very clearly that there are two approaches to labour matters in South Africa, namely the approach of this side of this House and the approach of that side of this House. The approach of this side is very clear. We want industrial peace and, above all, satisfaction in the sphere of labour, but does the Opposition pay any attention to this? No, they are only interested in one matter, and one matter alone, i.e. to make as much money as possible, and in order to do this, they are prepared to open the flood-gates so that the Blacks may swamp South Africa. This is what they did when they were in power, and if they were to have the opportunity again, Heaven preserve White South Africa!

Sir, this is the fifth session I have attended here, and never have I heard an hon. member on that side of the House rise and say, “I am proud that the United Party did this and that for South Africa while it was in power”. I have not heard one example of that.

But then you must be deaf.

No member on that side has ever risen and said that while in power they did this or that for South Africa, and that on the strength of that they were going to ask the electorate to vote for the United Party. Sir, there are in fact two things which they did for South Africa and which I have forgotten to mention. In 1924 and in 1948 they gave way so that the National Party could take over. Sir, I can lay quite a number of things at their door; I can mention several reasons why the White voters of South Africa decided that they were sick and tired of the United Party. In fact, there are so many examples that one does not know where to start. But since we are concerned with a labour debate now, why not start by laying at their door a charge concerning labour? Can hon. members opposite tell me how they acted under their labour arrangements when labour problems arose in 1913, in 1914 and 1922?

What was the position before the rinderpest?

Sir, unfortunately that hon. member came out of the rinderpest too well. Let them tell us what they did for the workers of South Africa. One can understand why, barely a month ago, when they made a gigantic appeal to the workers in Witbank, they received the reply they deserved and should have received. Can they understand it now? Why do they not challenge the farmers of South Africa as well; why do they not say to the farmers, “Waterberg, here we come!” Why do they not do this? No, if there is one direction in which the political weathercock of the United Party is not pointing, it is Waterberg. I do not think they will be dissatisfied if I mention a few more United Party highlights to them. What about the United Party’s income tax policy? What about the late Minister Jan Hofmeyr? He was, actually, a “tax maniac”.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Vote now.

Sir, may I just add this about the Opposition’s political past? They were in power for a scant few years until 1948, and ever since the National Party has been saddled with the problem of trying to close those Black floodgates they opened and to check that Black wave. What are they doing today? They are fighting it tooth and nail. And why are they doing it? If the Sunday Times, or if the English press, to give it a wider connotation, calls the tune, that Opposition dances. What is more, the hon. Opposition as well as the English press are like clay in the hands of the power of money. They do not care about White South Africa; they merely want to make money. Let the Black tide sweep on.

Why are you talking in such a broad sense? Where did we say that the flood-gates should be opened and that the Black tide may sweep on?

I can read it out to members from Hansard and also from Crafford’s book on Gen. Smuts. And I have seen it with my own eyes. If the hon. member had been in Pretoria during the war years, he would have known what I am talking about. However, I want to raise two other matters with the hon. the Minister. Much has been said here today about the labour shortage. I should like to make a request to the hon. the Minister. If the question is too delicate, I shall leave it at that. There are two sources of labour which may perhaps be investigated by the department and which may perhaps bear fruit. The first group is one of which the hon. member for Hillbrow should be aware. I am referring to that group of our South African youth that may usually be recognized by their long hair, clothing, etc. Perhaps the hon. member for Hillbrow could furnish us with more information in this regard. The other group I have in mind, are the Whites who are in gaols. These people could be used at places where they would not be in the public eve, because they would still be serving sentences. Other departments are concerned in this matter as well, but one could consider this possibility. The services of these people could possibly be used in a very constructive way in order to relieve the labour shortage to a certain extent.

The second matter I want to mention, is really more concerned with Pretoria West. This matter was reported to the Department of Labour, and I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for the diligent and capable way in which they paid attention to the matter and also for the very courteous letter they wrote to me, I should like to read out part of the letter. It read as follows (translation):

Is that separate development?

If that hon. member wants to go and work in the place of an Indian, I shall ask the hon. the Minister to give permission, for that. The letter went on to say:

I should like to discuss another matter with the hon. the Minister as well. Pretoria has now its own Indian residential area which has been very effectively laid out by the City Council of Pretoria. The Indians have their own business area, and I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to move the Indians living in the White area so that they may go and work in that Indian business area. If that could be done, I would appreciate it very much. Perhaps the hon. the Minister and his department could investigate the matter and do something about it.

Mr. Chairman, I found difficulty in following the logic of the hon. member for Pretoria West towards the end of his speech. Apparently he has a problem in connection with shop apartheid, but I think that he should rather write a letter to the hon. the Minister in this connection, because I could not follow his logic very well. The hon. member wanted to know from us what the United Party had done for the workers. The Industrial Reconciliation Act, which is spoken of with so much pride by hon. members opposite and which ensures industrial peace and quiet in South Africa, is something that the old South African Party established. It is the foundation on which the labour structure in South Africa was developed. This evening I just want to make one remark, Several times I have heard in this hon.

House how the United Party is referred to as supposedly being political vultures. I have heard it said in debates by both the Prime Minister and other members, for example the hon. member for Randburg. But when we are speaking about labour—I have gathered this—about the shortage that exists and the possible solutions to the problem of the labour shortage in this country, I am convinced that the actions of hon. members opposite are exactly those of political vultures.

One can divide them into two groups. There are those to whom I refer as the totally reckless. That is the type who hopes that when we speak we will say something which they can interpret as the hon. member has just done, i.e. as if we want to throw wide the sluices and the doors for unskilled non-White labour. We have heard this repeatedly. I believe that people who speak in this way do not care one little bit for the future of South Africa. These are people who do not actually want the labour problem to be solved, because they see that for as long as our country has a labour question it is something from which political capital can be made. While we, in our policy statements, speak of negotiations with trade union and staff organizations, they continue to speak as they do. They are fully aware of that. The hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, even spoke of “streams that flow”, and not only of sluices. He must surely be aware of that.

But there is also another type of hon. member opposite. He at least realizes that something must be done about the labour problem. He is the one who has thus far tried to run away, but nevertheless cannot scrape together the courage to indicate to the people what road must be followed.

May I ask a question?

Ah, sit down. It is hon. members who, by means of the question and answer technique, want to get certain suggestions from us. When we give these suggestions, they pounce on them like predators and try to get hold of them. In some cases they make a total botch-up of it.

Sir, I am going to give you specific examples. I hope that I shall still have enough time this evening. I have last year’s Hansard here. Unfortunately I shall not have time to go through it. In the debate about mining the Nationalist Party applied thequestion and answer tactics to the hon. members for Rosettenville and Yeoville with respect to the training of non-Whites in the Bantu reserves. When the reply was given to the question about what they must be trained for, it sounded like this—

To another question that was asked, the hon. member for Rosettenville replied—

Sir, it is very interesting that, within a few weeks of that happening, the brave heroes, the hon. members for Rustenburg and Stilfontein, for example, held meetings and tried to open negotiations. What was interesting is that they tried to do if according to the guidelines laid down by the United Party. But we can go further. Here I have, for example, an instance in the Railway debate. The Minister of Transport put questions to the hon. member for Durban Point in that connection, referring to the problems they have in the Durban harbour. The member for Durban Point then said that he was referring to the job of fork-lift truck driver. That was on 15th March, 1971. Two weeks later there was a big announcement in the newspaper, “Move to beat backlog—Africans to do White wharf jobs”. If one reads this one finds that suddenly 55 have been employed.

Business Interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.