I wish to devote a little time this morning to a discussion of the concept of the communal council. The communal council is the key to the United Party policy of the constitutional development of the races. That has been the case so far as this side of the House is concerned, for a number of years, and since the National Party adopted that principle in respect of the Coloured people and the Indian people, there is to that extent a measure of common ground between the two parties. Consequently, there can be a useful discussion under this Vote on that concept and on the view taken up by both sides of the House on the development of such a communal council. Whereas with us the communal council—and the Indian Council of course is a communal council— is the focal point of a network of constitutional relationships, with the National Party, as far as we can understand it, it is something which stands starkly alone. I would like to compare the policies of the two parties in relation to this common concept which we have of an Indian Communal Council.

Take, firstly, the council itself. With the United Party the council itself should be a fully elected body now, whereas with the National Party, we discovered only at the end of the Committee Stage of the Bill which brought in the elective principle to that body, that the Government stands for five of the thirty members of that council being elected. We have had no indication whatsoever from the hon. the Minister of what the future of that body is to be. Indeed one has—and this is the only quotation I shall give in the short time available to me—the attitude of the Minister expressed as follows. The hon. member for Umbilo asked whether he was in favour or opposed to a totally elected Indian council ultimately? This is what the hon. gentleman said, and this is what he has said over and over again in different ways during the last few years. He said—

Parliament is very much concerned.

That is why I felt it necessary, in the five minutes available to me yesterday, to make what some might consider, elementary remarks on the function of this House and the Minister when it comes to the Vote Indian Affairs.

Let us come again to the United Party’s views on this communal council. I have said that we believe it should be a fully elected body. We believe it should be a body with its own headquarter building, with its own chamber, offices and staff; that it should have meaningful executive functions, with which I shall deal more fully in a moment; that it shall have its own money with which to deal with its affairs, both from a grant and probably from powers of taxation which it itself will exercise. We believe that it should have powers such as over finance, local government, health, education, the law of status, social welfare, cultural affairs and possibly sport and recreation as well. Now, what is the attitude of the Nationalist Party in comparison with that, the party in power with executive functions, as I emphasize? We were told nothing from 1968 until the council was brought into being in 1970 and since then we have been told this year in terms of the legislation that the council will control community welfare and education at some time unknown in the future. More than that the hon. the Minister has not enlarged upon it in any way at all.

He treats Parliament with contempt.

Yes, he treats Parliament with contempt. Let us come then to the council’s position in the South African State, this Indian Communal Council. This is important not only in itself, but we realize that it cannot exist in isolation. We believe that it must exist as part of a whole and so we give it links with the Central Parliament through a standing Joint Select Committee where members of this House and members of the communal council can meet round a table and discuss matters of mutual interests. Just imagine, Sir, the useful discussion we could have had in this House had there been such a standing Select Committee in existence before the hon. the Minister brought in the Bill containing the elective principle for the Indian Communal Council a few weeks ago. In the light of the Minister’s refusal to discuss anything with this House, we could at least have had useful discussions in the Select Committee with members of the Indian Council. I have no doubt that this House would then have been far better equipped to deal with that Bill, had such a standing Select Committee been in existence and had such a measure been referred to such a Select Committee before it was introduced to this House. That is the one part of the constitutional framework whereby we in the United Party believe that this communal council must be involved in the general constitutional setup in South Africa. The other is the indirect representation for which we stand and on which I shall not elaborate at the moment because it is not accepted by the Government party. I am trying to deal with matters on which there is a measure of common ground, the communal council being one of those spheres,

Now, as I have said, with the United Party the communal council for the Indians is one of a number of units which form a recognizable and acceptable federal constitutional relationship; it does not exist in isolation. With the National Party it exists in complete isolation. The Indians, according to Government philosophy, shall never have a state of their own. They are accepted as permanent inhabitants and indeed as citizens of this country, and yet their communal council has no links whatsoever with this Parliament or with the ultimate authority in South Africa, and this despite the murmurings of the Minister of Defence in respect of links for the Coloured community. It is these matters which we wish to try to persuade the hon. the Minister to discuss under this Vote. If the Opposition is prepared to put forward its views in regard to the future development of the Asiatic people, surely the Minister in charge, in command of the situation, is able to give us the benefit of his view in this regard.

He is the big White Rajah!

We have been trying to persuade him to do this and to entice him to give us the benefit of his views ever since 1970, as far as my research goes. The National Party, through the Minister, says that the council at some time in the future will have control of education, but let the Minister tell us something about this. Is it for example going to have control of the University of Durban-Westville? Is there to be Indian representation on the council of the university of Durban-Westville when that takes place? Is that university going to be given a sensible name instead of the name it has at present? And let the Minister tell us a little about the boycott which is taking place at that institution at present. And let him also tell us about the part he plays in the question of group areas. I raised this over the last two years, but we find that in respect of both Ladysmith and Newcastle in Natal, despite the pious utterances of the Ministerial statement of February, 1971, that when once a group area is determined it will be permanent, you have replanning on a large scale taking place in Newcastle at the present time, with a view to changing the already settled group areas of that town. This is one of the principal grievances of the Indian community. We only have to read what the chairman of the Indian Council has had to say about the group areas proclamation for Stockville near Pinetown, for example, not to mention the others, and to read what the leaders of the Indian community say about Ladysmith and Newcastle. The Minister, as the responsible Minister in charge of this group, has a vital part to play in bringing his influence to bear on his colleagues who deal with group areas, and we should like to hear what the Minister’s influence is in that regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, provisionally I just want to make a few remarks about the speech of the hon. member for Zululand. Yesterday evening the hon. member stated in his introductory remarks that the criticism emanating from his side in respect of this Vote is not aimed at the hon. the Minister in his personal capacity, but in his capacity as Minister. I do not doubt the hon. member’s sincerity when he made that remark, but I do not know whether this is always equally applicable to the Opposition as such. I personally have been sitting in this House long enough to be able to doubt whether it is all that innocent, particularly when the Opposition sometimes comes along with snide and sarcastic remarks about the hon. the Minister as a person. I nevertheless hope that the assurance the hon. member gave us will have a positive influence.

This morning the hon. member elaborated on the United Party’s arguments during the recent debate on the South African Indian Council Amendment Bill. He tried to explain further the United Party’s policy in connection with the Indians. I should like to leave him at that.

I should like to express a particular word of congratulations to the department’s Secretary, Mr. Prinsloo, and the relevant officials in connection with the fine report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the period 1st January, 1971 to 30th June, 1971, which we have received. I regard this as a very informative and comprehensive report, in fact I regard it as a first-rate report about all the facets of the functions of the department. It gives us a penetrating, fine but also particularly objective report about the activities of the department. I am saying that I found this report to be a good one; better than other reports I have had a look at during this session. I regard it as a good reference work in connection with Indian affairs.

From page 18 to page 26 there is specifically a chapter devoted to the matter the hon. member raised here, i.e. the political development of the Indians. Emphasis is given to the role the South African Indian Council played and is still playing. It is also emphasized that the Indian Council took the initiative in bringing matters affecting the Indian community to the attention of the authorities. It is informative to see how the council’s activities cover a broad front and how it has become the mouthpiece of Indian interests in general. On page 21 of the report (RP. 38—’72) the Secretary for Indian Affairs makes further reference to this in the following words:

I do not want to elaborate much more on the Indian Council and its Executive Committee as such, but everything points to the fact that the council, despite its being an exclusively nominated body, has become a champion of the interests of the Indian community. Despite the fact that it is a nominated body, it has the confidence of the relevant community to an ever-increasing extent. On the other hand—this I should like to emphasize—this body also furnishes a positive contribution by virtue of the councillors’ balanced, responsible and realistic approach to matters for the creation and perpetuation of racial harmony and peaceful coexistence. We on this side of the House have already conclusively referred to that in the debate I have just alluded to.

Upon reflection I should just like to make a single remark in connection with the relevant debate. With reference to what the hon. member for Houghton said in the relevant debate in which, as usual, she posed as a champion of the interests of the Indians, I read the following a short time afterwards in the Cape Times of 29th March under the heading “Indians satisfied —Rajab”—

A little further it goes on to state—

That is exactly what the Indian leaders think of the hon. member for Houghton’s rashness when she constantly elevates herself to the position of a spokesman for the Indians in the Republic.

That is not all he said.

Possibly the Indian leaders think the same of the so-called champions of their case on the United Party side.

It is unfortunate that the old spirit and the old attitude of the Natal and Transvaal Indian Congress, which prevailed amongst a large percentage of the leading Indians for a long time, still continues unchecked amongst a certain section of the Indians. It is a part of this section which regards itself as a leading group amongst the Indian communities and they are still trying to place the members of the Indian Council in a poor light with the Indian communities. In addition they are still trying to discredit the work of the Indian Council. It is the section that also pays heed to certain newspapers which are also read by the Indians, and to the Indian newspapers. It is beyond comprehension that those people are in fact to be found amongst this latter section. I say that it is, one hopes, a small group which lends itself to devising plots and trying to bring about an anti-White revolution, virtually advocating a communist take-over while they enjoy the security of citizenship in this country.

I just want to refer briefly to what has happened to the Indians in certain states of Africa, and how this compares with the just treatment of the Indians here. Recently I read the following in a newspaper—

In that same newspaper I read that prior to the so-called uhuru in East Africa, there were 400 000 Indians in the various areas, i.e. Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda, Zanzibar, Zambia and Malawi. The newspaper continues as follows—

In the course of six to seven years the number of Indians in these aforementioned countries of Africa have decreased by 50 per cent. Where those approximately 200 000 have vanished to in the course of that period remains a big question. Each of these countries has, in the course of time, passed regulations and laws and employed methods to intimidate their Indians and either to cause them to disappear or to reduce them to beggary. In contrast to that the whole world knows what fair, just treatment the Indians receive from the South African Government. An overseas newspaper, The London Times,—we all know that The London Times is not the greatest admirer of the Government and its policy—referred a while ago to what happened in the former British colonies and pointed out that while the former colonies in East Africa—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down did what the Government members have been doing in this House over the years, namely to draw comparison between the fate of different sections of the community in other countries.

And why not?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member wants to know why not. I say that surely we in South Africa consider ourselves a little more advanced than some of the other African countries on this continent. Surely, we in South Africa consider ourselves a Christian community. Therefore, to draw comparisons between what is done elsewhere and what is done here, to my mind, is just so much nonsense and is no credit to South Africa, and South Africans anywhere. I am not the least bit concerned with what happens in Kenya or Zambia or anywhere else outside South Africa. As far as the Indian community is concerned, I am involved and interested in what happens here in South Africa itself. Talking about that, we in South Africa have very little to be proud of in the treatment of the Indian community. This sort of attitude from one of the members on the Government side, gets us absolutely nowhere at all.

What do you suggest?

I suggest a change of Government. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, before I come to the remarks I wish to make, I should just like to correct an impression created by the hon. the Minister during the earlier debate on the Indian Council Bill, where he accused this side of the House of not carrying out its own policy in the province of Natal, where we are in fact the government. The hon. the Minister should have known better. We on this side of the House did not have the time available to us that he had. He should know that we in Natal, are handicapped and crippled by the heavy hand of this Nationalist Government. What we have to do in Natal, is to carry out the legislation passed by the Nationalist Government. In so far as the hon. the Minister was referring to the elections of local authority councils in Natal, I would remind him that these are set out in the Group Areas Act under section 29. We in Natal have to carry out those instructions. We would only be too pleased if the Government would lift its heavy hand of irresponsibility over Natal and let us show the country how a province can be governed under the United Party.

It has always been difficult for us in this debate to discover just what does the hon. the Minister believe his duties to be in regard to the Indian community. My hon. colleague from Zululand made this quite clear. Year after year we seem to get nothing out of the hon. the Minister except that he consults with the Indians and refuses to consult with members on this side of the House. This is the only answer we can get from him. When we talk to him of matters of vital interest to the Indians, he simply says: “I will consult with the Indians and not with you”. In fact, he says that he will ignore us. I would then like to test this degree of consultation that he has with the Indian community and with the Indian Council, as he says, and refer him to a press statement issued by his department in which he said that the Executive of the Indian Council had met various Ministers and that they have put forward proposals in regard to the provision of free trading areas where Indians could continue to trade with all racial groups. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what success he had with that one. He then referred to the resettlement of displaced traders in Indian group areas, in small rural towns. I would ask here, too, what success did he have with that, bearing in mind that he is consulting with the Indian Council and not with us. Then there was the encouragement to Indian traders to resettle themselves in industrial growth points. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell me whether he has had success in regard to this particular item.

Then he went on to refer to opportunities for Indians to provide their own alternative accommodation for resettlement. Perhaps he might point out to us the success of this one as well. There was an interesting one which dealt with the consultation in regard to the future of the Indian market in Durban and the discussions they had with the Durban City Council. There I would suggest he had very little success at all, because the Indians are under notice to move at the end of September. Therefore, no thanks at all do they owe to the hon. the Minister or to the degree of consultation that he has with the Indian Council.

That is how he sees his responsibilities in regard to the Indians. He will consult with the Indian Council. As I see it, his responsibility is a little different. I see his responsibility as standing between the Indians and the Department of Planning and the Department of Community Development in their actions against the Indian community. It is certainly true that these two departments have bedevilled and ruined the lives of so many thousands of Indians and as I see it, it is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs to stand between them and those two departments, and to be their champion. I do not suppose that there is any race group in South Africa that has been as shabbily treated as this group under the present Government, particularly by these two departments.

What did you do before 1948?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who is muttering over there, completely ignores the facts of the position. We have made our position quite clear in this respect, namely to treat these people as human beings, to cease moving them around until you can supply the necessary accommodation.

Let us have a look at some of these things. Mr. Chairman, I have never heard the hon. Minister mention any of these facts; I do not believe he knows about them and I do not believe he really cares, but it is a fact that 40 per cent of this population has been moved by the Nationalist Government from their homes and businesses, or is in the process of being moved. Something like 200 000 people have been moved by this Government. I should imagine that in very few countries in the world, an amount like this could be equalled. 200 000 have been moved and the axe is about to fall on another 17 000 if the hon. the Minister of Planning gets around to making decisions on the group areas which are now under consideration. But I have never heard of the hon. the Minister, as my hon. friend from Zululand said, being able to slow down group area proclamations or reproclamations. Since the statement was issued in connection with the Indian Council, after consultation with the Indian Council, we have had another proclamation, which is affecting the Indians at Stockville. Was nothing done by that hon. Minister to try to prevent this? If this is not so, will he please get up in this House and tell us what he has done to protect the interests of those people, whom he is supposed to protect. 4 546 Indian traders had become disqualified in South Africa under this Government. 547 of them have already been moved. I should like to know from that hon. Minister what he is doing about the other 4 000 odd. They are living by the grace of a permit issued by the Department of Community Development. What arrangements has he made to resettle these people? What arrangements has he made, for instance, to see that the slum conditions in Chatsworth do not deteriorate even further? What arrangements has he made about the shortage of housing for the Indian community? Last year this Government was instrumental in having built through its loan funds in the Durban area 2 287 dwelling units. At the moment there is a shortage of dwelling units in Durban for the Indian community of 30 000, but just over 2 000 were built in one year. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that I would be more convinced of his sincerity about the people over whom he has charge, if he was able to tell me that he knows that the number of houses that are being built for the Indian community at the moment, is not even enough to cater for the population increase of the one Indian township of Chatsworth. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I begin my speech I just want to discuss certain matters with the hon. member for Durban Point. Unfortunately he is not present. Last week the hon. member for Durban Point made some scathing remarks about the Minister, Mr. Waring. In the “deep platteland” where I come from, we were taught to play a game according to the rules.

How modest can you be!

To deviate from that usually meant defeat and distaste for relations with your opponents. The United Party and their Press were infuriated by the fact that the National Party mentioned and proved that they either supported the anti-Afrikaans-speaking feeling or allowed it. In attacking the hon. Mr. Waring, the hon. Senator Horwood or other prominent English-speaking Nationalists personally, the United Party is giving the National Party the right to renew the debate on anti-group attitudes in South Africa. I think we have enough examples to prove that wherever a prominent English-speaking South African joins the National Party there is a tendency amongst our opponents to ridicule the persons of those sound South Africans.

What has that got to do with the Indian Vote?

I want to advise the hon. member for Durban Point to stop with that kind of personal remarks or otherwise we on this side of the House will have no other choice but to start a debate on the United Party’s anti-English-speaking South African attitude.

*I want to come back to the hon. member for Port Natal. In the previous debate, when we introduced certain amendments in respect of the Indian Council, I told that hon. member—and I want to quote myself when I say this—that he should fundamentally, scientifically and meaningfully tell us why the United Party thinks they could vote for those particular amendments in principle and why they think the hon. member for Houghton is opposed to them as shown by the fact that she did not vote for them. I want to state very clearly here this morning that the hon. member for Port Natal has in no way satisfied me with his arguments about why he voted for those amendments in principle and why he disagrees with the hon. member for Houghton.

Let me state very clearly this morning that I am as far from agreement with the hon. member for Houghton as East is from West. However, let us concede that in this House her conduct is always fundamentally correct. She did not vote for that legislation because she and her party believe that all people in South Africa, regardless of their race or colour, should be placed on a common voters’ roll when they comply with certain qualifications. Then they must have the right to vote for a representative in this House.

Quite correct.

But the hon. member for Port Natal must now tell us very clearly why, in the light of his arguments about population questions in South Africa, he does not agree with the hon. member for Houghton and why, according to the idiom of his debating, he wants to justify, to a larger extent, the fact that he wishes to see the Indians in South Africa placed in this House on the basis he advocates. Or the hon. member for Zululand and the hon. member for Port Natal, having been in this House for so long—and I will be here much longer than they will if I am spared—must indicate to us why they disagree fundamentally with the hon. member for Houghton.

I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that in the light of everything that is conveyed in the report of the Department of Indian Affairs—I think it is a very good report—the hon. member for Port Natal must indicate to me why, in his opinion, the Indian in South Africa has not made any progress as the result of the policy of the National Party from 1948 up to the present day. The hon. member said that he supported the amendment of the said Bill because certain benefits are contained in it for the Indians of South Africa. If we look at the table of contents of this relevant report, we see that certain remarks are made about political development, economic development and community development. Statutory and other services are also mentioned. At every turn the welfare of Indians is discussed. Education, technical education and university education for the Indians are also discussed. I want the hon. members of the Opposition to indicate to us meaningfully where there has not been any improvement in every facet of the Indian’s life in South Africa.

I can show you figures. It is not so.

But it is so! The hon. member did not read the report. He must indicate to me where there has not been any improvement.

We had it in this morning’s replies to questions.

I also want to refer hon. members, as the hon. member for Koedoespoort has done, to what has happened to the Indians in the rest of Africa.

That does not count.

The hon. member for Port Natal says that does not count. If that argument of his does not count, then no other country in the world has any right to point a finger at South Africa and the National Party in respect of the treatment of our various population groups in South Africa. I want to refer hon. members to a passage which I quoted for them last time in respect of what Prof. Pachai, the professor from Malawi, said. Unfortunately I cannot find the quotation at the moment. The professor said very clearly that if there is one group of people in South Africa and in Africa which could not boast of what it has done for the Indians in Africa, it is the British Government. For those of us who make a study of the political parties in South Africa, it is very clear that the United Party set-up is a continuation of the principle, policy and standpoints of British imperialism in South Africa. It is only a continuation of the colonization policy which England, Britain and all other European powers adhered to in Africa. The National Party, on the other hand, is the only party, from that group of people which obtained its consolidation, its nature and principles in Africa, which adopts a standpoint in respect of the other population groups. Prof. Pachai said the British Government has nothing to feel proud of in respect of what it did in Africa. He said that the Afrikaner, on the other hand, whose idea and way of life also found a place in the National Party, at least acted consistently in respect of its standpoint towards the Indians in South Africa. Therefore I just want to say—and this also applies to the Indian community in South Africa—that if any population group in South Africa wants to remain and wants to contribute to the consolidation of our economy, our peace locally and to consolidation against the dangers threatening us from outside, it cannot but respect the cultural values and patterns of life of other population groups in South Africa. And if the Indian community of South Africa wants to make a contribution on these conditions I have laid down, it will also have to take into account the nature and principles of other population groups.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to leave the hon. member for Pretoria Rissik to have his private fight with the hon. member for Port Natal because I have several matters to raise with the hon. the Minister. However, I wish to say to him that the disadvantages suffered by the Indian population are to be seen in group area removals, the deprivation of the same opportunities for earning a livelihood and the uprooting and uplifting of thousands of people from homes they have occupied for decades and generations and moving them to other areas. These are very real reasons why the Indian people …

Even from slum areas?

Even from slum areas, because slum clearance can be done in situ, as I have told hon. members of this House time and time again. It is not necessary to lift entire communities and move them miles out of that part of town.

I want to talk about this report, viz. the report of the Department of Indian Affairs. I want to say right away that it is a very interesting report and that it gives a lot of information. I would like to commend the department on having given us so much detailed information. More particularly I want to say that the report shows considerable improvement as far as education is concerned. There is no doubt that the courses now being offered by the M. L. Sultan Technical College are of a very wide variety and that the Indian community is benefiting considerably therefrom. The university is also offering many more courses. This does not mean to say that I approve of the way in which the Advisory Senate and so on has been constituted or the manner in which the university students there are being handled. I think they are not treated in a sufficiently adult fashion by the authorities concerned. There is, however, no doubt that there has been a broadening of the courses offered which is all to the advantage of the Indian people.

I asked the hon. the Minister the other day whether he was considering the introduction of compulsory education and he replied: Not at present, the matter is still being considered. I do think that the time has come for at least a pilot scheme to be introduced. The Secretary for Indian Education made a statement not long ago in which he stated that 99 per cent of educable Indian children between the ages of 7 and 13 were already at school. It seems to me that in those circumstances it should not be too difficult to single out an area or two to start pilot schemes for compulsory education for Indians. The drop-out rate is not as high as it is among Coloured people and certainly nothing like the drop-out rate for African children. I think it would be an excellent indication of the department’s intention to go ahead with this if one or two pilot schemes for the compulsory education of Indian children are started.

The report also shows a commendable narrowing, however slight, of the gap in social benefits. There is something there which I am very pleased about, particularly as far as foster grants and grants for children committed to institutions are concerned. There is a narrowing of the gap in the benefits paid to Whites and to Indians in this regard which is to be commended. There is lots of room for improvement, of course, particularly as far as other pensioners are concerned, a matter which I am sure my hon. bench mate is going to deal with in some detail.

I want to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of the movement of Indians from province to province in South Africa. Obviously I am for complete mobility. I do not believe that the citizens or nationals of a country should not be permitted to move freely around within the country of their birth. I am against these inter-provincial barriers as a matter of principle. But I do think that changes could be made within Government policy which the Indian community would greatly appreciate, e.g. the doing away with the necessity to apply for permits for short period visits to other provinces. The report states that something like 11 000 permits were granted to Indians within six months to travel from province to province for short visits. I can only think of the army of civil servants tied up with this ridiculous bit of red tape. It should be accepted as a matter of course that Indians may freely visit other provinces, say for a period of one month. The same checks could be carried out. You cannot stop people from breaking the law. It is impossible to have a law to cover all the intention of law-breaking. I think if this permit were to be given, it would not be abused. This would be an automatic permit and would do away with the need to applying for one for short visits of up to a month. It would certainly make the Indian people feel less alien and more adult in South Africa.

Then I want to say at once that I have to agree that the conditions in the townships such as Chatsworth and Lenasia and others leave much to be desired. I know that these areas are not the hon. the Minister’s responsibility. They either fall under the Minister of Community Development or the municipal council where they have been handed over. But between these two Ministers they ought to be able to bring pressure to bear on the municipalities which took over the administration and management of townships to see that proper conditions are provided and that where applications are made for loans from the Department of Community Development to see that that money is forthcoming.

We spend every single cent that we have.

Well, I am sure you do. The answer is that you are of course not getting enough for that sort of service.

Then you must speak to Dr. Diederichs about it.

You have got more influence with Dr. Diederichs than I have.

I can assure you I have not.

Well, I will try. There is no doubt that Chatsworth is very bad and is deteriorating. There are not enough shops which, of course, has nothing to do with Dr. Diederichs. I cannot see why more permits for traders should not be granted in Chatsworth.

Well, they get all the …

It is not enough. Since Group Areas are removing traders from elsewhere, they ought to be getting the trading facilities there.

Then, Sir, as far as Lenasia is concerned, there is the constant complaint by Indians that the drainage system is appalling and that the roads are absolutely impassable as soon as it rains. Again, it is a question of city council responsibility, and the council says that it has no money. If you move people from areas inside the town to way out of the town, I think at least it should be seen that the basic services and facilities are provided. I do not believe that this is the case.

There is one other final matter which I wish to raise. It is, I am afraid, largely a municipal matter. But cannot the hon. the Minister’s department use some influence with municipalities which just arbitrarily deprive stallholders of licences which they have been holding for years and generations, handed down from father to son. I do not have the details of the case, but I give as an example the case of a letter I received from the Bread Storeholders Association of Durban complaining sadly that they have simply been informed that as from a certain date the licences are cancelled. Here, too, it is a deprivation of a livelihood. This is something which the hon. the Minister’s department ought to concern itself with.

As I have a minute or two left, I just want to tell the hon. member for Koedoespoort that when he is quoting quotations about me, I would be obliged if he would not leave out the favourable portions of the quotations.

Favourable?

Yes, favourable. He only quotes the unfavourable ones. There are other comments in Mr. Rajab’s statement …

Is there anything wrong with what I quoted?

No, but if you do not quote what he said before and after, you quote out of context. It can create a very different impression. The hon. member does not, for instance, start by saying that Mr. Rajab said: “Of course we are not satisfied, but there is no other course open to us but to accept what we have been given.” This is very different from simply saying as he then went on to say: “The Indian population were satisfied that it is getting the best possible deal under present political circumstances.” That is surely out of context. He added that Mr. Rajab said that I was talking nonsense when I said that because the Indian Council was not fully elected it could not intervene in certain matters. I never said that, by the way. I said that Group Areas were not within the Council's jurisdiction and that it depended on the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Planning. But never mind, Mr. Rajab did go on to say that he “admired Mrs. Suzman for her forthright and enlightened approach.” Well, you know, if you are quoting, it would be very nice if you quote in full!

As I have said, the department has put out an interesting and comprehensive report. I might say that this is a better report than the one we get from the Department of Coloured Affairs. It gives us much more information. I am pleased to see the improvements in education, although I think lots more could be done. I have made certain suggestions, which I hope the hon. the Minister will consider.

It seems to me that the United Party’s accusation is aimed chiefly at the functions and the composition of the Indian Council, and that in the second place it is a matter of group areas. Sir, I find it strange that they are so concerned about this matter, because the Minister said repeatedly that he will discuss the constitutional development of the Indians with the Indian Council; after all, they are the interested parties and in any case they have to determine what rate of development they want for themselves. As far as group areas is concerned, I should like to ask whether it is not the rule, in any case, to remove those people to better living conditions where this is necessary. But every year the United Party comes along—they also did so last year—with this negative approach. From them we obtain nothing positive and constructive in connection with Indian affairs; on the contrary, we have discrediting of everything that is being done for the Indians in South Africa today. A great deal is being done for them, and it is very clear from this report how much is being done for the Indians in South Africa. The Indian nation in South Africa does not, in any case, need these self-appointed champions of their cause and they are rapidly finding out about this, because what does the United Party policy offer them? The United Party policy does not even offer the Indians in South Africa the normal human dignity one would expect, because they say that the Indians are not good enough to be represented in this House by their own people.

You give them nothing.

On the contrary, the human dignity of the Indians is seriously neglected by the United Party. Neither do the Indians accept their policy. This is clear from the evidence and from discussions I have had with various Indian leaders throughout Natal. Sir, the motives of the United Party and its Press, in connection with Indian affairs in Natal, are definitely not above suspicion. If one sees how they exaggerate every possible racial incident out of all proportion, and how at every opportunity they present poverty among the Indians as the rule and not the exception, one is led to ask: What are their motives? As far as group areas are concerned, the Indians are already incited a year in advance. When, after a third Iscor was announced, it was necessary in Newcastle to revise the overall planning of the area in an orderly manner, the United Party already began a year in advance with their incitement and misrepresentation through the medium of their Press.

What did your M.P.C. say?

Sir, that is one of the very misrepresentations I am speaking about, which the English Press uses not for the sake of good planning or in the interests of the Indians in South Africa, but for their own miserable political gain. In any case the planning of group areas in Newcastle was particularly unsatisfactory, and therefore it became necessary to institute this investigation. That changes are going to take place is not a foregone conclusion, but I do think it is reasonable to expect that when a Government tackles a big project like a third Iscor it will carry out proper planning, but this is exploited for political gain. Sir, what is the position in connection with land transactions in respect of the affected areas? At every opportunity these land transactions are presented as being something bad. A few days ago the Mercury again came along with this report: “R100 000 profit on land deal.” Sir, if you read this report you will find that this man paid a good price for an affected property; that in time to come he hopes to develop this property and that at some time in the future he will perhaps have a R100 000 profit out of this property. They do not mention the fact that this man also runs a risk in any case; here they do not mention the fact that there are numerous Indians who developed affected White areas and made profits out of them. Why do they not mention that?

Who are “they”?

The United Party. That hon. member would do well to keep quiet for a moment, because I shall very soon be telling his leader how he goes around Newcastle bartering with the Prime Minister’s photograph in which the Prime Minister is seated between two Malawian women.

That is a lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

Sir, on every occasion these people are creating a feeling of guilt amongst the Whites in connection with Indian affairs, a feeling of “pardon me for living”. We are now sick and tired of that, because the fact remains that the National Party has a very clean record in connection with what it did for the upliftment of Indians in South Africa since it came into power. Sir, in their programme of principles the United Party speaks of “the maintenance of separate social and residential facilities”. How are they going to apply this without a Group Areas Act. They now want to come and profess here that there will be no group area separation under United Party rule. Or are they just saying so to bluff the electorate?

They are just bluffing. They are an integration party.

Sir, we cannot get away from the fact that under United Party rule these so-called separate social amenities will result in absolutely chaotic conditions. The Indians in South Africa do not trust the United Party; they have repeatedly said so. How can they trust the United Party when that party has constitutionally left them in the lurch in any case? After all, today they are offering the Indians much less than they offered them politically before 1946. Sir, this incitement of feeling by the United Party for their own political purposes does not take into account the adverse consequences it has for racial harmony in South Africa. In strong contrast to this negative policy of the United Party, this report attests to all the positive and constructive steps this Government has taken in every sphere in respect of the Indians in South Africa. I just want to mention in passing that the school of industries in Newcastle is, under the competent guidance of Mr. Louis Bester, a unique experiment in Indian education; it is an experiment which is succeeding very well.

Sir, I want to conclude by issuing a warning to Indians in Natal who allow themselves to be influenced by the Indian Congress, the liberalists and the communists into trying to carry out undermining and subversive practices in this country. I want to tell them that this Government will be merciless in the action it takes against such people. They must realize that whatever they succeed in doing would not be in the interests of their own people, i.e. the Indian nation. They must know what the full implications are if they are guilty of subversion in South Africa.

The hon. member for Newcastle is always critical of the United Party policy. I want to ask him whether he has finally solved some of his own difficulties on a personal and local plane with his MPC in Newcastle over this very matter which is being discussed under the Vote now.

I just told you it was all lies.

Yes. The other question on which the hon. member became almost dewy-eyed and his voice almost shook with emotion, was the attitude of his side of the House towards Indians, but does he not forget some ordinary fundamental matters? Does he realize that even in this enlightened age Indians cannot sit on the university council for Durban Indians, and that Mr. Rajab, the chairman of the Executive of the Indian Council, is not considered a fit and proper person to sit on the University Council for Indians at Durban-Westville, but he is only competent, in the eyes of this hon. member, to sit on an advisory council?

Then I want to come back to the hon. member for Rissik for a moment. I really got the impression that he should have participated in the foreign affairs debate yesterday rather than in this debate today. Many of the things he said had very little to do with the situation in South Africa as such. But he made a statement which I believe must be refuted straight away. I want to ask him sincerely to study the answer to a question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Port Natal, this morning. He would find there, in so far as the housing for Indians is concerned, that the position has not improved but has deteriorated. In 1960 41,5 per cent of Indians owned the dwelling units in which they live and in 1970 the figure had declined to 40,3 per cent. This is progress under the National Party. But the interesting thing in this debate also is the fact that we on this side of the House are told that “die Verenigde Party stel nie beleid teenoor beleid nie”. You know, Sir, today there was the dear exposition by the hon. member for Zululand in regard to our attitude to the communal council philosophy and where he pointed out the areas of common interest. I believe he gave the Indian people of South Africa hope for better race relations and a better future for them under United Party policy when we put it into effect. But I have not heard any hon. member opposite dealing with this particular aspect and putting “beleid teenoor beleid”.

I want to express my appreciation to the department for the manner in which they have compiled and issued their report. It is a detailed and comprehensive report and it is an example, I think, to many other State departments. I want to deal with certain matters in the Estimates under subhead E. There is an item “Miscellaneous Expenses—Bursaries for overseas study”, and an amount of R100 is listed. This is the same amount which was listed in the Estimates last year. I ask the Minister whether he could give us an indication of what could be achieved under this heading with an allocation of R100. Then I come back to the report of the department and we find on page 15 that 104 Indians were appointed to the department and 43 resigned. I ask the hon. the Minister why. Is it because of the unrealistic approach of this Government in regard to salary differentiation on the ground of colour of skin? Then on page 22 of the report it is indicated that the Exco of the council and sub-committees had been holding discussions with the Regional Director of State Health Services concerning the employment of Indian health inspectors and the use of qualified Indian personnel in State Health Services. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he could give details as to what services and which qualified personnel were involved and in what areas were these activities taking place.

Then in the report it was mentioned that this body, Exco and the sub-committees, had had discussions with Indian leaders in Zululand on the future of Indians in Zululand and Richard’s Bay. I wonder whether the Minister has anything to report in that direction, because the report was up to June, 1971.

Then I want to come to the report of the Natal Indian Cripple Care Association, the latest report of 1971, in which it is stated that no special educational facilities for Indian cerebral palsy children exist in the Republic. I asked the hon. the Minister what plans he has to remedy this deficiency and what State funds will be available to supply this need.

Then I want to come to the question of the education of the Indians and I want to refer to an apparent imbalance which exists in education, not only in so far as the Indian race group is concerned, but I am limited to them in this particular Vote. It results in an extravagant use of public funds which come from the taxpayer, on the one hand, and parsimony or inadequate facilities on the other. Let me emphasize once again that we in the United Party support expenditure for education for all races in South Africa, but we do reserve the right to criticize when a Government fails to make use of the human resources to the maximum potential. I will concede that in relation to the other racial groups, the expenditure on Indian education could be termed “generous” but I submit that it is top-heavy. In order to illustrate my contention I wish to refer to the expenditure on the University of Durban-Westville. In 1967 I was told in answer to a question that plans were being prepared to erect the university on the site on which it now stands, and that the final cost would be R9,5 million. In 1972, this year, the university is now complete and operational, and I was told that the estimated final cost would be R15,75 million, which is an increase of R6,25 million, over 60 per cent over the initial estimates. I ask why. I believe the taxpayers are entitled to know the reason for this and one is tempted to ask too, from this additional expenditure of R6,25 million what would the inmates of the old-age homes for Indians say to an increase in their allowance of 81 cents per day subsidy? Could not some of that R6,25 million be directed there? What about the inhabitants of Tin Town on the banks of the Umgeni? Would they not welcome some expenditure on decent housing for themselves? And also on the basis of education, what about the parents of the 15 000 Indian pupils who are attending platoon classes in Natal? This represents 8 per cent of the total enrolment of Indian pupils and it also indicates a 10 per cent increase in the number of platoon classes over the previous year and we are told in the report that this is due to the delay in the building programme for new schools. What will these people think of this extraordinary expenditure? Then while we are dealing with disparity in the expenditure in the various divisions of education, we find that in so far as the University of Durban-Westville is concerned during the last two years on Revenue and Loan Account an amount of R12,6 million has appeared on the Estimates for an enrolment of 702 students. In so far as technical and vocational education is concerned, we find for these two years, 1971-’72 and 1972-’73, an amount of R2,4 million for 6 700 students undergoing vocational and technical training, and in so far as all the other aspects of education are concerned, we find an amount of R40,7 million in respect of 168 000 other pupils. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it has been clear from this debate that the United Party wants to get away from a very dark past over which they want to draw a black veil. The result is that they belittle the measures which the National Government—and particularly the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and his department—adopts to have these people taken up and life made more bearable for them. They draw a veil over the past, but at the same time they are trying to drive us into a corner so that we must be on the defensive. I want to tell the United Party at once that there is nothing we have to defend.

Yes, of course.

There is nothing we have to defend. It is very clear to me that when questions are asked in the House they subsequently carry on about them the way the hon. member for Berea has just done in connection with his statement, which is completely at odds with the statement he made initially, i.e. that the Indians are not being given the right opportunities to develop in the sphere of education. At a later stage in his speech he claimed that R6,5 million too much was spent on the university that was built and that that amount could just as well have been employed for other purposes. He specifically complains about the education facilities for the Indians, but when the Government spent R6,5 million more on the university, he complained about the amount and said the Government should not have spent it on that. The point is not that we want to defend this matter. The point I want to make is that it would be interesting if the hon. member for Berea would be honest enough to tell us the amount they spent on Indian education when they still had control of it in Natal. Indian education was then still under the Natal Education Department, and at the time the language medium and the medium of education of those people was English.

It still compares very favourably with Government expenditure on Bantu education.

You are now immediately on the defensive; I said nothing about Bantu education.

†I never touched on the point of Bantu education. I asked you a question that a comparison should have been made between the expenditure on Indian education during the time of the United Party in Natal was controlling Indian education and the figure which you quoted here as the expenditure of my Government on Indian education.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, you have had your chance.

Was it too little or too much?

He should have given that figure so that a calculation could have been made to establish whether there is any relation between the treatment which these Indians, these so-called suppressed Indians as the United Party described them this morning …

But Natal received the money from the Government.

No, you are on the defensive now, but you have had your chance.

It is so easy to make allegations here against the Government on certain aspects of our racial problem and yet the crux of the matter lies in the fact that the United Party is not honest. That is where the crux of the matter lies. You were intimating that we are surpressing these people by taking them from certain areas and resettling them in others. Why do you not stand up and say as a positive gesture that we should revert to the position as it obtained before 1946 so that the major European occupied areas in Durban can again be multi-racial? I have become sick and tired of this quotation which the hon. member for Newcastle read from a paper viz. that big profits are being made on properties.

There was a question in this regard this morning.

Yes, I think you all want to know what the position was in Durban when the first house in one of the main streets of Durban was bought up. When the first Indian house was bought, the Department of Community Development paid £16 000 for it. When they advertised it, they could sell that very same property for R52 000.

That is not happening in Durban.

No, wait a bit. I am coming to the point. The point is that as soon as you start clearing the area, you will find that the value of the property increases automatically. Why?

That is only logical.

That is only logical. That did not happen within a National controlled City Council, but in Durban. The result is that you always blame the department for making profits, but the department does not make profits on account of the fact that it is doing an injustice to one racial group, the Indians. If you in the United Party will be honest enough to stand up and say that if these people are fit and proper enough to serve on certain bodies which were mentioned here this morning, the university council and certain other bodies, they are also fit and proper to live with you in the same town, but what is more, they are fit and proper to belong to the same social clubs as well …

But it is their own university.

I am coming to you. The Municipal Association of Natal which is definitely not overwhelmingly pro-National Party, goes out of its way from year to year—I have a strong feeling that they are being instigated to do it that way —to invite the Indian Municipal Council to come and sit in that European Municipal Council, not for the purpose of having contact with them in that sphere, but they know very well that it is first of all a body in respect of which the Government cannot take action, because it is a body within its own rights and secondly they know very well that these people will start a “wry-wingspunt”.

*They attend that congress at the invitation of the Municipal Association. They are good enough for that, but they are not good enough for your bodies such as the Rotarians, the Round Table, and so on. [Interjections.] Wait a minute, I am asking you: Are there any of them in the Round Table?

Are there Nationalists in the Rotarians?

The Rotarians is an international movement, and in 1953, during their London conference, it was mentioned that the test for a person’s membership of the Rotarian movement was not the colour of his skin or his eyes or the race to which he belongs. Wait a minute, you know nothing about that; you were perhaps too young at the time. Ask your senior men; they will tell you. In 1953 it was said that the test is a man’s integrity and his position in society.

Are there Indians in the Rapportryers?

Wait a minute now. The Rapportryers is a national organization and not an international one. The Rapportryers has based its rules on national principles. The Rotarians and the Round Table are international organizations. However, those hon. members are not prepared to give expression to the wishes of their organizations overseas, because if they were to apply those criteria there should surely be a few Indians in South Africa who could pass the test.

May I ask a question?

No, he can have his turn to speak and then he can reply to that.

In South Africa there are probably quite a few Indians I know of who would qualify to become Rotarians; why do you not invite them and why are you dishonest with them? [Interjections.] Why are you dishonest with them and why, when you cross the South African border and are overseas at a Round Table dinner, do you creep in there and go and eat with them, posing as benefactors?

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. I think you are right.

The position is that since these holier-than-thou members of ours from the United Party profess to be such champions of Indians, they must absorb the Indians into these bodies whose ranks they are prepared to creep into when they cross the borders, eating with these people and giving them assurances they are not prepared to give the Indians. In other words, they must throw this dual system of theirs overboard.

There are two things I can tell the Indian population of Natal today. The first is that they must not allow themselves to be used by the members of the United Party who move around in the mud like barbels. They must not allow themselves to be abused by those people to create points of friction where there need not be any points of friction, because then it would only mean those points of friction being to the detriment of the Indian population. The hon. member for Zululand, who made such a fuss here at the beginning of the debate, must stand up and tell his voters in Zululand that he wants to ask the Government that the Indians also be given residential rights in Northern Zululand so that they can also become established there, can have towns there and conduct I asked him to tell this to his voters, because he is the man who went around in business because they must also diversify. Zululand during the past election and told the farmers, who were having difficulties, and who had Indians on their farms, that the sitting member. Mr. Ben Pienaar, would ensure that their labour was done away with, because they do not want Indians in Zululand. The Indians are not lawfully allowed in Zululand and the hon. member and his party must now be honest and say that if they come into power they would allow Indians throughout Zululand, including the hon. member’s constituency.

The same thing happened with housing. The United Party objected because such rotten housing had allegedly been made available to the Indians. I think that if we were to compare the present position with what it was in the United Party’s time, and also bear in mind that when they gave the Indians the right to vote in 1946 it made so little sense that the Indians rejected it, we shall realize that this allegation of theirs about the Indians not having their rightful places of residence, has equally little sense in it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring the debate back to Indian Affairs. But before we leave the Rotarians and Round Table, I just want to say that the hon. member for Vryheid must take into consideration that the hon. the Minister cannot become a member of the Broederbond or of the Rapportryers. Basically the hon. member just wanted to make a verkrampte speech. Now it is off his chest and I suppose he feels much better.

†Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words about the so-called shop-window of separate development for Indians. As we all know, education is supposed to be this shop-window. Whenever the words “Indian education” are mentioned, hon. members opposite adopt a complacent attitude and one is invited to have a good look at the wonderful universities and the wonderful school buildings, the large enrolment and the large number of teachers. I, today, would like to have a look at some of the results produced by all these institutions. I want to start off by saying to the hon. the Minister that the time has come that the Department of Indian Affairs should immediately launch an investigation into the causes for the poor matriculation results that are annually achieved by Indian pupils. Instead of being complacent and trying to compare the position with what it was 10 or 20 years ago, they must accept the challenge of today and compare it with the achievements of other education departments, not only with that of the White Education Department, but also with the results achieved by the Department of Bantu Education. I have made an analysis of the education results for 1970 and 1971, and a comparison of the results of Whites in Natal and those of Bantu and Indians. This analysis shows that Indian education is lagging miserably behind all the others. Let me give you some examples. The percentage of passes in the White Education Department of Natal for the two years was 84 per cent; the percentage of passes for matriculants in Bantu education was 65,2 per cent and 62,9 per cent. In Indian education the percentage passes for 1970 was 58,4 per cent and in 1971 it was 57,7 per cent. Hon. members can see that it is lagging behind Bantu education. But let us look at the percentage merit passes. In the Natal Education Department it was 23 per cent; in Bantu education it was 2,2 per cent and 2,3 per cent; in Indian education it was a miserable 1,2 per cent and 1,4 per cent. This is all based on the reply to question No. 237 which was put in this House. What is most disturbing and shocking is the very low percentage of matriculation exemption passes. In Indian education it was 14,1 per cent in 1970; in 1971 it was 11,9 per cent. But at the same time, what was the percentage for such passes in Bantu education? It was 35,8 per cent in 1970 and 35,3 per cent in 1971. There is absolutely no comparison. Let me give you the actual figures, Sir, In 1971, 400 Indian pupils out of 3 350 received matriculation exemption. In the same year 1 348 out of 3 817 Bantu pupils received matriculation exemption, whilst 1 633 out of 4175 White pupils in Natal passed with matriculation exemption. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the department should refrain from adopting the line of least resistance and putting blame on factors such as the adverse pupil/teacher ratio and the large percentage of unqualified teachers. The hon. Minister can do so with some justification in comparing the results with those achieved by the White Education Department. But what is the situation in Bantu education? In Bantu education, for instance, we have a pupil-teacher ratio of 60 to 1. In Indian education the ratio is 28 to 1. This is very favourable. In White education it is 20 to 1. They cannot put the blame on an adverse pupil-teacher ratio. Secondly, the percentage of unqualified teachers is greater in the case of the Bantu than in the case of the Indians. The percentage of lowly qualified Bantu teachers is also greater than that for the Indians. It is clear that either something serious is wrong with the Department of Indian Affairs, or otherwise the standard in Bantu Education is not the same. I believe that the onus is on the Department of Indian Affairs to investigate the matter and determine whether the standard is exactly the same. It owes this to the community it is serving. In a country such as South Africa, with limited job opportunities, the educated and trained Bantu and the educated Indian are in fact competing with each other. The position of a minority group, such as the Indians are, will definitely be jeopardized if the standards are not the same. They need protection. If, for some or other reason, the hon. the Minister is convinced that the standards are the same —and the Department of Bantu Education tells us that the standards are the same— then he must look for the fault at his own doorstep. I wish to make some suggestion concerning mistakes. Is the Department of Indian Affairs perhaps guilty of wrong educational practices? Does it commit educational mistakes with its system of streaming and differentiation? Another thing which we must keep in mind is whether it provides education which fits in with the attitudes and the abilities of the Indians. Does the fault lie with wrong guidance? I am not so sure whether the fault does not lie with wrong guidance. I believe that in many instances Indian pupils are forced into taking academic subjects. I think that this is basically the problem, namely that too many pupils are forced into the academic field. As I have said, when we compare the results achieved in Bantu education with those achieved in Indian education, one is absolutely shocked and amazed. We must also bear in mind that there are other favourable factors in Indian education. I am not talking about the comparison between Indian education and education for Whites, but of the comparison between the education of Indians and Bantu. Surely, there must be a reason for the poor comparison. For instance, we know that the unit cost is greater for Indians than for Bantu. We also know—and this is where the hon. the Minister must accept the challenge and must see that an investigation is made in this respect—that the Indian community is spending large sums of money on the education of their own people. We are not only dealing with State assistance here. It is a well-known fact that the Indian Community in fact is making large contributions towards the education of its own people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to come back to something the hon. member for Port Natal said.

Oh!

The hon. member is now laughing and saying “Oh!” But he said: “We in South Africa have very little to be proud of in the treatment of Indians.” I now want to tell him and the hon. House that I both agree and disagree with him. In the first instance I agree with him, because prior to 1950 it was the dubious privilege of Indians to carry on their own as they wished. There were few of them—in reality only those well-endowed with capital and others who could look after themselves—who lived in better circumstances than those in the then Sophiatown, or in the subsequent slums of Riverside and parts of Durban, or those in the marshy area of Korsten at Port Elizabeth or here at Windermere in the Cape. That was their fate, with virtually herds of them, to put it in those terms, drawn together under one roof. They had to live under corrugated iron sheets in seedy neighbourhoods. Since the advent of the Group Areas Act, and since the National Party came into power, these conditions have changed completely. Today this country has a great deal to be proud of. I think I know what I am talking about. Since 1956 I have been dealing with the activities of the Indian community. It was also my task to visit them. I saw the dens, the hovels, in the slum areas where they had to go to. They have now been taken out of those areas and today they have a great deal to be proud of. I just want to say briefly why I do not agree with the hon. member; the reason is that if one today visits places like Lenasia, Laudium, Chatsworth and also the Indian area of Port Elizabeth, Malabar, one would find that those people live in fine and healthy conditions and, in fact, that everyone one comes into contact with will tell one: “We never want to see the past again; we never want it back”. With this task of upliftment, removal from the areas in which the Indians were settled and grouping them in new communities, the department of Indian Affairs played a big role. The hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, spoke of the education position. I do not actually want to respond to what he said in that connection, except to tell the hon. House that this department indisputably does a great deal to improve the education position of the Indians in the country generally. The educational institutions, training colleges and the M. L. Sultan Technical College at present have Indian registrars and also Indian staff that assist them. Previously, under previous rule, those people did not have a snowball’s hope of developing that far. As far as education itself is concerned, this department took over with virtually 1 000 unqualified teachers. They had to take steps to give these people a better training by way of correspondence courses—they did not discharge them—so that they can in fact train their own group properly. More than half of them are already properly qualified to teach. For the rest we find that with the activation in connection with the training of teachers, there are at present 6 243 teachers, with only 85 of them being Whites. Of those 85, only 36 are at schools, while the other are at training institutions. It is the policy of the department to replace those White teachers with Indian teachers as soon as qualified Indians come to the fore. In the training of the teachers we also see that the department makes available bursaries of between R300 and R400 annually. For those who study with the help of the bursaries, repayment of the money is not necessary when they have qualified and give their services to the Department.

There is another aspect that we in South Africa can be proud of, and that is the fact that in the biggest office which falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Indian Affairs and is situated in Durban, all the divisional heads and the accountants are already members of the Indian group. In Pietermaritzburg there is a reasonably large office with only one White person on the staff, the rest all being Indians in the service of the Department of Indian Affairs. In Chatsworth there was another big achievement. There is a branch office which is fully staffed by members of the Indian group, who are fully qualified. Under the guidance of this department they have progressed so far that they can properly serve the State, their group and their people in particular.

In the welfare services the Department has so activated the situation that by now all their professional field officers are Indians, two of those people occupying particularly senior posts in the Department. For the rest the Department is engaged in providing every imaginable welfare service, like those that are also given to other groups.

A very important factor is the question of local authority. Hon. members are all acquainted with the fact that the department has already done a great deal to see that this political development scheme is a very valuable instrument in the work of the department, so much so that there is at Verulam today a fully-fledged Indian village management board; all its members are Indians. From the most menial member up to the town clerk they are all Indians in this village management board. It is truly a fine bit of progress which is virtually unique in the world. As I see the matter Isipingo will shortly also qualify to have such a board which will administer its own people there. There is perhaps another small matter that deserves further attention. This concerns the fact that the establishment of local authorities still falls under the Department of Community Development. Perhaps serious attention is also being given to transferring these activities to the Department of Indian Affairs. One judges them to belong there.

In the Indian Council the policy is very successful. Today the Indian Council pays attention to the communal council in virtually all cases. It either takes the initiative or it deals with matters emanating from the community. The department serves as a go-between, and all matters are placed before it and then transferred to local authorities, provincial councils, etc. Thus a rightful place is given to the Indians. In short I can say that the department is so concerned with that that it liaises with the various other State departments in respect of housing, planning, etc. It does not itself have a share in the determination of group areas, but it gives the departments advice and states what it thinks is the correct type of house. It also helps in the planning of the group areas with recommendations and, in addition, ensures that the legitimate needs of the Indians are satisfied. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Innesdal has in the same vein as several other hon. members opposite, highlighted various aspects of the past affecting the Indian community. We on this side of the House have indicated that we believe that communal councils are in the best interests of the Indians, to give them more meaningful representation in this Republic of South Africa. I should like to deal with the hon. member for Vryheid concerning education in Natal. The hon. member for Vryheid was a member of the Natal Provincial Council. I should like to ask him whether he as a member of the Natal Provincial Council at any stage advocated a greater expenditure on Indian education when that still fell under the jurisdiction of the Natal Provincial Administration, and whether he ever supported an increase in provincial taxation so as to meet the enormous cost involved in Indian education. The hon. member for Vryheid was a member of the Natal Provincial Council. I also served on that council for a few years and on no occasion did I ever hear a member of the Nationalist Party in the Natal Provincial Council pleading for greater expenditure on Indian education. This was in fact one of the important points that was discussed on many an occasion. If my memory serves me correctly, members of the Nationalist Party in the Provincial Council invariably suggested that provincial taxation was too high in Natal and that more money should be spent on White education and less on Indian education. I should therefore like to know from the hon. member for Vryheid …

Your memory serves you wrongly.

Will the hon. member for Vryheid tell this Committee that be as a member of the Natal Provincial Council advocated an increase in the expenditure on Indian education?

I had to do something to prevent you from pouring all the money into the Parks Board.

The position is, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member fully realizes that the Natal Provincial Council was limited in its finances and in the amount of money that was spent on Indian education. I think the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs could tell this Committee today that this is a tremendous problem facing his department, as a result of the rapid growth in the number of Indian children that are required to attend school. The question of finance is obviously of the greatest importance in providing the educational facilities which are necessary.

In so far as other services are concerned and if one studies the Vote that is before one, one is immediately struck by the fact that the greatest expenditure is in the field of education and welfare services. I should now like to deal with certain aspects particularly affecting the welfare services in so far as the Indian community is concerned. Various members have indicated their appreciation for the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs which was recently Tabled in this House. This report illustrates the extent of the facilities as far as the welfare services are concerned for the Indian community. One of the functions of the department concerns the position of Indian pensioners and social pensioners. We know that the Indian community by custom regard those members of their families who have become too old to be gainfully employed, as the responsibility of the family. To a certain extent this has been weakened as the Indian community becomes more westernized in South Africa. In the various reports and in the magazine which is published by the Department of Indian Affairs, we have seen this tendency of the westernization of the Indian community in South Africa. With the removal to other housing areas it has been found not to be always possible for the Indian family to maintain that closely knit unit to which they were accustomed, consequently there are approximately 20 000 Indians who are receiving social benefits and social pensions which are provided for under this Vote. I asked the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs to give an indication as to the increase that would be granted to Indian social pensioners. In reply to the question on 21st April, 1972, he indicated that the Indian social pension would be increased by R2-50 per month per person. We on this side welcome that, because the White social pensioners are to receive an increase of R3 per month, and in the past the Indian social pensioner has usually received one-half of the increase given to the White social pensioner. But on this occasion there is a slight closing of the gap, because this increase of R2-50 per month will now bring the maximum pension to R20-50, which is half the pension of R41 per month paid to a White social pensioner.

Sir, the second half of the question which I asked the hon. the Minister was in regard to the means test as applicable to Indian social pensioners. In reply to my question as to whether there was to be any relaxation of the means test, the Minister said “No”. Here I would like to refer to the fact that when the hon. the Minister of Finance presented his Budget speech in this House on the 29th March, 1972, he indicated, in dealing with social pensions, what increases and concessions would be granted to White social pensioners, and then he went on to say—

In spite of this statement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance that similar concessions at the applicable scales would be extended to non-White pensioners, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs has indicated that he does not intend granting any of the concessions which have been granted to White social pensioners to Indian social pensioners, not even at the applicable scale, as far as the means test is concerned. I would like to mention here that there is a vast discrepancy between the means test as applied to Indian social pensioners and the means test as applied to White social pensioners. In terms of the concessions announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance, a White social pensioner may have free assets up to R9 800, but the Indian, who is under 70 years of age, is only allowed free assets up to R1 800, and if he is over 70 years of age, he is allowed free assets up to R2 400. Similarly, as far as income limits are concerned, the White social pensioner is allowed a free income of R42 per month, but evidently the free income of the Indian social pensioner is to remain at R8 per month, R96 per annum. You will see, therefore, Sir, that there is a vast discrepancy between the scales applicable to White social pensioners and those applicable to Indian social pensioners. I would suggest that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs give serious consideration to this question of the means test as it applies to Indian social pensioners, because obviously the depreciation in the value of money applies as much to the Indian community as it applies to any other racial group. Sir, this is an important factor, because the legislation which was recently passed through this House, and which converted the South African Indian Council into a partly-elected body, also contained a provision which permits of the delegation to the Executive Committee of the Indian Council of Education and Community Services, which the hon. the Minister, during the course of the debate on that Bill, said includes social welfare and various other services associated with social welfare. We have the situation, therefore, that these powers will be delegated to the Executive Committee of the Indian Council, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some indication today as to when he intends handing over social welfare services and education to the Executive Committee of the Indian Council. In this report the Indian Council will be faced with great difficulties and problems as far as welfare services are concerned, because unless sufficient money is allocated to them by this House, through the hon. the Minister, they will not be able to give any meaningful effect to any relaxation of the means test, for example, which I mentioned a short while ago. If they should wish to amend the means test as applied to Indian social pensioners so as to bring about improvements, they will be subject entirely to the amount of money allocated to them by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. [Time expired.]

I do not want to respond to the hon. member’s arguments in connection with welfare and pensions. The hon. member for Kimberley South would have spoken on our side about welfare, but, unfortunately, due to circumstances, he cannot be present.

I should just like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Durban Central. He referred here to the so-called poor results in the matriculation examinations. Of course, he generalized the results in both Provinces where there are many Indian pupils, i.e. the Transvaal and Natal. I should just like to refer the hon. member —unfortunately he is not present at the moment—to a remark in this report on page 71, where it is stated that since the taking over of Indian education by the Department, Indian pupils have written the Senior Certificate examinations of the Transvaal and Natal Education Departments. On the same page the results are given in connection with the achievements of the Indian pupils in the Transvaal, and I regard these results as reasonably good, at least as satisfactory. It is such a pity that the hon. members opposite always select the weakest aspects and do not give credit where credit is due to the department.

In his speech the hon. member for Port Natal blamed me for comparing here the conditions amongst the Indians in South Africa with the conditions elsewhere in Africa. I find it very remarkable that when it suits the Opposition to compare conditions in South Africa with conditions in other countries, they do so, but if we compare conditions to show how positive our approach is, then we are not allowed to do so. I did not finish my argument when it was previously my turn to speak. Despite what the hon. member for Port Natal said, I want to point out to the hon. member what an overseas newspaper said in connection with the Indian situation. I refer again to the London Times which, as I have said, is not exactly the greatest admirer of the Republic and its policy. The newspaper pointed to the irony of the case, i.e. that while the governments of former British colonies in Africa, as the newspaper put it, “ruthlessly press on with the purge of Indian interests in their midst, South Africa has accepted that her Indians are a permanent part of the scene.” The newspaper then went on to point out that—

That is what the London Times states; I am not the one who is saying it, it is the London Times, and it is quoted by an overseas newspaper, and that is why I am quoting it here. But according to the Opposition we are not allowed to mention this here in the debate. [Many interjections.] I state that whatever the hon. member says, it is due to the positive handling of matters by the Department of Indian Affairs and Indian Education that this progress has been made.

We all know that previously, before the sixties, the Indians chiefly devoted themselves to retail and wholesale businesses, and they had virtually a monopoly as far as that kind of business is concerned. As the years went by they began to think that this wholesale and retail trade was actually their right. After the creation of the Department of Indian Affairs the Department, and particularly the Department of Indian Education, concentrated on pointing out to the Indians that they should diversify in other directions, and that they cannot simply make a living out of trade. In this respect we must give praise to the Department of Indian Education. They began to adapt the syllabuses for Indians in such a practical and realistic way to make provision for the needs of the Indian population, and more specifically to adapt to the future needs and the demands, which are going to be made on the Indian population, to also pull their weight in the broad development and the growth of our country. In the course of time the Indians themselves realized that their children could not all go into trade and commerce and that they must make a living in some other fields. That is why the Department of Indian Education concentrated on differentiated education in respect of the academic, technological and professional spheres, and the Indian children obtained the necessary facilities to qualify them in those fields. In this connection I also want to associate myself with what one of the hon. members said in connection with the good work being done at the M. L. Sultan College for Advanced Technical Education, where as much provision as possible is also being made in the various fields and for various courses. The Indian University is also doing so.

In conclusion I want to say that the Indians began to realize that they must branch into the various fields and not concentrate only on trade as such. We know that Indian entrepreneurs have become interested in the industrial field, particularly in recent years. In that connection their achievements are already numerous, because they have many benefits in the regions where Indian industries have been established. They have the labour potential, particularly amongst Indians. We also know that thousands of Indians find work in the factories that have been established by Indian capital. In addition they have the potential of water. They have the potential of power and, in addition, they also have a harbour nearby, i.e. at Durban. Therefore we know that the Indian community is already making a contribution to the South African economy in this particular connection.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Koedoespoort has just said, is interesting, but it is also quite interesting to look at a table on page 27 of this Report (R.P. 38—’72). It appears from this table that the largest percentage of Indians are employed in trade, industry and the services today, while tremendous decrease is reflected in the percentage employed in agriculture, construction, electricity and transport.

In trade as well.

The vast majority of these people are employed in trade and industry in South Africa. If there is one alarming aspect of the Government’s policy in respect of South Africa’s Indians, it is the uncertainty which exists as with regard to the Government’s approach to their constitutional and political development in this country. There is uncertainty about this in this House, outside among the people and also among the Indian community as such. When the hon. member for Zululand opened the debate, he set out the United Party’s policy very clearly. However, it would appear to us as though hon. members opposite want to shy away from the Government’s approach in respect of the political development of South Africa’s almost ¾ million Indians.

What we are concerned with here is a community which is certainly one of the communities in South Africa with a very high level of civilization, a community with a very low population growth rate, a community with a tremendous group consciousness, a community which certainly has the lowest crime rate in South Africa, and a community with unlimited potential for the economy of South Africa. These people are also the people who are most affected by the implementation, the inhuman implementation in many cases, of the Group Areas Act, and above all we see the neglect of the political and constitutional development of these people. Over and above all this, however, we have to contend with a Minister who continually talks of consultation. He says he speaks to the Indians, but he produces very poor results when he has to report to this Parliament. You know, Sir, he virtually creates the impression that he is the great self-appointed Mohammed Waring, the “Big White Rajah”, and that he will talk to the Indians and to nobody else. He is not prepared to talk to this side of the House about the Indians of South Africa either.

One important breakthrough which has in fact been made in the course of time since this Government assumed power, is that they have completely abandoned the question of repatriation. We no longer hear of repatriation. [Interjections.] We heard in a speech made by the hon. Minister that since 1961 the Indian community of South Africa has been accepted as a permanent population group of South Africa. However, there is no point in merely accepting the fact and saying that the Indians form part of South Africa, when nothing is being done in respect of the political and constitutional development of these people in this country. Here is a community which comprises f million of the population of South Africa. By the year 2 000 they would have increased to 1½ million, and the Indians do not know what this Government’s plans for them are. There are two alternatives we may follow in this country as far as the Indians are concerned. We may either accept the Government’s policy in regard to the many other peoples they speak of, and possibly implement a homeland idea—I know the hon. member for Rissik as well as the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions would perhaps very much like to see something like this being brought about—or, on the other hand, we should accept that we are dealing here with a permanent population group, one which is as much part of South Africa as any other population group of the White community. We know there are differences of opinion in Government benches as far as the future of the Indians in this country is concerned. Perhaps this is the reason why hon. members opposite do not like talking about this matter and try to shy away from it instead. Surely it is very clear that the Indians and the vast majority of the Whites in South Africa accept that we shall have social separation between Whites and Indians in this country and, in the second place, that we accept residential separation as a principle as well. These are two principles accepted on both sides of this House.

When did you accept them?

Sir, the hon. the Minister of Community Development says we do not accept them. I want to tell him that that is the policy of the United Party. Perhaps the hon. member for Houghton does not accept it, but we on this side of this House do accept separate residential areas for Whites and Indians. Then we may perhaps go even further.

May I put a question? I should just like to know whether, as far as education at tertiary level is concerned, i.e. at university level, the Opposition also accepts separation in respect of the students at the universities.

Sir, here the hon. member comes forward once again with one of those “verkrampte” questions. The other day the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in this House that there were mixed universities in South Africa today. Why does this Government not take steps to put an end to that situation? It is the policy of this side of the House to allow non-White attendance at university level in the same way as those hon. members accept non-White attendance at Wits and at many of the White universities today. It may be possible for us to have some degree of separation at local authority level and possibly at community management level, but when it comes to national politics and the economic sphere in South Africa, then there is no separation between the Indians and the Whites. This is where this Government gets stuck and will not discuss these matters with us.

The hon. the Minister speaks about consultation. He should tell us whether he is of the opinion—this is how far we have progressed with hon. members opposite— that the Indians of South Africa would be satisfied at all times with the position that he is the link between this White Parliament and the Indian Council of South Africa. That is all there is, while we on this side of the House have made it clear that we believe there should be an Indian communal council. There should be representatives for the Indians in this House, and there should be standing statutory committees to act as a link between this House and the Indian Council. But what do we have, Sir? An hon. Minister who will be the sole link between this House and the Indian Council. Do hon. members opposite think that the Indian community of South Africa, being a permanent part of South Africa, should accept at all times that that hon. Minister should come and speak for them in this House when it comes to relations with the outside world, matters such as the defence of South Africa and central finance? Does the hon. the Minister think the Indian community would be satisfied with that type of consultation at all times? Sir, the Minister should tell us whether the future of the Indians is bound up with that of the Whites in South Africa, jointly and on a common basis, or whether it lies in a direction of separation and of the two groups having to move further apart. The hon. the Minister should tell us, because we hear nothing from those hon. members in this regard. The choice must be made, in other words, we must accept that we shall have either one central supreme authority in this country, in which all race groups will have representation, or more than one supreme authority in South Africa. We on this side of the House accept the first-mentioned, while members on the opposite side of this House—I do not know what their policy is—want a White Parliament such as this, with this Indian Council which will be suspended between heaven and earth. The hon. the Minister should provide us with more clarity about this matter. In theory that side of this House may perhaps have a solution in respect of the White people and the Bantu people. They say the sky is the limit for those people; but what about the Indian community of South Africa? Is the sky also the limit for them, or will they always have to remain permanent appendages of the Whites of South Africa?

Then I just want to raise the matter of the resettlement of the Indian traders in South Africa, a matter which is creating a great deal of concern in the ranks of the Indian community. There is uncertainty and a feeling of instability among them, because they do not know what is going to happen to their business rights in certain places. I must say I was very surprised. The hon. the Minister of Community Development invited me to attend the ceremony when the first sod was turned at the Oriental Farm in Johannesburg. We have been fighting for goodness knows how long that these people should not be moved. Now the Government is granting the Indians in Fordsburg the right to retain their business rights. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to answer the hon. member for Turffontein immediately, but I want to say this to him: I know why he is so frustrated. It is because no Indian wants to hear the policy of the United Party.

But I want to come to the hon. member for Zululand. I want to speak to him in this way: I have always regarded him as a very able man, and I mean it. But I want to ask him: Is it necessary for him—as I am speaking now, just before lunch; he spoke to me last night just before the adjournment—to get so petulant. You know, Sir, I was sitting at my desk and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs came over from where he sat. I said: Congratulations on your Vote. The hon. member turned on me and said: “I want the Minister to pay attention to me and not to attend to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.” Now, I was making notes all the time of what he said, but it was his petulance. I want to say to the hon. member—I say this not with a nasty feeling—he must guard against this petulance. He must guard against the arrogance which he showed towards the Minister of Defence and the language he used. If he believes in national unity, I say to him he must adopt quite a different tone in this House. I can assure him that, if he goes on the way he has been going in the last week, he is not, in my opinion, a suitable member in the United Party to call for national unity in this country.

Now I want to get on to another point. The hon. member said that he did not want there to be any doubt about the fact that he was addressing me not in my personal capacity, but as a Minister; never had they attacked me in my personal capacity, but they had been attacking me always because of my inability as a Minister. May I put it to him in ordinary, straightforward English: He can tell that to the Marines. It is not only me, but it was the case with Senator Troll ip and Senator Horwood. When Mr. Odell crossed the floor of the House, there was a jeer and a sneer against him. When Mr. Lewis expressed his views and when Mr. Murphy came over and joined the Nationalist Party, it was the same. It is all a concentrated effort against any English-speaking person, who may become a Nationalist. [Interjections.] Now wait a minute; I am speaking now; I have listened to a lot. The hon. member for Florida, whom I do not find objectionable, during this session and not in 1953 when this campaign of calumny started, had to withdraw his words after having said “you renegade”. Does he remember it?

No.

Yes. The hon. member for Florida got up and withdrew the word “renegade”.

You have a guilty conscience.

He was talking about me. The hon. member for Zululand referred during that very same debate to me and said: “And you call yourself an Englishman.” [Interjections.] Yes, ask the hon. members. He said it when I was speaking.

I never said any such thing.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the hon. members that these things happened this session. Then they talk about pious statements. I want to say that I regard this statement that the attacks on me were not on me in my personal capacity but as a Minister as the greatest pious statement ever uttered in this House. Let him ask anybody who is objective. He need not ask members of my party. He can ask anybody who is objective whether my statements are correct or not. I have said to hon. members before that I am not afraid of this “fee, fie, fo, fum; I want the blood of an Englishman”. If this is his idea of representing the English-speaking South Africans, then I want nothing to do with it.

Why do you have a persecution complex?

Good Heavens! Why should I have a persecution complex? The only people who have a persecution complex are the members of the Opposition because they keep on losing by-elections. That is why I have said before that they call for National Unity, but that their actions show quite a different attitude. Let me go further. The hon. member said that they asked questions in 1970 and 1971 in this regard but that I would not give them any answers. I just want to say to hon. members that I always listened very carefully to them. If there is a productive effort on their side, I am prepared to consider the matter. I remember the criticism in 1970 because there was not a departmental report. Do hon. members remember that? I immediately talked to my department and said that we had to bring out the departmental reports. If hon. members would look at this report …

Congratulations!

Well, I was not the Minister of Indian Affairs prior to that. Let me ask them to read the first page of this report. To draw up a report of this nature for the full year and have it ready before the parliamentary session, is an almost impossible task. The first page reads as follows—

The whole purpose of it is to give information to this House. I am appreciative of the compliments paid to this department, because this is no easy matter. I would say that the whole basis of having it ready by the 30th June, was that the information could be in the hands of members early in the session. This is one point that I want to stress.

Mr. Chairman, I gathered from the hon. member for Zululand that the gravamen of one of the charges he made against me was the fact that last year, when he raised the matter of the future of the Indian Council, he was not satisfied with the way I handled it. It was then a completely nominated council. I remember—and I think the hon. member for Houghton will also remember—that I said that I was discussing the matter with the Indian Council and that the discussions had gone along the lines of a partly elected council. Then—and the hon. member will also remember this—it was discussed how it would be elected. I said that, as far as I could see, there was no electoral machinery, or what one would call the ordinary voters’ roll, but that it might be done on the electoral college system. I think that that is more or less what happened. Then the hon. member pressed me further and I said that, as far as I was concerned, when the Government was ready a Bill would be introduced into this House and that a full discussion could then take place on what the Government was prepared to do. That took place, of course. It took place this session. Now the hon. member says that, when it came to the Bill that was introduced, no information was forthcoming from me of my future plans about the council. That is of course nonsense. The Bill itself put down the whole pattern. It was an enabling Bill.

That is what you said.

Yes, and then the hon. member said that only in the last stages did I indicate that there were to be five elected members besides the 25 presently nominated members on the council which would be reconstituted into the new council of 30 members. But that was in clause 2 (4) of this particular Bill.

The Act does not say so.

Of course it does. The hon. member must go and read section 2(4).

You go and read it again.

It does definitely indicate that five members will be elected.

It does not say so.

I shall ask my staff if the Bill is here and I shall read it to the hon. members. I know that far better than the hon. members do. It laid that down and there it was. If the hon. member for Turffontein says that is not so, he does not know what he is talking about.

You read it to the House.

My point is that the hon. members do not know what goes on. I have no objection, and never had any to considering suggestions from that side of the House that are basically constructive. The hon. member for Berea—I think he will remember—moved an amendment to that Bill at one stage with regard to the responsibility for issuing a certificate for his qualification. He said it should be a doctor and a specialist not just a doctor. It was arranged by note and I said I was prepared to make it two medical doctors’ certificates, and on that basis that side of the House agreed. However, that was a different form of approach; it was constructive. Therefore I say that the hon. members must understand that this Government is governing this country. It introduces a Bill and it says in the Bill what the conditions are. Then there is a full discussion. If there is going to be a further change in the number of elected members allowed in the Bill, this change will be done by a proclamation which will have to be tabled and which can be discussed in this House. That is how it will be done. The hon. members regard it as their right as an Opposition to be critical, which I fully understand. However, I also have a right to say what the Government is going to do and how it will arrange matters. That they must accept. When they run the country, they can change that. Until then, they must accept how the Government is going to run the Indian question.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question? I should like to ask the hon. Minister whether it is the policy of the Government to have a fully elected South African Indian Council ultimately?

That is not a new question; he has asked it of me previously. My answer remains the same: When and how the council will be reconstituted, will be made known by proclamation after consultation with the Indian Council.

That brings me to the next point. The hon. member said “Oh! you prefer to consult the Indian Council and not the Opposition.” Quite frankly, I do and I will tell him why. When it comes to any major issue, they exploit it as much as they can just for vote-catching. I have very little confidence in what the Opposition says and I shall tell them why. I want to read just a little from Hansard to show the hon. members how their side of the House reacted last year. I want to quote from Hansard what the hon. member for Port Natal said. This is the sort of thing he said:

It is not true, but he said it. Then they think I should pay attention to them when they come here and demand it of me. I tell hon. members what I think straight out. I want to quote more from this hon. member to show how completely irresponsible their way of tackling Indian affairs is. First he talks of my inadequacy as a Minister— of course they never make any personal remarks! Then he says it is time I protected the people I represent. I do not represent the Indians, I represent Caledon. However, this is what he says. He says I do not protect them “against the harsh and heartless treatment of the Minister of Community Development.” I must take this sort of criticism and believe that the hon. members on that side of the House are genuine. It is plain politics. There are exceptions. When the hon. member for Umbilo asked questions about social welfare and the means test, it was a fair point he raised. The hon. member for Durban Central also raised the education issue and I was interested. I want to give him the information I can. But otherwise it is just an attempt to see how much politics the U.P. can make out of the Indian question. I would rather talk to these Indians themselves when it comes to their housing, their trade rights and their problems, than I would to the hon. member for Turffontein.

There is another line the hon. member for Port Natal took in this lovely speech of his. He said:

Absolutely untrue, but he makes that statement in the House. We have heard before how the Indian Council members were stooges. Then they denied that they meant they were stooges, but listen to what the hon. member said in May, 1971:

Hear, hear!

“Hear, hear”! Do you know anything about the Indians? I do not think you know anything about a motorcar, let alone Indians. That is why I prefer to discuss with and hear from the Indians themselves the problems and troubles of the Indian community.

They are not elected by the people; they are just nominated.

The next point the hon. member made was that I should compare policy with policy.

Hear, hear!

Well, we will compare policy with policy. All members know that on this side of the House the Government’s policy is that this Parliament, the supreme Parliament, is a representative Parliament of the White people in South Africa.

Yes.

Their policy, before the Oudtshoorn result was that there should be a certain number of non-White representatives in the House. In some cases they should be White and in others Coloured and they all would be in this Parliament. In other words, they will have a say in the affairs of this House.

Yes.

The hon. member for Turffontein said “Ja”. Can he tell me why they are having meetings to change that? [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member that this has become a comic strip. Every week there is a change of policy on that side of the House. I want to tell hon. members and especially that hon. member for Turffontein that they will see that the next issue of the policy of the United Party in this regard will be quite different that the 18 members of whom four will be representatives in this House.

Sixteen members.

It will not be 16 for long! Then they come with this pious business of the wonderful treatment they will give to the Indians and the wonderful treatment they have given them. The Indians in 1946 were going to be represented by three White members in this House. In 1971 they were going to be represented by two only. I did not say anything, but the Indians said that in 1946 they were prepared to give them three, but in 1971 they are only prepared to give them two representatives. Why has the number been reduced?

Now they have none.

They have said another thing. The Indians have lost all faith in the United Party, a United Party who praises them as intellectually superior to the other non-White groups. They say: “If that is the case, thank you very much, but why will you allow Coloureds to come into Parliament and not Indians?” These are the questions these hon. members will never answer. All they want to do is to see how much trouble and how many votes they may catch by misleading a certain amount of Progs and Liberal voters in South Africa. That is all. The hon. member also spoke to me about the boycott at the Natal University. He wanted to know about the boycott.

Don’t worry, just sit down.

I know that the hon. member would like me to sit down. He would like it, because you know he feels so superior to all of us normals on this side of the House … [Interjections.]

He is.

I know; that is his own opinion of himself. Immediately this morning when I saw in the Press that there was a boycott, the department got into touch with the Rector of the University. He said that there was no boycott and that the students were going to lectures. He said there was an argument. They have a sort of interim S.R.C. or an interim students’ council which is non-elected. They submitted a draft of an elected council and the university council submitted changes that they suggested. The university council has appointed a committee of the council which will have discussions with them. However, that was never described to the students. All the students were told was that their suggestions had been rejected. Do you know by whom it was done? It was done by a student who is known as a member of what you call the India Power Group in Natal on the university campus. Now the truth is known, they are all back at their lectures and all this talk of boycott was in vain. This is the information that was given to me this morning. I am very sorry, I know the hon. members would have liked there to be trouble at the Indian university and they must be very disappointed at it.

Why do you say a thing like that?

Because it is the truth. For the information of the hon. member for Turffontein I want to read the new clause 1A (4) inserted by clause 2 of the South African Indian Council Bill:

That refers to the 25 nominated members—

I am not responsible for the legal language, it has been done by the draughtsmen—

Subsection 1 (a) increases the council to 30 members and this subsection (4) says that 25 shall be nominated and the five be elected.

It does not say 25.

Where it talks about the 25 nominated members it is in reference to the present council. The present council consists of 25 nominated members. On what does the hon. member base his statement that it does not say 25?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. Minister a question? What is the hon. Minister proposing to do when this present term of office of these members expires?

The hon. member will know when the proclamation is laid on the Table.

It is not in the law.

Of course it is not. I told the hon. member that it was an enabling Act. [Interjections.] I have much more than the hon. member thinks. Only he thinks that he has very much more than I have. That deals with the matters which the hon. member for Zululand has raised. I would like to talk to the hon. member for Port Natal. Unfortunately he was out, but I have sent his Hansard to him and I have shown him what he said last year and the way he behaved last year under this very Vote.

I am very proud of it indeed.

I know he is very proud of it. Do hon. members know what the extremist Indians call him? They call him the “darling” of the Indians in Natal. [Interjections] Hon. members should bear in mind that when he is in the House and talks on Indian Affairs he speaks the views of the extremists in the Indian Congress.

Are you jealous?

Then I want to ask the hon. member whether he remembers that he made a speech on 21st August, 1971, a speech I will quote to him. It was a report-back speech that he made and the heading in the Natal Mercury which does not support the National Party reads:

I quote the article:

Did the hon. member make that speech?

Yes.

I want to ask the hon. members on that side of the House whether that is the policy of that party. Is it their policy that he reports back on these lines? I said to the hon. members on that side of the House that it is this sort of thing that does them so much harm. That is the irresponsibility of a member of their party. He goes and makes a speech of this nature which then is reported in the Press.

Does that upset you?

I want to put another matter to that hon. member. The hon. members on that side of the House will remember the Grey Street complex issue. They will remember how the hon. member for Zululand, quite rightly, pressed me on this issue. The Government in the person of the Minister of Planning made his statement. What was his statement? He said it should be an industrial and commercial area and it should not be a residential area permanently, but the present residential areas or locations would remain until such time as alternative accommodation could be provided.

Which area was this?

The Grey Street complex.

I never mentioned it.

No, I did not say the hon. member for Zululand had said it, but the other hon. member.

Darling!

I have never heard a member in the United Party who has said that that was an unwise and wrong decision, except the hon. member for Port Natal. Do hon. members know what he came out with? He said that Indian residential occupation of the Grey Street complex should have been allowed.

Precisely.

Now I want to know on whose side he is? Is he on his own, or should he sit with the hon. member for Houghton? She knows about that. [Interjections.] Hon. members wonder why I have no confidence in their criticisms. It is because we get that sort of thing coming from an hon. member. I asked the hon. member for Durban Point. He knows the difficult situation. That hon. member takes the extremist attitude of the Indian Congress, and do you know why I say that, Sir? Because the Indian Council has accepted it.

Accepted what?

They have accepted that the Grey Street complex should be an industrial and commercial area.

Have they got any alternative?

It is only the hon. member and the Indian Congress who have not accepted that. That is what it amounts to.

What was the request of the Indian Council in connection with Grey Street?

Surely the hon. member realizes that this Grey Street issue has been discussed for many years, as the hon. member for Zululand has said. I went with the hon. the Minister of Planning down to Durban. I met the Indian Council and took the Minister round the whole area, and all I can say is that the Indian Council has accepted and appreciates that this area is going to be retained as an industrial and commercial centre for the Indian people.

What alternative have they got?

Sir, the hon. member cannot get himself out of this hole. All he is doing is to cause a lot of trouble for his party.

Then, Sir, there is a great deal of criticism of this party with regard to group areas. I asked the department to give me some notes on the procedures that are followed in connection with group areas, for the information of hon. members:

The Group Areas Board refers its proposals in regard to group areas for Indians to the Secretary for Indian Affairs for his comments, which the board as a statutory body may accept or reject. The Secretary and the Department of Indian Affairs are in touch with the Indian community through the Indian Council and are therefore in a position to state the community’s views. After the board’s proposals have been advertised, as required by the Group Areas Act, the Executive Committee of the S.A. Indian Council is free to attend the public hearing at which the proposals are considered and to give evidence on behalf of the Indian Council. Furthermore, the Executive may, in its discretion, approach the Minister of Indian Affairs with a view to creating for them opportunities to discuss the proposals with a view to creating for them opportunities to discuss the proposals with the Minister of Planning and other Ministers. In this regard the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Executive Committee have had various discussions with Ministers in the past. They, through the Minister of Indian Affairs, maintain constant contact with the Ministers concerned on behalf of the Indian community.

Can the hon. the Minister tell me when the Department of Planning has ever accepted the recommendations of the Indian Council in regard to group areas?

If I am not mistaken, the original recommendation of the Group Areas Board was that Grey Street should remain a Section 19 area, a controlled area, and the Minister of Planning introduced an amendment to a Bill, which made it possible for him to declare it a commercial and industrial Indian area without the residential qualification.

He has not introduced the Bill yet.

Of course he has; he introduced it last session.

It is in the Other Place now.

The fact remains that he has introduced it in the Other Place. Last year he made a public statement on these fires and said that he would introduce legislation. Sir, the hon. member for Port Natal goes out of his way to try to create trouble. He referred to Newcastle. What is the procedure adopted there? There is to be a third Iscor at Newcastle. Do hon. members think that the Minister of Planning must not have an over-all plan submitted to him with regard to Newcastle? Must things not be done in an orderly way; must the question of group areas not be considered in the light of the broad programme for this area in which there is a big industry like a third Iscor? There are many considerations to take into account in determining the group areas for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, and this is precisely what the Minister of Planning does. The trouble with that party is this: The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, who is not here now, made a most mischievous statement. He said that the Indians must not be bluffed by these group areas, because the Government was going to take them all away and push them into growth points. That is the sort of thing they do, and then hon. members opposite wonder why we on this side of the House have no faith in them. I do not think the Indians trust them, and I am sure I do not trust them when it comes to major issues of this kind. I would rather talk to the Indians themselves and find out what their problems are.

You have said that before.

That is right. Does the hon. member not like me?

Sir, I want to come to the hon. member for Houghton. I want to thank her for what she said about this report. I fully agree with her that the report is a full one and that it gives one a basis on which one can work in the future.

You will be joining her party next.

No, no; she has rejected that hon. member and I do not blame her. She also talked about compulsory education. She is quite right; I said that the matter was still receiving attention. She asked whether we could not do something. I will tell her quite frankly what one of the major problems is. One of the major problems is the platoon classes. But there are far fewer platoon classes today than there were during the period when the provincial council of Natal controlled Indian education. The other problem is the shortage of school buildings. Building costs, as the hon. member knows, have gone up tremendously. We have an amount of, say, R4 million or R3 million or R2 million for the building of schools and we think that we can build five or six schools out of that, and then we find that after building two schools the money voted by Parliament has been used up.

Well, concentrate on one area.

I was going to say to the hon. member that her idea of the pilot scheme is one which I will discuss with the department, but I do not want to bluff her and say that I am going to introduce compulsory education. All I say is that I understand the point she made, and that that has always been the aim and object of the department. Unfortunately, up to now it has not been possible to make the necessary arrangements. The hon. member also talked about the removal of the interprovincial barriers. I fully understand the point made by her. I also appreciate the point that she made that the issuing of permits for temporary visits was merely a formality.

Why then carry on with the thing?

That legislation was put forward in 1913, I think, by Gen. Smuts. [Interjections.] Yes, I know there are many parts to it; it is something that we will attend to in due course.

The hon. member also referred to the question of more traders at Chatsworth. All I can tell her is that the hon. the Minister of Community Development went to Chatsworth; that he had discussions with the executive of the Indian Council there; that it was agreed that they should be represented on what can be described as a traders’ committee, and that they were quite satisfied. On that basis the development of trading rights in Chatsworth will go ahead and the erection of buildings will go ahead.

Then the hon. member talked about the roads in Lenasia. I have been there myself in wet weather. I know that they are not good and that some of them are very bad. But I remember that when; I was a boy roads were also very bad, and all I can say to people is: Be patient; things will change. Even in Lenasia, the municipality of Johannesburg will probably build decent roads one of these days. She talked about the market stallholders. As far as the market stallholders are concerned I think the information she has is not up to date. Many discussions have been taking place with the Durban City Council since.

I received a letter yesterday.

All I can tell her is that there are many issues involved. Firstly, there is the possibility that road building is not going to take place, which would have obliterated the old Victoria market, but I can assure her that the department is fully aware of the position.

I want to tell the hon. member for Berea that I appreciate that the amount of R100 for bursaries is of no importance. All I can tell him is that the department sent over an Indian teacher of mathematics with a bursary on a course where he could get the latest information about teaching mathematics and then to come back to South Africa. In regard to the platoon classes he referred to, I do not want to make excuses for the fact that they are still there. But I just want to tell him that when the department took over, there were over 28 500 platoon classes and today there are approximately 14 500. If I could avoid them, I would do so but I do not know whether it is completely possible. As far as the health inspectors and the laboratory personnel are concerned, they are trained at the M. L. Sultan Technical College and their resident committee is constantly in touch with the provincial authorities and the municipalities to increase the employment opportunities for these trained people. He talked about the increased cost of the university. There is no doubt about it that there has been a tremendous increase in building costs. The Public Works Department, which has put up this university, has been faced with a situation which does not apply to South Africa alone but is international, because building costs have gone up all over the world. But I would tell him that I thought it was a very unfair comparison he made, and I did not think he would do it. when he spoke about the R6,5 million and asked whether that money could not have been better spent for the widows and the orphans, when he knows very well that the planning of the university was the basis on which the money was voted.

The hon. member for Durban Central told me he could not be here but I have the information he wants. All I can point out to him is that he is wrong in saying that the Indian matric is the same as the Bantu matric. The Indian matric is the same as the White matric. The low percentages are to a certain extent due to the fact that some Indian parents want to put his child into a scheme—I think they call it the A stream instead of the O stream— but their intellectual capacity is not high enough to achieve good results under that advanced stream. [Interjection.] That is the information I pass on to the hon. member for Durban Central and I have a long memorandum about it from the department which was very happy to give it to me as soon as the information was available. I pass information on to the hon. member because he is obviously interested in educational matters and I will see that he gets it.

I want to come to the hon. member for Umbilo. I quite appreciate the point he made. My answer to his question was probably too emphatic as a “no”, but the matter of the means test is a matter which I will take up, but the R2,50 I gave him for monthly increases is correct.

I have various notes in regard to what was said by speakers on this side of the House, and I want to thank them for their contributions. I know what happened and so do they, and all I can tell them is that if there are any matters in regard to Indian Affairs on which they want information, or if there are any queries they have, I am always available to them and I will speak to them whenever they want to.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will ensure that the Indian market stallholders in Durban, who I understand have been given notice to move in September, will be given alternative premises and that the notice will be extended until they can get the alternative accommodation.

I think if they did get notice they got it from the Durban municipality. When it comes to their position, as I told the hon. member for Houghton, the Durban municipality appreciates after discussions we had with them, that responsibility lies with them. I am making no assertions or statements but I say that they have not left the matter as the hon. member seems to indicate. They intend seeing how they can arrange alternative accommodation. That is their responsibility.

May I ask for the privilege of the half hour? I think both sides of the House will welcome the opportunity to have a discussion on the labour problems of South Africa and the Government’s policy in respect of those problems. We have made several attempts during this session to discuss the matter in depth, but we have not succeeded. In the No-confidence Debate the Minister of Economic Affairs undertook in the course of his speech to deal with it in that speech, but for some reason he did! not get round to it. In the Budget debate the hon. the Minister of Labour made a very interesting political speech, but he did not deal with labour matters, and when we drew his attention to the fact, he told us to wait until the discussion of his Vote, then we could have a full discussion on the subject. During the Vote of the Prime Minister we tried to discuss the matter in consequence of a statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister, but we received no satisfactory reply. The Minister of Transport entered the debate and spoke about labour matters, but this did not serve to bring much clarity into the matter. Now we have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the proper and the responsible Minister himself.

I want to say at once that the hon. the Minister of Labour, because of the position he occupies, has to play a particularly important part in the life of South Africa today. Labour is one of the two or three matters which must constantly receive the attention of the Government because it creates problems which impede the implementation of the Government’s policy of separate development and independent Bantustans; because no one can deny that there is mutual dependence between White and non-White, on the expertise and skill and capital of the Whites on the one hand and on the manual labour of the non-Whites on the other, and time and again there are conflicts between the implementation of the policy of separate development and the sound utilization of our labour potential in South Africa. I want to emphasize that I regard the position of the Minister of Labour and his policy as being of the utmost importance to every person in South Africa. But before I come to that I should like to know from the Minister what his attitude is in regard to wage demands. He has already told us that it is the policy of the Government to discourage requests by workers for higher wages at this stage. I do not want to put it more strongly than that; he said the Government would discourage such requests or demands. But now we find that unrest is developing on the part of the workers’ organizations. They feel that they are not being treated fairly and that they have to bear too great a burden as a result of inflation and as a result of the continuous rise in the cost of living, which seems to be accelerating now that the consequences of devaluation are being felt more strongly.

In this way we know, for example, that in November last year, when devaluation came, the official cost of living figure in South Africa was 109, but at the end of March it was 110,5, a rise of 1,5 points or of just under 1,4 per cent in four months. This would mean approximately 4 per cent to 4½ per cent a year. It is significant that between February and March the cost of living figure rose by half a point, which is equivalent to six points over a period of a year. This indicates, as economists warned, that as a result of devaluation we have to expect a considerable rise in the cost of living during the coming year. The workers have already had to absorb a rise of 7 points in the cost of living during the previous year. They will not be able to do this indefinitely. After all, they have fewer reserves to fall back on than the rich people or employers of South Africa. We have had a warning from one of the trade union groups that it is to be expected that demands amounting to more than R800 million will be made in the course of 1972.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what his attitude to the people is. What is he going to do to prevent or to discourage this? Or will he concede that if sacrifices have to be asked of the public of South Africa, the sacrifices should not come chiefly from the people who can afford it least, i.e. the workers? One cannot expect the wages of workers to remain frozen while profits grow and prices keep rising, as a result of which the buying power of their money decreases. Therefore I think the hon. the Minister should make a clear statement of policy on this matter. It is clear already that this policy cannot be carried through. In the case of the banks and mines it has already been necessary to make large concessions to the workers. We want to know what is going to happen if there are inevitable further demands for increases, to which the people are in fact entitled if the crease in the buying power of money in recent years is taken into consideration.

This problem of inflation and rising cost of living is acute in South Africa. It need not have been so acute if the Government had listened to the advice of this side of the House in the past. Unfortunately they did not. We urged the Government over the years to utilize more sensible the labour potential of the people in South Africa. Better use should have been made of the labour potential of our non-Whites, for example.

†But, Mr. Chairman, we were faced with resistance from the Government all along the line. We were accused of being inte-grationists. The public were told that when the United Party came into power, the White people would be swamped because we would open the doors, we would abolish influx control in our cities, we would abolish all the restraints for the protection of our workers. As a result of that, opportunities were missed over the years to make more effective use of our labour resources. The opportunity was also missed to combat inflation, not only as the Government did by restricting consumption, by overtaxing the people and by limiting credit, but also by doing what was so obviously necessary in South Africa, namely increasing production. If the problem of inflation is that too much money chases too few goods, the answer is not only to restrict the amount of money in circulation but the answer is also to increase the volume of goods on which that money could be spent. The Government, however, tackled this problem from a onesided attitude only. But I am very pleased to say that there seems to be signs of change, signs of a new insight. I have here some very interesting statements. I see that at the end of last year, the hon. the Prime Minister himself, speaking to the Afrikaanse Sakekamer in Cape Town at the end of the year, said—

There obviously cannot be an increase in productivity if people are not allowed to use the talent that God has given them in order to produce. If you put artificial barriers against the productive ability of people you cannot expect much in the way of greater productivity. This was an encouraging sign and it is very important. The Prime Minister mentioned that 70 per cent of our labour force was Black.

It is also very interesting to see from questions put in the House what is actually happening with our economically active population. According to a question answered (Hansard, 1970) there was at the end of 1969 a total of 17 147 000 economically active people in South Africa, of whom 1 438 000 were Whites and 4 860 000 were Bantu or Black. In 1971 according to a question recently put by my friend, the hon. member for Hillbrow, the number of White economically active people had increased to 1 554 000, that is by 8 per cent. The Coloureds and Asiatics had also increased in a small measure but the Bantu increased to 5 856 000, i.e. by 20 per cent.

That is the fact we have to face. The number of Bantu that are economically active in South Africa are increasing much faster than the number of White people that are economically active in South Africa. In other words, Sir, our dependence upon the contribution to our economy of the non-White people is becoming larger and more inescapable than ever before. Where we are dependent and where we have to use these people, the question arises whether we should not make better use of the skill of these people. Experts have put this much more pertinently than I possibly can do. Here, for example, I have a statement by Dr. W. J. de Villiers, Managing Director of the Federale Mynbou/General Mining Group. He said, according to The Star of 25th January, this year—

In a foreword to a treatise on the principles of decentralized management he said—

But, Sir, in South Africa, 70 per cent of our labour force is Black. I have not the actual figures, but possibly 90 per cent of them are unskilled. This shows dramatically that we are not making proper use of the potential productivity of the labour force of South Africa. It is very pleasing to note that there is a change in Government attitude. The Government is willing to concede that more should be done to make more productive use of our non-White labour force by allowing them to acquire greater skills. I find for example, that the Minister of Planning when he opened the Rand Easter Show at Milner Park recently said—

I am glad that the hon. the Minister has not forgotten all the good things he knew when he was a member of the United Party. The Minister added—

That, Sir, is very interesting. In other words, the Government is willing to accept that within the framework of their policy, adjustments in the use of non-White labour for more skilled purposes can be made in the same way as it has been made on the South African Railways and Harbours and as they are beginning to be made in increasing measure in another portfolio of the hon. the Minister of Labour, namely the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. That is encouraging. We wish those departments well and we hope that private enterprise will do its share. But now we face a problem. It is not enough to give private enterprise the green light and say—

“Go ahead, you can do it under Government policy”. In view of the history of South Africa over the past 24 years, there is also urgently necessary in South Africa a more direct and dynamic lead from the Government to private enterprise. It is not only I who say so. Here is the example of Mr. Robert Kraft, chief economist and assistant General Secretary of the Trade Union Council of South Africa who pointed out that—

It is not enough to whisper it at the opening of the Rand Easter Show—the Government should set an example through the administrative activities of its departments to make it easy and to encourage private enterprise, within the framework of Government policy by all means, to make better use of non-White labour in various places. Even a weekly publication such as the Financial Gazette which, whatever one may say of it, does not support the Opposition in South Africa, has some very interesting things to say about the matter. In an article on 17th March of this year, just the other day, this magazine published a transcript of a discussion amongst certain people, and it introduced the transcript with these words—

It seems scared, according to a Financial Gazette summary of the discussion, quoted obviously with the approval of the editorial board. Now I want to ask what the Government is going to do to give the country and private enterprise a clearer lead on this issue, so that we can make better use of our labour resources so that the peoples of South Africa, whatever their race may be, can receive better rewards for the contribution they make to our prosperity, so that we can have peace in South Africa. Heaven knows, if there is one thing about which we should all be agreed, it is that we cannot afford unemployment or grinding poverty for ever amongst the Black people or the non-White peoples of South Africa. If we want peace in South Africa, there must be economic progress, and all communities should share in it, according to their needs, their wants and their standards of living. I think this is one of the urgent matters we have to face. Everybody is agreed about it. I want to give you one or two examples. Here I have Mr. C. J. S. Human, president of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, who in the Rand Daily Mail of 16th March made an urgent call that African labour should be used more productively, and that industry would have to spend more time and energy educating non-Whites if South Africa’s economy was to progress. Here I have Mr. Van Deventer, chairman of the Johannesburgse Afrikaanse Sakekamer, saying—

Here I have the president of the Handelsinstituut, who in Volkshandel of February, 1972 asked for—

Everywhere and for every purpose, people of all shades of opinion, Afrikaans and English businessmen, leaders of the workers, for example Mr. Liebenberg of the Railways’ Artisan Staff Association, all come out with the same plea. We expect the Government to give a clear lead and to show that it has imagination to bring about the changes that are urgently necessary in South Africa for the better use in the interests of everybody of our labour resources.

Do not hide behind them; tell us what you think.

It seems that something must be happening, because quite recently I read a very interesting news item in a newspaper. It was a statement by Mr. Leslie Lulofs, a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, in to The Star of 18th February, 1972. He said the following: “Top level negotiations have opened the way for at least a partial solution …”, and I want the hon. member for Boksburg to listen now, because I am not hiding behind other people but quoting from a statement by a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, “… to South Africa’s skilled and semiskilled manpower shortages”. He made this statement in a speech at Pinetown. The article also said the following—

I wonder if the Minister will take us into his confidence and tell us what these discussions were and what has been decided. Surely Parliament is entitled to know this. Surely employers are entitled to know this, and surely the trade unions and the workers of South Africa are entitled to know this. We shall not be asked to be satisfied with these hints. The trouble is, of course, that the Government is reluctant to act in this matter. The hon. the Minister himself has on occasion indicated that changes are inevitable and that they cannot be resisted. South Africa demands them, and the demands of South Africa have to be met. But he does it, as we say in Afrikaans, “met lang tande”. In newspapers of 9th and 10th September, 1971, there were, for example, reports of the Minister saying: “Job reservation concessions were unfortunately inevitable in a fast-developing country like South Africa.” The Minister was speaking to the Koördinerende Raad van Suid-Afrikaanse Vakbonde. He also said—

Can one believe that a Minister should think it unfortunate that it is the duty of a Government to prevent the economy of the country from coming to a standstill? How can that be unfortunate? That should be the Government’s prime aim. I think: that is one of the reasons why we have these problems amongst our employers and employees and why we are not achieving the growth rate that is essential for the continued security, prosperity, happiness and peace of South Africa. We have a Government which is reluctant to accept the truth as it exists in South Africa. I want to know—I have asked this before, and I repeat the question—what the Government is going to do to give a lead and to make it, by imaginative leadership, possible for the private sector of our enterprise to achieve exactly what he is achieving as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, namely overcoming the shortages in the Post Office by the use and training of non-White labour for jobs where there are no longer White people available. What is he going to do to make it possible for private enterprise to do exactly what the Minister of Railways is doing in taking thousands upon thousands of non-Whites and training them to do work formerly done by White people, re-classifying jobs and creating special jobs like artisans’ assistants to make it possible for non-Whites to practise more skill in furthering the economic life of South Africa? That is my pertinent question to the Minister. This is inevitable. Government departments have to do it, and he as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs also has to do it. What is the South African Government going to do to make it possible for and to encourage private enterprise to do the same in the interests of the South African people as a whole?

They have been doing it for a long time.

My friend says, “They have been doing it for a long time.” We have had a few clues of what is happening. We know, for example, from statements and reports like the final recommendations of the Riekert Commission and from statements made by the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister and by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education what is taking place. During the Third Reading of the Abolition of the Bantu Education Account Bill in the Senate, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education gave us an idea of what is going to happen. The idea is now, through trade schools and technical institutions in the homelands and in the border areas, for the Department of Bantu Education to take over the training of Black artisans who, after their training, will have to do a period of in-service training, as they call it, and will then be recognized as full-fledged artisans. He announced that, for example, the Bantu homelands governments will have their own Apprenticeship Acts to make this possible. I think that this is a move in the right direction. But many of us are concerned about the manner in which this is being done. First of all, it is clearly said that these people, when trained, will be employed only in the service of their own people, chiefly in the homelands and in the border industries. What role will the trade unions then play in their employment? Already one of the inducements offered to industrialists to go to the border areas or the Reserves, is that they will be exempt from the Industrial Conciliation Act. In other words, the trade unions are virtually excluded. Are the trade unions in the border industries going to be excluded from the control, the training and the absorption and determining the rates of pay and conditions of employment of these non-White artisans that are coming forward? I say that it is quite right that they should come forward. We are glad about it. But they must not come forward at the expense of the industrial peace and the standards of living of the White, Coloured and Indian workers of South Africa. What control will the representative bodies of White, Indian and Coloured workers have in their employment? Secondly, what bargaining power will they have? The policy is that these new industries will be developed on the borders of the homelands, that the labour will be drawn from the Black areas and that those Black areas will become sovereign independent in due course, or will at least soon come close to it. I take it that they will have the right to organize their own trade unions there. They will organize trade unions in the Black areas for people who work in the White areas for the White industries. Those trade unions will eventually be controlled by the Minister of Labour of the Transkei or Zululand, or whatever country it will be, and not by the Minister of Labour in Cape Town or in Pretoria. Because they believe that this is a question of separate nationhood, industrial disputes will become confrontations between nation and nation. There will be insecurity. There will be danger. What is the policy of the Government? How will they see that this sort of thing will not happen? I think that the Government must think very carefully. We in South Africa, whatever the Government’s policy may be, will for many years have one single economy. The prosperity of one group, one area will be dependent upon the prosperity of any other group in South Africa; the one will affect the prosperity of the other. We cannot pretend that there is separation. There is no separation. You can have separation into separate states; you can have separation into separate nationhoods, but you have only one labour force in South Africa. The labour force of South Africa which works for the White man in Johannesburg will have similar needs and requirements as the labour force that works in the border areas of South Africa where the Industrial Conciliation Act will not apply, where there will eventually be the right of people to form Black trade unions controlled by Black Governments bargaining against White employers in the White parts of South Africa. This is a ridiculous and a dangerous situation. It should not be so. Ever since 1955, when the Industrial Conciliation Act was amended with this purpose, we have warned against the dangers of forcing people to form separate trade unions, who will eventually bargain against the interests of the others. This will become a greater danger than ever before when you have separate Bantu trade unions in separate independent sovereign Bantu homelands. We believe that it would be much better if our Black workers in South Africa could be encouraged and if our trade unions could be encouraged to come together and accept the Black workers at the outset perhaps as affiliate members. They can have their own organizations but they should be affiliated to the White trade unions. They could speak with one voice so that they could see what developments are possible in time. We on this side of the House do not believe that we have snap solutions to the problems of South Africa, that there are instant solutions to the problems of South Africa. We believe that many of these problems will have to be solved through evolution, timeous evolution when necessary, through experimentation and by a pragmatic approach to our problem. We are convinced of one thing, namely that to divide South Africa as the Government is now doing, into three areas: a Black area in the Bantu homelands, a White controlled area in the White areas of South Africa and a grey area on the borders of the Bantu homelands, with different policies, will not solve our problem. In the grey areas the White workers, the Indian workers and the Coloured workers will not have the protection that they have in the White areas. There will not be the protection for the Blacks with grey areas that they will have homelands. The laws that have been devised over a generation of industrial development to protect the interests of employer and employee will not apply. It will be an area where conflict is built into the very concept …

A sort of no man’s land?

Yes, it is a sort of no man’s land and we are deeply concerned about it because this idea of developing the industries on the borders with no Industrial Conciliation Act, with exemption from wage board determinations and with lower wages being accepted as an inducement for people to go there, is a form of integration.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is up. I am very sorry. The hon. member can speak and I will answer. It is a form of integration that is indeed dangerous. Those are White factories and those are White entrepreneurs who establish their business on the borders of the Bantustans, but the workers are Black. They may come from the homeland a mile, or 10 or 20 miles away, but they are Black and it is White enterprise dependent on Black labour. It is Black labour dependent on White enterprise, with White know-how and White skill. All the dangers that exist in Johannesburg, eventually must exist in Pinetown, Queenstown, or Rosslyn. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this is the second consecutive year that I am following up on this hon. member. He will most certainly, during the course of this debate as well, be furnished with all the necessary replies. It has been a long time since I last saw a person shying away to such an extent from his own policy as the supposed shadow-Minister of Labour on the opposite side does. This hon. gentleman, who forms the buffer between the conservative group and the liberal group in their party, has already come to grief in the process. In the process he has become the slave of the hon. member for Hillbrow. It is general knowledge that after the 1966 election, on the advice of Madame Rose, the prophetess, the seeress, the crystal-gazer from Hillbrow, an American consultant was called in to shake the United Party out of their dilemma and to try to help them.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

Yes, we are aware of what that advice from that consultant was. It was: “Gossip the National Party to death.” We know what the advice of that consultant was: “Since you have a policy which no one can understand, which the voters of South Africa do not understand, and which you yourselves are unable to understand, you have no hope of ever coming into power in this country.” That is why they embarked on this gossip-mongering campaign. The person to bring up the rear and to assign these hit-and-run tactics to was the hon. member for Yeoville. This task was entrusted to him, for he is the person who tries to make people believe that the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour do not advocate the same policy. He is the person who wants to play the one off against the other. He is also the hon. member who levels accusations to the effect that we have taken over the so-called United Party policy. But in this debate we will discuss this matter properly and we will compare that policy of theirs to the policy of this side of the House. We shall unmask them and expose them for what they are, for there is a world of difference between our policy and theirs. It is necessary, for the worker in South Africa wants to know where he stands with the United Party. The worker of Brakpan wants to know, before the 17th May, where he stands with the United Party. In every debate, whether it was the Post Office Budget, the Railway Budget, the Main Budget, whether it concerned inflation or devaluation, there was only the one scapegoat, the one “bogey”-horse which was ridden from dawn till dusk, i.e., the labour policy of the National Party. That was blamed for everything. I say it makes no difference what the point at issue was. They have only this one solitary solution and only this one recipe, which became very apparent from the hon. member’s speech. It is: “Bring the Bantu into the urban areas; abolish everything; bring them in increasing numbers and open up the flood-gates.” [Interjections.] It is very clear that that is their policy. Let us compare our policy with theirs. I want to take the first point of difference. The hon. member for Yeoville must not run away now. I have never yet seen a man running away from his policy, but there goes the hon. member. The hon. member for Yeoville was the man who said that the migratory labour system should be abolished. In column 1943 of Hansard, 1972, he said that—

That is what the hon. member said. It means therefore that Bantu labour should be brought into the White areas on an uncontrolled, family basis. That is their policy. We say on the other hand that we believe in the migratory labour system. The same hon. member said in column 1946 of Hansard this year—

That is what that hon. member said. We will not allow ourselves to be forced …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Sorry, but I only have 10 minutes. We do not allow ourselves to be forced, and it is the policy of this side of the House to apply influx control. It is our policy, and we are applying it. We come to the second difference between the policy of that Party and the policy of the National Party. They are the people who said “remove the labour restrictions”. Yes, they said that the Physical Planning Act should be repealed. Their Leader stated that we should stop the senseless wasting of money on the development of border industries and homeland development. “Bring Bantu labour more freely into the White areas”—that is what they say. They say that Bantu labour should be brought more freely into the White areas. The National Party states that it believes in decentralization, in the development of border industries and in the development of homeland industries. We say that the industry which is not site-bound should be taken to the Bantu labour. The result of our policy has been that since 1960 almost 74 000 opportunities for employment were created for the Bantu in the border areas. If we had followed their policy, almost a quarter of a million additional souls would have entered the urban areas. The third difference is that we believe in the protection of the White worker in the White area. We believe that he should be protected. The hon. member for Yeoville accused the hon. the Minister of Transport of overprotecting the White worker. That is what the hon. member for Yeoville said. Listen now to what he had to say in col. 3110 of the Hansard, 1972—

That is the National Party—

It is they who want to disturb the ratio, and they must not accuse the National Party of wanting to do this. We believe in protecting all racial and ethnic groups, for it is in the interest of the survival of this country. We believe in the retention of section 77 of our Industrial Conciliation Act, for this is a protective measure in our labour legislation which will protect every ethnic group against being supplanted. The United Party on the other hand—which believes in the rate-for-the-job policy—is prepared to oust the White worker from his work by means of cheaper non-White labour. That is what they believe, and that is what the Johannesburg City Council is trying to do. We believe in work reservation, for we believe that the rate for the job alone does not afford the White worker in this country sufficient protection. We come to point number four. We believe in the controlled employment of non-Whites in the positions previously occupied by Whites. We believe in this, and we are doing this in consultation with the trade unions. Those hon. members say that the flood-gates should simply be opened, and that they should simply be allowed in. That is their policy.

Prove it.

I shall prove it to hon. members. Those hon. members say that we should listen to what Tucsa has to say. What does Tucsa have to say? The hon. member for Wynberg is the member who also advocates Black trade unions. The leader of Tusca says that those White politicians who are not in favour of Bantu trade unions, are being ridiculous. I say then we are being ridiculous. The hon. members on the opposite side of the House are the people who believe in Bantu trade unions, and these are the people with whom the hon. members want to negotiate. I come to point number five. We believe—and this is the difference—that the Whites should be trained in the White area, for this is their preferential labour area. We believe that the non-Whites should be trained in their homelands. Then we come to point number six, and this is the most important difference. We believe that this Parliament will always remain a White Parliament, but those hon. members want to bring 16 members into this House to represent the non-Whites. The hon. member for Yeoville is the man who said on the B.B.C. that these members may be Bantu. We say that no Bantu will come into this House of Assembly to place labour legislation on the Statute Book. They want to bring the Bantu in here, who will then be able to do as they please with the labour legislation of the Whites in this country. That is what they want to do. Sir, the National Party says that this will be a purely White Government; that it will be a White Government which will place labour legislation on the Statute Book.

In conclusion I just want to ask the hon. the Minister one question. Last year I raised the question of labour pedlars here. I should like to inquire what the finding of the Department was, and what progress has been made in that connection.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark was true to form again today. He started off by, as usual, making personal attacks on hon. members on this side of the House and then he went on to discuss United Party Policy. I want to place it on record, Sir, that not a single thing that the hon. member said about United Party policy can be substantiated. I challenge him to substantiate anything that he has said here and, in particular, to substantiate what he said in regard to influx control.

They do not believe in influx control.

I want to say that the workers in South Africa know that their future is perfectly safe in the hands of the United Party. We do not just say this; we know it to be true.

I challenge you to substantiate that argument.

Sir, I do not want to waste any more of my time on the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. During the Budget debate I raised the matter of the huge wage gap which exists between White and non-White wages in South Africa.

Now you are making a rod for your own back.

Sir, I raised this matter specifically not only because I personally believe that this is one of the greatest problems facing South Africa, but I raised it because of the number of very serious warnings that have been directed at the Government over the past 18 months. These warnings have come from top trade unionists, from top industrialists and top economists. I want to say that they are the type of warnings of which this Government must take note. We know, for instance, that just recently Mr. J. S. Liebenberg, a very well respected trade union leader, warned the Government in no uncertain terms that unless lines of communication were established with the non-White worker and the wage gap narrowed, there would be industrial strife in South Africa. We know too that even the hon. the Minister of the Interior saw fit to warn his Government and predicted that there would be dire consequences for South Africa unless this wage gap was closed.

That old horse you have ridden to death.

Just recently, about a month ago, we had Mr. David Henson from the Natal University telling us that the wage gap between White and Bantu is steadily increasing despite the fact that many of these Bantu are already living below the poverty datum line. Sir, the position is extremely unsatisfactory. You would think that the Government would at least set a lead in this matter for everyone else to follow, but when you look at the increases given in the Government service from 1969-’70, you find this position: While White wages increased by 25 per cent, the wages of the Coloured, Indians and Africans increased by 19 per cent, 15 per cent and 10 per cent respectively. In other words, this wage gap is being compounded even by the Government. During the past decade this whole question of Bantu wage levels has received a great deal of attention from well-meaning people, enlightened employers and many public bodies, and there have been numerous debates at congresses and industrial conventions, and on the Government side we have even had the Bantu Labour Board, which was created specifically to uplift and guard the interests of the millions of Bantu workers who work in the White industrial areas of South Africa. One would have thought that with this awareness of the problem and with all the attention that has been given to it, this very vital problem of Bantu wages would now have reached some conclusion and that there would have been some narrowing of the gap between White and non-White wages. And—and this is very important—that there would have been some move towards the pattern which has developed in the Western European countries where unskilled wage levels are as much as 70 per cent of the prevailing skilled rate, as against the 20 per cent which we have in South Africa. Instead of this, we find that in South Africa we have the extremely unsatisfactory position where the wage gap between White and non-White wages, if anything, is wider today than it was more than 30 years ago. Take as an example industry and construction as the largest single employer group in South Africa. Then you find that in the period from 1935 to 1969 the annual earnings for the average White employee rose from R452 to R3 124 and during the same period Bantu wages rose from R84 to R566. In 1935 the average per capita White wage was 5,4 times as much as the average Bantu wage, while the ratio in 1969 stood at just a fraction higher at 5,5 times. In other words, the average real earnings of all races have increased considerably over the past 30 years, but the gap between White and non-White wages has remained and has even worsened. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government must bear a great deal of the responsibility for this gap remaining in South Africa.

I wonder whether the Government realizes what this wage gap means to the Bantu? Surely the Government must realize that while the enormous wage gap remains, it denies the Bantu the opportunity of enjoying his reasonable share of the good things offered by 20th century technology. We must ask ourselves: What can the average Bantu employee really look forward to in the way of increased earnings and a better standard of living over his working life while this gap remains? What, for instance, are his chances of ever entering the middle-income group at, say, R3 000 a year, where he will be able to afford a modest motor car and good education for his children, the normal type of thing that every human being aspires to? The answer of course is that under the restrictive labour policy of the Nationalist Party Government his chances of ever reaching that stage are very bleak indeed. We know, too, that this wage gap does not only affect the non-Whites. We know that it affects the economy of South Africa, because the very fact that the wage gap is so wide means that there is a lack of productivity. There can be no doubt in my mind that the Government, having been in power for almost 25 years …

And will be in power for another 25 years.

I say the Government have fallen down very badly indeed on this whole question of the wage gap in South Africa. The Government have been warned.

The hon. member for Welkom is too modest; they will be in power for another 1 000 years.

I have discussed the economic implications, but the Government must be warned, too, that this could have a very serious effect on race relations in South Africa. I believe that the responsibility rests on this hon. the Minister and the department to apply their minds to this very grave problem of the wage gap, because the hon. the Minister and his department are the only ones who can make an almost immediate contribution to alleviating this gap by giving the non-White in South Africa the opportunity to be properly trained and to play his full productive role in the economy of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg North, with a challenge to my hon. friend from Vanderbijlpark, began to produce evidence this afternoon of the fact that it is United Party policy to plough the White worker under. I want to say at once that it is no great problem submitting proof of that to the Committee, for last year the hon. member for Hillbrow advanced four points in this House which he offered as a solution to the labour problems, and then he said, inter alia—

Because they want to abolish this and eliminate work reservation, it is very easy to accept that it is the policy of the United Party to afford the White worker of South Africa no protection. Because this is the case, I want to say at once that the workers of Brakpan are going to reject the United Party by a tremendous majority on 17th May.

I think the other question which is before us and which we have to consider is the following: What does it mean, and what are the implications of the United Party plan for the White workers in South Africa? If those existing protective measures are abolished, what does it mean but the elimination of the traditional labour dividing lines which South Africa and the White worker in South Africa have always been used to?

You are doing it now.

If those dividing lines are eliminated, what effect is this going to have on the White workers in South Africa but to create the impression among them that their position is in danger?

Are you attacking your own policy?

No, we shall come to that. To prove that the United Party thinks little of the White worker, I am quoting to you what the hon. member for Durban Point said on 1st February this year when he referred very contemptuously and derogatorily to the standpoint of the hon. the Minister on the White workers. The hon. member for Durban Point said that the following was the standpoint of the Government, for the Government says to the White worker—I am quoting from Hansard, 1972, column 143—

I ask again: What effect could this have? Could it have any other effect but to create the impression among the White workers that the United Party is not concerned about them, in terms also of what the hon. member for Hillbrow said? When a person becomes worried, when one becomes uncertain about one’s position, what happens then? One then rebels against whatever is creating that uncertainty, and what happens when one rebels? We have proof of what happened under the United Party régime, for in 1922, when the White mine-workers rebelled against that uncertainty, which the United Party had created among them, what did the United Party of that time do? They shot the White workers down. Is that not what the United Party is again aiming at now? Is that not the conclusion which the White worker in South Africa must draw? What is more, what White workers are going to rebel? It is the Nationalist White workers who are going to rebel. Every White worker in this country will have to take cognizance of the fact that this is the path along which the United Party is leading the workers of South Africa.

As far as the National Party is concerned, it must be stated very clearly that it is capable and prepared, and always has been prepared, to recognize and take into account the realities of the labour situation, but that under National Party regime no compromise at the expense of the White workers will ever be made. That is the assurance which the White workers have from the National Party, and it is the assurance which the White workers in Brakpan have from the National Party. Because the White workers of South Africa know that their interests are safe in the hands of the National Party, one also finds that industrial peace is prevailing. In 1971 there were only 24 strikes, and this applies to all races. Involved in this were only 1 657 shifts, of eight hours each. The wages lost amounted to only R2 119. There were only 2 598 workers involved. I say that this is a proud record for this Government and this Minister, for which we ought to be very grateful. But I also say that this is proof that the workers in South Africa know that their interests are safe with the National Party.

But, Sir, I should just like to put a single question to the hon. the Minister. I want to draw his attention to a report in the Financial Mail of 3rd March this year under the headlines “Labour confusion reigns”, in which reference is made to certain steps taken last year in regard to Coloured building workers in the Transvaal, and about which there is uncertainty now as to whether the policy is still going to be applied as it was initially announced, or whether changes are perhaps going to be effected. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not be so kind as to inform the Committee what the position there is, what need still exists for that arrangement made at the time, and whether any changes were actually made.

Then I also want to put a question in regard to the juvenile boards, which were established with very good intentions, but in regard to which the question arises, as a result of altered circumstances such as the improved service rendered by the Educational Departments as well as by the professional information divisions of the Department of Labour, as to whether a real need still exists for these juvenile boards. Has the time not arrived for consideration to be given to making another arrangement perhaps?

Mr. Chairman, I want to take the opportunity of asking the hon. the Minister if he will explain a statement that he made in this House in reply to a question which had been put to him by the hon. member for Wynberg earlier this year, about whether or not he was considering extending collective bargaining rights, or the right to trade-unionism, to African workers. He gave an astonishing reply. He said: “No, because Bantu workers are adequately protected by existing legislation”. I would like the hon. the Minister to advance some reasons for his having made that statement, in the face of all the evidence that one has of the low wage rates which the vast majority of African workers are earning in South Africa, more particularly in the unskilled trades. I want to know what the “adequate legislation” is that protects these workers. He cannot, of course, be meaning the Industrial Conciliation legislation, because that specifically excludes African workers. They are not included in the definition of “employee” under the Industrial Conciliation Act. He may be thinking of the Wage Board, which is a statutory body which was meant to negotiate for wages in those occupations where there are not trade unions. I want to say at once that I believe that the negotiations which are being conducted by the trade unions on behalf of the African workers have been hopelessly inadequate. I do not want the hon. the Minister to come along with percentage increases of wages over the last few years as proof that the Wage Board has been achieving great things for Africans; because, Sir, when you start with a hopelessly inadequate wage on an absolute figure, an increase, even of 50 per cent, does not bring that wage up to what is even considered to be a minimum standard of existence, the poverty datum line. This in fact is something with which we should not be dealing at all—we should be talking about the minimum effective level, which is what sociologists use these days and which is H times the poverty datum line. He cannot be meaning the ordinary negotiations carried out by White trade unions on behalf of the Black trade unions; because while they do get some of the crumbs that come from the table when the White workers decide to release some of the classifications to Black workers and thereby increase their own wages generally, or certainly the benefits, African wages of course drop considerably from the level of the wage which was paid for that particular occupation when it was done by White people. So, Sir, what does he mean? Does he mean then the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act, which was passed in the fifties and which was supposed to set up a number of workers’ committees in those establishments which employ, I think, more than 20 African workers? There was also the Bantu Labour Board, which was supposed to negotiate on behalf of Africans. If the hon. the Minister thinks that they have achieved adequate protection for Africans, I would like him to explain to me how it is in this day and age that the majority of African workers in the unskilled trades are earning far less than the poverty datum line. I would like him to explain to me how it is possible that the Industrial Council, for instance, in its very latest agreement on the 21st April could lay down wages such as the following for certain of our industries: 25 cents an hour for a labourer grade II, a wage of R8 per week for a female labourer for the first 12 months, R10 for a male labourer over the age of 18, and R7-45 for a male labourer under the age of 18. How on earth can we allow this when we know that the very minimum on which a family can be expected to live is R76? That is the poverty datum line, which I say should be discarded. The minimum really in an urban area—these figures are all for urban areas— is R112 per month. I wonder how the hon. the Minister can possibly justify that I.C. agreements in this day and age are laying down these absurd wage rates. I know the hon. the Minister is going to tell me that there is no law against paying higher wages. I want to reply again and try to perhaps make an impression this time that it is no good just leaving it to the philantrophy of employers. Some employers are good employers and they certainly do increase the wages of their workers wherever possible; but the majority of them are thinking about profits, about shareholders and about their competitors. That is why it is up to the Government to see that there is a minimum wage in this country in the industrial areas below which nobody shall be allowed to employ anybody, in industry, manufacturing, mining, commerce and all the other occupations. If wages are bad in the industrial areas, they are positively abysmal in the border areas, where, of course, even I.C. agreements need not apply. They are even worse in the homelands. Quite recently we had an exposé of conditions. In the homelands, for instance, we see that starters in the garment industry are earning R3 a week, going up by 50 cents every six months. They work 45 hours a week. The Union rate in the cities is R7,50 for beginners, going up R1,22 every six months. They work for 40 hours a week. In a border industry area like Hammarsdale, they start at R4,50 per week, and some of the women earn as little as R3,60 a week. How can the Minister justify wages like this in this day and age? As the hon. member for Johannesburg North correctly said, the wage gap, the gap between unskilled wages and skilled wages, is increasing all the time in South Africa, unlike other industrial states. Indeed, official figures show that in many areas of our economy Whites earn seven times the wages of Blacks and four times the wages of Coloured workers.

There are differences in the cost of living.

There is no difference in the cost of living, but there is a great difference in the standard of living. Do not for one moment think that Black and Coloured people like to live at a very low standard of living. They live at that low standard of living because they have no option and because that is the wage they earn. I believe it is the responsibility of a modern State to set the example and to see that there are decent minimum wages. My contention is that African workers are not adequately protected by existing legislation and that they are hopelessly vulnerable. The hon. the Minister must not say that we have industrial peace, because as is well known, it is illegal for African workers to strike. When they do strike the Police are called in, African workers are prosecuted and they go to gaol. They suffer from many other disabilities, like the inability to move, the immobility imposed on them by pass laws. There are also thousands upon thousands of unemployed Blacks in the homelands waiting to come in. Existing workers are therefore also handicapped by the fact that they know that they are suffering from this competition. In all sorts of ways African workers are hopelessly inadequately protected. There is only one way to help them and that is to allow collective bargaining and to have a decent basic minimum wage. While I am on the subject of collective bargaining, I want to say that I was very glad to hear the hon. member for Yeoville say today, much more unequivocally than he has said before, that his party is in favour of trade union rights, the extension of collective bargaining rights to Africans, although he did say that it would be better to put them under some form of associated membership first. But I was delighted to hear that.

You are succeeding with your …

I am very glad, because years ago when I introduced a motion on collective bargaining I did not get much support from that side. So everybody is moving steadily forward and even the Government is taking a few tottering little steps forward, because the announcement by the hon. the Minister of Finance shows that the Government is beginning to realize that greater use must be made of our labour. I would say to the hon. member for Yeoville that before I can really heartily compliment the United Party on its advance, he must do something about having his Leader make some statement in this House which will expunge the record that stands at present, namely that the United Party is in favour of maintaining the industrial colour bar. The two things do not go together. The advancement of the use of Africans in different occupations and the maintenance of the industrial colour bar do not go together. One cannot play to Oudtshoorn on the one hand and to the Northern suburbs of Johannesburg on the other hand. I therefore say it is very necessary that we get the record straight in this regard. I would be the first to welcome it.

I will help you.

Quite clearly the entire development and economy of South Africa is dependent on this huge reservoir of black labour which we are not using and not training and not paying properly. It is no good telling me that one cannot increase wages because everybody will go out of business and because the cost of living will go up. I believe that when people are being paid poverty wages and those wages are increased, there will be an almost immediate increase in productivity. Because those people do not eat properly, they do not live properly and they do not work properly, unless they are paid what is considered to be a living wage. I think that we are all living in a modern industrial country, South Africa, in 1972, and it is quite absurd to believe that you can deny to the vast bulk of your working classes what is considered to be an absolutely elementary right in every other industrial country, namely the right of collective bargaining and everything that goes with it. We consider this to be quite an ordinary elementary right for White workers, for Coloured workers and for Indian workers. I believe that we now have to start taking some courageous steps in assisting the Africans to organize properly, to join with existing unions and to exercise some collective bargaining rights, so that they can earn a decent wage. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton put a few questions to the hon. the Minister, to which I think he will reply very effectively. In any case, the hon. member for Houghton always speaks about the Bantu of South Africa, while I should like to speak about the White workers of South Africa today.

I listened attentively today to what the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Johannesburg North said about labour matters. I also listened to hon. members opposite speaking on labour matters in other debates this Session. I want to say to the White workers of South Africa that in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Johannesburg North said that the White workers of South Africa were safe in the hands of the United Party, that party is selling them out. The United Party is selling the White workers in South Africa for a mess of pottage long before breakfast. Then we get speeches here such as those made by the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Orange Grove, who is not here this afternoon, but who said in the Post Office debate, inter alia, that “the Nationalist Party took over the labour policy of the United Party in toto”. Hon. members opposite know as well as I do that the labour policy of the National Party and that of the United Party are as far apart as the North Pole is from the South Pole. This being so, I should like, in the short time at my disposal to associate myself with what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said and to draw a clear distinction between the policy of the National Party and that of the United Party. In this short space of time I shall have to do so in a nutshell. In the first place I want to say that one of the fundamental principles of the National Party— and this has been the case over all the years since the National Party took over the government in 1948, and will continue to be for many a long day, because I believe the National Party will govern South Africa for many years to come—is that the White worker should be protected against the undermining of his wage standards by cheap non-White labour and against being ousted from his sphere of employment by non-White labour. This is the fundamental principle on which the policy of the National Party in respect of labour matters is based. A second important principle is that the Government stands for controlled employment of non-Whites in jobs previously done by Whites, as we find, inter alia, on the Railways and in the Post Office. This is controlled employment with the consent of the Staff Associations. As was stated by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and other hon. members on this side who spoke before me, the doors and floodgates are not being thrown open for uncontrolled cheap non-White labour to oust the Whites in South Africa from their spheres of employment today. The United Party’s policy is heading for only one thing, and that is that the floodgates should be opened for the uncontrolled influx of Black labour. Their policy is that the Bantu in South Africa should sell his labour on the best market.

That is completely untrue, and you know it is untrue.

Order! The hon. member for Simonstown must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir,

I want to say to the White workers that as long as the National Party governs South Africa, not one White person in South Africa will be replaced by a non-White person. I want to ask the hon. member for Simonstown, who was so quick to interject, whether he agrees with this principle. I shall mention another one to him. Non-Whites will be employed only where Whites are no longer available to perform that particular work. Does the hon. member for Simonstown agree with that? Now he has been zipped. There will be no undesirable mixed working conditions for non-Whites and Whites. A fourth very important fundamental principle is that no White person will work under the supervision of a non-White person. I want to know whether hon. members opposite agree with this principle. [Interjections.] You will be allowed an opportunity to speak. What little respect the United Party has for the protective measures applied in South Africa in order to protect the Whites, was quite evident in a previous debate in this House and, in fact, in a speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In 1970 he spoke about section 77 of the Industrial Concilation Act. This is the section which empowers the Minister to reserve certain jobs either exclusively or on a percentage basis for Whites or for any other race group. That section, which assures many Whites in South Africa of their employment and future, was referred to disparagingly by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at that time. I quote from column 477 of the 1970 Hansard—

This is what the United Party thinks of the protective measures for our White workers in South Africa. It astounds one that there are still White workers in South Africa who would vote for those people. But I want to go further.

The majority votes for us.

Now you are talking nonsense.

I want to go further and ask hon. members opposite whether they do not think before formulating their policy? I want to ask them whether they, as well as the hon. member for Yeoville, who pleaded today for the abolition of labour restrictions, know what the implications of their plea are. Unfortunately the time at my disposal has almost expired, but I just want to mention a few. The abolition of labour restrictions means the repeal of the statutory job reservation introduced as a precautionary measure against inter-racial competition. But what is even more important, the abolition of labour restrictions they advocate —and I want to say this to the mineworkers of South Africa—means the abolition of the colour bar on the mines. I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow whether he agrees with that. It would mean the abolition of the colour bar in the mining industry. I want to tell the mineworkers that as long as there is a National Party Government, they may be assured that the colour bar will be maintained on our mines in South Africa at all times.

This Government is in favour of controlled employment. I am sorry to say this, but it seems to me as though measures aimed at establishing order, are quite simply in conflict with the United Party mentality.

Oh, dear!

It is simply in conflict with the United Party mentality. Oudtshoorn knocked those people silly. Oudtshoorn is a rural constituency. I want to say to them now that Brakpan is a worker’s constituency and that it will hit them on the jaw. I shall tell them why. It is because the White workers of Brakpan know that this National Party Government may be trusted with their interests because in the years that have passed it has proved that it cares for the interests of the White worker in South Africa. On the other hand, the White workers in South Africa know that the United Party is selling them out. That is the way they will speak to the United Party in Brakpan. I can give them this assurance now: Oudtshoorn spoke to them in this way, but Brakpan will speak to them in an even worse fashion, because the White workers in South Africa know that the National Party Government can be trusted with their interests and because they know that their interests are safe in the hands of this Government.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to spend a lot of time reacting to the hon. member for Welkom. I think we should put things in a better perspective than he has done in the last 10 minutes. I would suggest that the instrument that has been more responsible for industrial peace in South Africa than any other measure that has been taken, has been the Industrial Conciliation Act, which has provided the basis for proper negotiation and the proper regulation of wages and conditions of employment. It has not been the measures that have been specifically taken by the Nationalist Party. I should like to remind the hon. member for Welkom that it was the United Party that originally introduced the Industrial Conciliation Act.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to a matter this afternoon which I raised last year in this debate. I raise it again this year, because nothing that has happened in the past year has lessened the importance of this matter and. in fact, with the passage of time it has grown more important. I raise the matter of the position of Coloured people in white-collar jobs. This is a matter that primarily affects the Cape and, more particularly, the urban areas of greater Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. It is something that also affects, to a smaller extent, the urban areas of Johannesburg and Durban. It is a fact that most of the labour-intensive industries which rely on semiskilled operatives to do their work, industries such as the clothing industry, the textile industry, footwear and furniture industries, are manned predominantly, to the extent of more than 90 per cent, by non-European labour. Of that non-European labour the bulk is Coloured. This is a position that has evolved over the years. It is a position that is completely acceptable in the present context. It is a position that has come about peacefully; it is a position that has come about without disturbance. The fact that it has come about peacefully has been caused by two reasons. The first is that White workers have tended to move away from semi-skilled industrial jobs. They have tended to move vertically into more skilled jobs and more responsible jobs, and they have tended to move away horizontally to white-collar jobs. It has also come about peacefully, because in these labour-intensive industries in the Cape it has been the practice to pay the rate for the job. Where minimum wages have been laid down by industrial council agreements, those minimum wages have either tended to become the standard wages in those industries, or where premium wages have been paid above minimum wages, those premium wages have tended to be paid to both Coloured and White workers.

In more recent times we have seen an increasing employment of Coloured people in white-collar jobs, office jobs, and clerical jobs, mainly in industry, but also increasing in the commercial and distributive trades. This trend has been accentuated by a number of factors; first of all the full employment situation amongst White workers which has tended to result in White workers commanding high salaries and, secondly, by the increasing suitability of Coloured people to do clerical jobs as a result of the higher educational standards which they have attained. It has been accentuated also by the socio-economic position and the supply and demand position of the Coloured people, who, on the whole, have been prepared to work for lower wages than their White counterparts. Figures are not available to give a complete picture of the extent of the penetration by the Coloured worker into white-collar jobs in the wholesale trade, the retail trade, financial institutions and in offices in the Cape area. What figures are available for the country as a whole, do tend to show that this trend, while it has not reached particularly high proportions yet, is a trend which is going on steadily and at an increasing rate. I think one only has to go around the shops and offices in Cape Town to see what is happening as far as increased employment of Coloured people in shops and offices is concerned.

This is a development which we on this side of the House welcome very much. It gives greater employment and greater earning opportunities to the Coloured people and it must also lead to greater national productivity to the benefit of all. At the same time it is a development that does contain the seeds of problems. Of course, with this development is going a wage gap such as the hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to. Unless this development is handled with care by employers, unless there is consultation with the trade unions —in these trades the trade unions are not particularly well represented—and unless the principle of the rate for the job is accepted and implemented, this development can contain the seeds of future problems. The Whites in white-collar jobs have no new fields into which they can move horizontally, as they have moved into white-collar jobs from industrial jobs. It is therefore vital that they should be protected from being undermined by a source of cheaper labour such as the Coloured labour that is penetrating these jobs is representing. It is equally vita] that bitterness and frustration, which the Coloured people feel when they do the same jobs for lower wages, should not be allowed to spread into white-collar work.

I know that the Department of Labour has no power to enforce equal pay for equal work. I also know that the wage determinations and industrial conciliation agreements make no distinction of paying different wages for different colours and that there is nothing to prevent employers paying more than the minimum wages laid down in these agreements. However, I do suggest to the hon. the Minister of Labour that the Department of Labour is in a position. owing to its close contact with employers, to exercise a considerable moral influence on those employers to end wage discrimination between different colours. I think that merely by advocating, providing they advocate the policy strongly enough, a lot could be done in this connection. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that it would be in the interests of future industrial peace in white-collar jobs if he were to instruct his department to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia will pardon me if I do not follow up immediately on what he said. I shall return later to the point which the United Party has raised so far in this debate.

In the first place, I should like, on behalf of the White workers of the constituency I represent, to bring a matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I feel that this matter could possibly be cleared up and that his department will give positive attention to it, by means of its factory inspectors in the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth complex. I want to tell the hon. Minister that the White workers are concerned, to a certain extent, about the employment of non-Whites in the factories, although this is taking place on a controlled basis in accordance with the policy of the National Party. I want to ask the Minister to keep a watchfull eye on the situation. One finds the position in the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth complex that higher qualifications are required by the employers when it comes to the employment of a White in comparison to those of a non-White. Then one finds it happening quite frequently that non-Whites are employed in those posts. In the factories of the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth complex we also find that racial mixing occurs, and that White and non-White in many respects have to work alongside one another. I shall appreciate it very much indeed if the Department of Labour would keep a watchful eye on the situation. Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister, if it is in any way possible, to have more surprise inspections carried out by the inspectors of the Department of Labour. This would also contribute a great deal to this matter being restored to its correct perspective.

Up to this juncture we have heard a great deal in this debate about the United Party’s policy in regard to the employment of non-Whites. The United Party has adhered consistently to this standpoint, viz. that the manpower shortage in the Republic of South Africa can only be solved if there is large-scale employment of non-Whites. I shall quote it, so that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other members on that side of the House can hear what they said. Now I want to quote, for the information of the hon. member for Yeoville, from the South African Worker of May, 1972, under the caption “More non-Whites no solution” as follows—

I think that this is a very important quotation, and I think that the United Party should take cognizance of it.

The hon. member for Vanderbijl Park, as well as the hon. member for Springs, referred here to the Industrial Conciliation Act. Since the United Party now states that they are not in favour of posts being made available to non-Whites on an uncontrolled basis, I want to ask the United Party what the following words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mean. On 6th February, 1970, he said the following in this House—

Of course, this will happen when the United Party comes into power. For me this means only one thing, and the White worker of this country must take note of this, viz., that if the United Party comes into power they will comply with the demands of the businessmen of the Republic of South Africa. When it comes to the employment of non-Whites they will do this. Now we must look into what the policy of the United Party is. I want to challenge the United Party to distribute this pamphlet, “You want it, we have it”, in Brakpan before the election there. Let us then see what the result will be. Here I have in my hand two pamplets issued by the United Party. The first was issued in 1963, and is entitled “Handleiding vir beter rasseverhoudinge”.

What did it cost?

They tell me that at the time it cost 6d. On page 6 of this pamphlet it is stated (Translation.) “The following laws will be repealed”. They then go on to give a list of these laws, and the last of these laws is the “Industrial Conciliation Act, particularly those portions dealing with job reservation and the splitting of trade unions”. That was in 1963. They said that they would repeal it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said it in this House; the hon. member for Hillbrow said it, the hon. member for Wynberg said it in a letter to the Argus, and the hon. member for Maitland has also said it.

That is not true.

Does the hon. member not agree with the others? On 3rd February, 1970, the hon. member for Wynberg wrote a letter to the Argus. They had asked her what laws would be repealed, and she said—

“Review.”

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that section 77 was going to be repealed, but the hon. member for Wynberg said—

This is the same as was stated in their 1963 policy. But now, Sir, we come to the election just before 1970, when the United Party issued this pamphlet: “The answer: You want it? We have it!”. And what is stated in that pamphlet? In it you will not read a single word about the Industrial Conciliation Act being reviewed, or that section 77 will be repealed. There is no mention of that anywhere.

It is stated in that pamphlet.

I challenge the hon. member to show me where it is stated in that pamphlet. Here on page 3 their policy for the workers is set out. What is their policy for the workers? They say: No. 1—

Sir, these are all things which are being done under the National Party Government. In this respect the National Party has been extremely successful, for there are 173 agreements in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, and there are 75 wage determinations under the Wage Act. What more must the National Party Government do? In the second place they say—

As if they are the people who will look after the interests of the White workers! To date under the National Party régime 181 trade unions have already been registered, where the worker has an opportunity of maintaining contact with his fellow workers, as well as with his employer. Point No. 3.—

That is what the United Party, the party of promises, offers. As far as the National Party is concerned, industrial agreements through the system of collective bargaining are being put into operation at intervals. Point No. 4 of their policy is this—

The chance to advance and eventually to retire in comfort. That is the other promise being made to the White worker. Under the National Party Government numerous pension schemes in terms of Industrial Council Agreements exist. It is important to note what the National Party Government has achieved in this respect. Not only has the party succeeded in protecting the interests of the White worker, but the hon. the Minister has repeatedly given the assurance as well that the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act will not be repealed; they will remain on the Statute Book. But the Industrial Conciliation Act, No. 28 of 1956, which forms the cornerstone of the protection of the White worker, was fought tooth and nail by the United Party in 1956, so much so that those debates went on for 180 hours. Sir, what were the objectives of that Act? When the Bill was introduced in this Parliament, the then Minister of Labour said the following, and the White workers must take note of this—

And what was the amendment of the United Party, moved at the time by the hon. member for Yeoville? It read as follows—

Sir, that is why I tell you that there is only one party to which the interests of the White worker can be trusted, and which is honest and sincere in its intentions towards the White workers, and that is the National Party, and that is why the White worker will stand by the National Party.

I hope the hon. member for Uitenhage will forgive me if I do not follow his line of argument. I want to deal, in the brief time at my disposal, with certain aspects of the narrowing of the wage gap between the non-skilled non-European an d European workers. More and more attention is being given to the need for improving the wage structure of the non-European workers in our economy, and this is necessary not only for humanitarian reasons, but also in order to ensure the security of the White worker in this country—in fact, the security of every White individual in this country—if we are to counter the growing tendency towards an incursion of communistic influences into our South African economy. Even the hon. the Minister of the Interior has recognized the dangers if we do not face up to this fact, and he has warned that if we do not recognize the pointers, namely that the non-European is suffering to an increasing degree as a result of the higher cost of living, the in flationary tendencies, the higher cost of food, higher bus fares, higher train fares, etc., then we may find ourselves in trouble. Sir, much investigation has been done by a large number of bodies throughout the country—the Association of Chambers of Commerce, the Non-European Affairs Department of the city council of Johannesburg, and also the Industrial and Economics Commission of the University of Cape Town—to indicate just how much the average Bantu family of five individuals requires to live, taking into account only such items as food, clothing, housing, fuel and light, transport, cleaning materials, medical expenses, etc.—absolute minimum requirements. A survey made by the Association of Chambers of Commerce shows that the figure rose from R73,64 in November, 1970, to R75,80 in May, 1971, and that by November, 1971, it had escalated to R76,79. It is recognized, too, that the minimum poverty datum line today is no longer entirely acceptable, but that provision must be made for the wage-earner to live above the marginal limit of poverty and starvation. More and more thinking South Africans in the commercial and industrial and academic fields are aligning themselves as spokesmen for the non-vocal majority of non-European workers in making representations to the State as an employer, to the private sector, and also to the unions to negotiate for the employees. This, Sir, is a welcome sign, It has been said that in South Africa we only have about 10 years in which to solve our economic problems. We recognize that growing numbers of unskilled labourers will be coming on to the labour market year by year, and it is not enough that this labour be given employment; it must be given productive employment at remunerative wages. It must be given productive employment at wages which are meaningful in terms of human achievements, minimum human wants and human ambitions. The Minister is aware of these developments. Already in the Department of Railways and Harbours, and in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, there are signs that active steps are being taken to improve the employment opportunities for the non-European worker. In fact, the hon. the Minister of Transport himself is on record as having said in this year’s Budget speech that the European railway workers are coming to realize that avenues for more fruitful and remunerative employment for the European can only be opened if the non-European is allowed to do some of the work reserved previously for the European. Both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport, as well as the Minister of Economic Affaires, have made similar appeals to employers in the private sector to upgrade not only the productivity but also the wage structures of the non-European non-skilled labour in commerce and industry. But, Sir, it is necessary that certain steps be taken by the hon. the Minister if the lot of the worker on the lowest rung of the wage scale is to be improved, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would consider declining to gazette any wage determination or industrial council agreement or minimum wage scale below the accepted poverty datum line in areas in which such scales are applicable. I wonder, too, whether the hon. the Minister would consider instructing the Wage Board to review current wage determinations every two years, unless the lowest categories of labour are automatically protected by built-in cost-of-living adjustment factors. In conclusion I want to ask the hon. the Minister what either he or his department has done to encourage the formation of Bantu workers’ works committees. Provision for these works committees is made in section 7 (1) of the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act, No. 48 of 1953, as amended, which states inter alia as follows—

I wonder whether, having regard to the provisions of this Act, the Minister would consider instructing the Department of Labour to circularize all employers, reminding them of the provisions of section 7 of the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act and bringing to their attention pertinently what can be done to create a meaningful channel for the conveyance of workers’ aspirations to management level.

We on this side of the House believe, together with the hon. the Minister of Transport, that the European in South Africa is coming to realize that his avenues and choice for advancement in the economic field cannot be furthered much more in our overall economic sphere of society, unless he, the Government and this side of the House jointly and collectively recognize that more and more opportunities for the non-European will have to be made in those spheres on the lower rungs of the ladder, which were previously held by the Europeans.

Before replying to the main points of the argument advanced here by the Opposition today, namely the increased utilization of non-White labour, I want to reply to a number of minor matters raised here by hon. members. I am starting with the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, who asked me about the question of the labour brokers. This is a matter which the hon. member raised on this Vote last year. At the time he pointed out how unhealthy this position was. I undertook at that stage to have this position investigated and, if need be, to take action in terms of our legislation. We did investigate it very thoroughly. It appears that there are actually two kinds of labour brokers, or labour pedlars. The one kind consists of those people in the engineering industry who themselves have an engineering activity, and now they have in their employ quite a number of people who, on the one hand, are doing their own engineering work and, on the other hand, are used for hiring out their services to other engineering works. They are not the group causing us anxiety.

The group which is actually causing us anxiety, is the group of labour pedlars specializing exclusively in hiring and hiring out the services of people. There is something very fishy about it, and those are things which actually precipitate inflation as well. The Engineers’ Council have now undertaken to amend their Industrial Council Agreement in such a manner that they will curb the actions of these labour pedlars so that their employers—in other words, members of their employers’ organizations—will not employ these people. I am looking forward to the effect this will have, and I trust that it will be successful and that it will also be undertaken by other industrial councils. If it is not satisfactory, I shall come back to this House to tell you what we have decided in that regard.

The hon. member for Springs referred to a report in the Financial Mail with reference to the exemption granted to Coloured bricklayers and plasterers in Pretoria, and in which reference was made to a “directive” which we had supposedly sent out, and in terms of which we have now changed our attitude. No, this was no “directive” that was sent out. The position is that as far as the Witwatersrand is concerned, exemptions were granted in respect of 229 bricklayers and 212 plasterers, but by the end of the year only 63 Coloured bricklayers and 26 plasterers were employed, and this is, after all, an unreal situation. And because this is the case, I told the department to tell the divisional inspectors in question that before any applications are received again, they should satisfy themselves that there are Coloureds available. We are not going to grant any further exemptions to Coloureds for this work if they are not available. This is an absurdity which is simply inconsistent with good administration, and that is what has been done in this regard.

The hon. member for Springs also referred to the youth councils and wanted to know what we envisaged in that regard. He also wanted to know whether a need for them still existed. Actually, there is no longer a need for youth councils in this country. You know, Sir, in the distant past the youth councils rendered very good service, but that was before our departments had our own professional services, our own vocational guidance services, and at that stage they were very useful organizations. But now, with the advent of our own professional services in the Department of Labour and also in other departments, and one’s own aftercare service, the function of the youth councils has fallen away, with the result that the interest of the members in the youth councils disappeared completely. They no longer attended the meetings. It became more and more difficult to constitute the youth councils. For instance, last year eight councils proceeded to constitution, but so far not one of them has nominated members. As a result of this we asked the youth councils how they felt about their own function and their own right to exist. In the light of that 70 per cent of them said they thought the time had arrived for them to be dissolved, for they did not serve their purpose. We shall do it administratively. No statutory amendment is necessary. If it should appear to be necessary later on, we may establish them again, but there is simply no point in having bodies which no longer have any function, and for that reason we shall proceed to dissolving them.

Hon. members also referred to the question of the wage gap. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, who spoke last, referred to it and so did the hon. member for Johannesburg North. As far as this question of the wage gap is concerned, the policy of the Government is clear and well known, namely that we are aiming at narrowing this wage gap gradually and that one wants to take action in order to pay higher wages to one’s non-Whites, Black labour included. As a result of that attitude we have achieved the following success, which I want to mention to you. In several of the recent wage determinations made in terms of the Wage Act, the minimum wages of unskilled workers —i.e. mainly Bantu—were raised by a larger percentage than was done in the case of other workers. Now, it will also interest the hon. member for Houghton, who pleaded so diligently for this, to know that in the cement products industry, for instance, the wages of artisans were raised by 15,2 per cent and those of unskilled workers by 31,3 per cent.

What was the absolute figure?

These are the percentages which are indicative of the trend. I shall come to the absolute figures in a moment. In the broom and brush manufacturing industry the increases amounted to 13,2 per cent for artisans and 25 per cent for unskilled workers. This gives an indication of what the trend is in the improvement of Bantu wages, and the narrowing of the gap. Now, as regards these “exact figures” about which the hon. member is so concerned, it will really interest her to know that as a result of the action taken by the Bantu Labour Board a total increase of R39 million in Bantu wages has been brought about over the past five years through the actions of this Bantu Labour Board, that body which you and others sometimes regard as being so useless. But, coming from the United Party, these pleas for the narrowing of the wage gap really strike one as being a rather ironic business. They are the people who actually, when they are in positions of authority, do the exact opposite. Even the Progressive big chief, Harry Oppenheimer, to whom I will refer later on, does it too. I want to mention a few of these cases.

I want to start with the last speaker, namely the hon. member for Gardens. The hon. member was chairman of an industrial council for years, not so? He was chairman of the Industrial Council for the Motor Industry. It would be rather interesting to know what the hon. member for Gardens did to narrow this wage gap during the years when he was chairman of the Industrial Council for the Motor Industry. In the course of this debate I should like to hear what he did in that regard. In the meantime the hon. member may reflect on what he did during those years.

[Inaudible.]

We are coming to your financier in a moment, and then we shall see what the case is there. Let us see what the state of affairs is where the United Party lays down the law and wields the sceptre in South Africa. After all, Johannesburg is one of the places where it wields the sceptre. Let us see how it is narrowing the wage gap there. Mr. Oberholzer, the United Party M.P.C., is the big chief in that city council. He recently had an interview with Die Transvaler on the question of the narrowing of the wage gap. I am now going to read to hon. members an extract from the interview with Die Transvaler (translation)—

This is what Mr. Oberholzer of the Johannesburg City Council has to say. He says it will take decades. But you will remember, Sir, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in this House the other day that this wage gap was an invitation to communism. The hon. member for Gardens also referred to these communist influences. The hon. member said that the wage gap lent itself to communist influences. This is more or less the same as the vein in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke. Mention is made of communist influences, but where the United Party itself is governing, as is the case in the Johannesburg City Council, they say that it will take decades and that they cannot do it at all. I have no fault to find with the merits of it, but what really strikes one, is the hypocrisy and double talk in regard to the matter. One standpoint is stated in this House, but where they govern it is said that it will cause disruption.

In the same vein the hon. member for Johannesburg North says that the Government has to accept major responsibility for the wage gap. After all, he tells me “I must apply my mind to this wage gap”. But where his people are sitting in the House they do not apply their minds to the wage gap. On the contrary, there they speak like Mr. Oberholzer, who told us the other day that they could not apply “equal pay” either. This is the type of thing that irritates one continually, i.e. this double talk, not only from the United Party, but also from the party of the hon. member for Houghton. Now I want to refer to Mr. Harry Oppenheimer’s company, Highveld, and how he handles the wage gap. I have here the Financial Mail of 25th February, 1972. It contains an article under the heading “Wages: Difference of 48 cents”. It reads as follows—

Then they go on to say—

This is the absolute double talk that one gets from those hon. members. They continually plead here, with pious faces, for the gap to be narrowed and equal pay to be introduced. But where these people themselves are in a position of authority, whether it is in a public body, as is the case in the Johannesburg City Council, or in the mines, this cannot be done. In the latter case Harry Oppenheimer sees to it that the gap becomes even bigger instead of smaller.

As far as wages are concerned, I cannot give you a better reply, Sir, than to quote what the hon. member for Wynberg said recently. According to a Press report under the heading “M.P. found United States Press against South Africa”, she said the following on 25th April, 1972—

There is nothing in the Statute Book to stop them putting up wages, pensions and other employees’ benefits.

This is precisely the position. It seems to me as though, when you are over there, a little more soberness and level-headedness descends upon you so that things are put in the right perspective over there. But here in this House we continually have to contend with this type of hypocrisy. When these people are in a position of authority, as is the case in the Johannesburg City Council for example, or in the Oppenheimer company to which I referred, this is not applied. But then one finds hon. members making accusations against us in this House in season and out.

†The hon. member for Houghton also referred to the question of the Industrial Conciliation Act, and stated that I should know that strikes are illegal for Africans. It is indeed so. But does the hon. member know that there are also other White groups in South Africa that are not allowed to strike?

Of course I do.

Well, you do know about it.

They are essential services.

No, not only essential services.

For instance?

Yes, that is only one of many. There is the Post Office. The Post Office is not allowed to strike. People falling under my colleague, in the South African Railways, are not allowed to strike; Public servants are not allowed to strike. And then there is your fourth group, namely essential services, and those employees who handle fuels who are also not allowed to strike. In terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act an industrial council may provide in its constitution that disputes in the industry concerned shall be settled by arbitration. Then of course they may not strike either. I think that in this respect sight is frequently lost of arbitration as a feature of our whole Bantu labour pattern. It is a very important feature. If the Bantu Labour Board cannot settle a dispute, it must be referred to the Wage Board. The Wage Board has the final say in this matter. It is therefore a further power which the African worker has. It is therefore not only the Blacks that are not allowed to strike. They are in the company of all the others that I have named.

*The hon. member for Yeoville, who was the main critic on that side, said, amongst other things, that we should use our non-White labour in a sound and sensible manner. In fact, he considered this to be essential with a view to combating inflation. What I found striking in the discussion of this Vote, as was the case in previous discussions, was the way the United Party concerned itself mainly with the economic aspects of the increased utilization of non-White labour in White spheres of employment. The hon. member for Yeoville levelled the accusation that we were not making sufficient use of non-White labour, and said that this was one of the reasons for inflation. As one has come to know the United Party over the years and especially in recent times, its trouble is that it is so obsessed with the ideological aspects of its policy of integration that it is no longer able to notice the White worker. That is the problem, Sir, They are so obsessed with those ideological aspects of their policy of integration that the White worker is no longer visible to them at all. In their desire to get more and more Black labour into traditionally White spheres of employment, we are now accused of being short-sighted because we want to train non-Whites—Blacks, to be specific—to do skilled work in the White economy. We are being accused of, as it were, strangling the economy, and of actually promoting inflation in such a manner. It was with reference to this sombre picture that the hon. member for Yeoville made the request to me that I should at least give the country a “clear lead”, an indication, as to what we were going to do. It has perhaps become necessary that, in reply to the criticism offered here, I should once again state to you, Sir, the Government’s labour policy in regard to the employment of non-Whites under three headings, which will then perhaps be easy to understand. I should like to state it under the three headings “What the Government is in fact doing”, “What the Government is still going to do” and, thirdly, “What the Government will definitely not do”.

Let us look at what the Government is doing now. I think there are actually two cardinal objectives in regard to our actions. Our first objective is to offer opportunities for employment to our entire population, White and non-White. This is our first and major objective in regard to labour. Actually, the extent to which we are succeeding in offering opportunities for employment to the population, is evident from the rate of unemployment. The latest unemployment position is that only 0,5 per cent Whites are unemployed today. In taking the larger group, namely Whites, Coloureds and Indians, men and women, adults and juveniles, we find that only 0,7 per cent of this large group is unemployed. Therefore I think that as far as its first objective is concerned, the Government has pre-eminently succeeded in directing and stimulating the economy of our country to such an extent that we have created ample opportunities for employment for those people in this country who can and want to work. In this regard our attitude is also that the workers should have a fair wage. This links up with what the hon. member asked in regard to wage control or restraints. The hon. member wanted to know whether we were now going to prohibit wage increases. No, the Government has repeatedly said that we do not believe in a wage freeze. This is the only way in which one can prohibit wage increases. We only believe in responsible action on the part of our workers and their organizations. It is true that prices of articles and the cost of living have increased. But it is also a very important fact that, whilst prices have increased over the past decade or two, wages in South Africa have increased by more than prices did. This is reflected in the higher standard of living our people are enjoying today. But that price increases still worry us, is a fact we admit. That is why this Government is taking specific steps to control prices. A special Cabinet Committee has been established to give attention to this question of price control. It is therefore not a matter in regard to which we adopt an attitude of indifference or apathy. It is a matter which receives our constant attention. Therefore I just want to repeat that as far as these wage increases are concerned, we as the Government will go on making appeals to our trade unions and trade union leaders to make their wage demands with the greatest measure of responsibility, without threatening or preventing them. There is no prohibition in this regard, but wage increases are automatically associated with an increase in prices. If prices increase, that money cannot buy again what it bought before. The result is that one has a frantic spiral. That is why we shall continually appeal to our workers to make their demands with that understanding and sense of responsibility. I want to express my appreciation for the responsible attitude adopted by our workers. Over the past few months our workers have acted with the greatest measure of responsibility and understanding, and for that I, on behalf of the Government, want to express my highest esteem and appreciation to them. What they are doing in that regard, they are in fact doing for South Africa, and “for South Africa” also means for themselves, for they are the people who live in South Africa.

The second objective we have in regard to our labour policy, is to make and maintain the labour arrangements in such a manner that the White workers and the non-White workers, each of whom is called upon to make his labour contribution to our economy, have to make that contribution in such a manner that they are doing so in harmony. We accept that we have various population groups, various standards of living as well as various attitudes to life. Therefore, since we are concerned with White labour and non-White labour, with their differences in nature, the major task which we as a Government have, is to arrange matters in such a way that each may do his best but may still do so in harmony. I think that the fact that the Government respects that attitude to life of the White workers and of the non-White workers, is actually the key to our labour success. If this attitude of, for instance, the White workers were disregarded, we would have labour unrest as we had under U.P. regime. If that pride of the White worker were disregarded, one would be bent on labour unrest in this country, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. The fact that last year, as far as Whites and Coloured persons are concerned, we had in South Africa only 5 strikes in which only 74 Whites and 77 Coloureds were involved, definitely serves as very convincing proof that the Government is succeeding in its second objective, and that is to maintain labour peace in this country, that labour peace without which this country cannot develop economically. Without this labour peace South Africa cannot make any progress; without it we cannot have any improvement in a standard of living here. But the United Party is not satisfied with this. This happy state of affairs, to which I have just referred, the question of full employment, the question of labour peace, does not give rise to satisfaction on the part of the United Party. They desire a radical change in attitude. As the hon. member for Yeoville said, they expect a “clear lead” to be given to the country. A different kind of course is to be followed now.

That course you yourselves must indicate.

But what course does the United Party actually want now? Previously this was spelled out to us much more clearly here, i.e. when they told us that they actually wanted to introduce a kind of “crash training programme” for 20 million people. That is the course the United Party wants to be followed in South Africa. That is why I think it is necessary for me to tell the Committee what is being done before I tell them what will not be done. What is being done, is the provision of training facilities. In South Africa Whites and non-Whites are being provided with training facilities to an increasing extent. They are being provided to such an extent that, as far as our White labour force is concerned, we are getting an addition of 70 000 Whites this year. They will consist of school-leavers, graduates, immigrants and qualified apprentices. However, this is not all that is being done in this regard. Thanks to the legislation piloted through here by this side of the House in regard to training schemes, we already have seven industrial councils which have established these training schemes.

During the past recess I myself paid a visit to Baragwanath, where the building industry established its training centre. At that centre young men are given a 15-week training course, and subsequent to that they are placed with approved employers for a year and a half. After that they get the full status and wage of an artisan. I just want to take this opportunity to make another appeal to the other industrial councils in our country also to avail themselves of this scheme. The Government has now created the machinery for the industries so as to enable them to train more people, but now the extent to which they are going to avail themselves of it, depends on the employers themselves. What the United Party is chiefly concerned about, is not these young, White men who are being trained there, but the training, the skill of Bantu workers in South Africa. Since it is a fact that they are chiefly concerned about that, I want to tell the United Party at the outset that it would do them a great deal of good if they were to visit an area which falls under my colleague the Minister of Bantu Administration. I am referring to the Transkei which I personally visited the other day when we opened the Bantu training centre for telephone mechanics in Umtata. There I heard from the Chief Minister of the Transkei himself how highly people were speaking of what was being done to train Xhosas in this work. Considering the industrial development taking place in that territory, I was also impressed by what I saw at Butterworth. From inquiries made by me while I was there, it appeared that 60 Bantu were attending a three-year course of training as electricians and motor mechanics at technical schools in Umtata. This is being implemented in a very wide field, and I hope that when my colleague’s Vote comes up for discussion, hon. members will also put questions in that regard so that my colleagues who are concerned with the matter, may give the House a picture of everything that is being done in the Bantu homelands to train the Bantu professionally and technically. The programme that has been put into operation there to provide the Bantu with that training, is an impressive one. In addition to this, we have the border areas. The question is now: How are these people who are being trained, utilized and where are they utilized? The answer is: In the border areas themselves. Roughly 80 000 Bantu are working there already. Then I may as well reply right now to the hon. member for Yeoville’s question in regard to the Wage Board, the trade unions, etc., as far as the border areas are concerned. Of course, the border areas are, as we have already said here time and again, situated in White South Africa. Because they are situated in White South Africa, they fall under the Industrial Conciliation Act. Trade unions do exist in those border areas. We have Wage Board investigations all the time. Take, for instance, the question of the clothing industry. In that regard two investigations were carried out in the border industry areas. At the moment a third investigation is in progress in the border industry areas in order that the wages may be determined in such a manner that they will not prejudice the factories situated in the metropolitan areas such as Johannesburg, Germiston, etc.

†The hon. member for Constantia made a plea for the Coloureds. I know it will interest him to know that as far as the Coloureds are concerned, there is a definite tendency to increase. For instance, in 1963 we had 19 000 Coloured artisans. In 1969 this figure had increased to 28 500.

*The number of Coloured artisans is being augmented at an increasing rate. Let me just mention a few cases. This will be of interest particularly to those people in the Cape Province and the hon. member for Constantia who asked questions in this regard. Take the question of apprentices. In 1960 only 7,4 per cent of the apprentices were Coloureds. This figure rose and in 1971 it was 14,01 per cent. Now let us take the building trades; in the building trades no fewer than 1010 Coloured apprentices were indentured in South Africa in 1971. This is a wonderful opportunity which is being afforded to them in that respect. Now let us take the question of the motor industry; in 1971 161 Coloured apprentices were indentured in this industry. In addition to this there is still the question of the clerical and administrative work.

†I also wish to refer to the point which the hon. member for Constantia made. He asserted that the wages of the Coloureds in these spheres are low due to some sort of protection afforded by the rate for the job. That is of course not a true representation of the position. The fact is that the White workers have simply left those spheres, as we have had it in the Cape in the building industry which the White workers simply left. This also applies to the furniture and clothing industries.

*It is therefore quite wrong to say that the rate-for-the-job protection which the Coloureds have, is the reason for wages being so low. Those people are in a position to bargain for their wages, and it is their task to do so. I want to say that this Government will proceed with the employment of Coloureds on this scale and with the training of non-Whites and Bantu for these spheres of employment. We are doing so in a large-scale and planned manner, but we can only persevere with the training and employment of the non-Whites in this manner if we do so within the framework of an orderly labour pattern as offered by this Government. If it were not done within this orderly pattern of control, there would be absolute tension and unrest in this country.

Now I want to state the second aspect, i.e. except what we are already doing, also what we are still going to do. The Government is prepared to make even greater use of non-White labour in this controlled and orderly manner. The Riekert’s report tabulates quite a number of steps that may be taken in order to use non-White labour more effectively. In the Budget the Minister of Finance referred to the concessions which could be made in the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging area so as to obtain additional! Black labour in order that more shifts might be worked within a 24-hour period. Over and above that, the Committee of seven will consider meritorious cases. But in this respect a very important aspect comes up for consideration, namely the question of productivity, on which one finds people philosophizing and commenting in season, and out. I think the time has arrived for us to clear up an illusion that exists in regard to productivity. A large part of the United Party and quite a number of industrialists are under the illusion that if we could only get more Black labour, we would have increased production and more profits. As regards that illusion, of which we find examples in abundance, I want to say that it is a fact that increased employment does not automatically imply increased productivity. At a symposium recently held in Johannesburg, an expert such as Dr. Kleu, who is chairman of the Board of Trade and Industry as well as the Productivity Board, submitted statistics to industrialists to show that our productivity had dropped over the past five years. Our productivity per worker dropped over the past five years. For the period 1960-’65 our productivity was 2,8 per cent per worker in South Africa, which, incidentally is amongst the lowest in the world. But, let us leave it at that. Let me just confine myself to our own position.

That was the annual increase.

No, that is for the period of five years. Let me repeat it. For the period of 1960-’65 it was 2,8 per cent per worker. Now, the next five-year period …

2,8 per cent of hat?

Per worker.

Of what?

This is how productivity is indicated percentage-wise.

That was the annual increase in productivity.

This is the indication given by the Productivity Board, as it is compared with the others.

For the next five years, i.e. 1965-’70, it dropped to 2,7 per cent per worker. The announcement made by Dr. Kleu on this occasion, is of so much importance that I want to repeat it here. Dr. Kleu said the following in this regard—

Hear, hear! That is a big difference.

Since the United Party spokesman and the hon. member for Yeoville, who is the leading drummer, want to create the impression all the time that we do not want to give the Bantu sufficient advanced work, it is important to note that, according to the latest man-power survey, there are 290 000 Bantu in the country who are employed as semi-skilled workers and operators. The figure in respect of the Whites is 76 000, but at the moment it is not relevant to mention the rest of the figures. What is the position at Iscor? At Iscor roughly 1 000 Bantu are doing operators’ work at the moment, work that was done by Whites a few years ago.

Listen, Marais!

*The MINISTER; Despite this increase, to which I have just referred and which I am quoting from Dr. Kleu’s speech, the overall productivity of workers in South Africa showed a downward trend. This merely confirms that our industrialists will have to do much more to increase the productivity of the Bantu employed by them.

The hon. member for Yeoville wanted to know from me what indication we were going to give the private sector. To the private sector, as I put it the other day when I addressed a group of industrialists here in Cape Town, I said precisely what I am now going to say to hon. members, namely that the Government does not prevent any industrialists from providing their Bantu workers with better training so that they may render better service. We do not prevent any industrialist from doing that. Nor will there be any point in hiding behind the accusation that the Government does not want to have Bantu trained as skilled people, for, Sir, the majority of the factory operations are not skilled operations. The majority of the factory operations consist of semi-skilled and operators’ work. Do hon. members know that 88 per cent of that entire labour corps consists of semi-skilled and operators’ work? What is really necessary, therefore, is not more Black labour in these factories, but that more effective use be made of those Bantu whom the employers already have. That responsibility is their task. It is not the task of the Government to enter these factories and to train their Black labour for them. It is their task to ensure that proper and effective work is done by the Black labour they have there, and that this rate of productivity does not drop from 2,8 per cent to 2,7 per cent.

In the third place, having stated what we are doing and are still going to do, I want to tell hon. members what this Government will definitely not do. These things which I am saying now, offer no solution to the United Party. One can see what their reaction is to the question of the industrialists themselves having to do their share. It is the most unpopular thing in the world. It offers no solution to the United Party, for it is, after all, not the short-cut solution they desire. It is not the “crash” solution they desire. They want the Bantu to be trained in the White area to do skilled work. For that reason it is necessary for me to say very clearly to hon. members today …

But, surely, you said the industrialists had to train them.

Oh, is this stupidity or what is it then? In that case, let me repeat it. I said there were 290 000 Bantu in the country who were semi-skilled operators. Is that clear? Then I also told the hon. member that in spite of the increase in Bantu which this included, there was a drop in productivity. Then I made the statement that it was the task of the industrialists first to provide those 290 000 semi-skilled operators with better training so that their productivity might be increased. Is this clear to the hon. members now?

Now I am going to tell the hon. members what we are not going to do. We are definitely not going to disturb our social pattern in South Africa by allowing an uncontrolled influx of Black labour. In other words, what this Government will not allow to happen, is what the United Party’s policy will lead to, i.e. that the flood-gates will be opened to the influx of Bantu. [Interjections.] In this regard we have found the United Party indulging in scare-mongering. The hon. member for Yeoville, who is the expert at scare-mongering on the other side, told us what would happen to the homelands if trade unions could be established there. While the hon. members were talking that way, I was reminded of the old U.P. days of 1930, when Japan was the big bogy-man which was used for scaring us. The party of these hon. members must always have a bogy-man. This time it is supposed to be China and the communists who will ostensibly land in the Bantu homelands, but in 1930 Japan was the bogy-man which was used for scaring us in this country. Let me tell the hon. members now that those Bantu homelands, once they are independent, will arrange their own affairs, and then they will have to act with the same understanding and responsibility in order that they may also maintain their economy and keep it strong. In their zeal to keep their economy strong, they too will have to take the steps which this Government is taking, i.e. to prevent irresponsible trade union elements from subverting one’s order. That is their task and their responsibility. Now I want to mention to hon. members a second thing which this Government will not allow. We shall not allow what will inevitably follow in the implementation of the United Party’s policy, namely White workers being ousted from their jobs by non-Whites.

That is not true.

The National Party can give this undertaking because our record proves that we are the protector of the White worker. The National Party can give this undertaking because we say, in the first place, that the White worker is our first responsibility. Under our régime there is no need for the White workers to feel that they have to live in constant fear and that they will be sacrificed to the golden calf. In the third place, we shall never allow a White person to work shoulder to shoulder with a non-White person in the same employment situation. We shall not allow a White clerk to work shoulder to shoulder with a non-White person in the Post Office. We shall not allow a White fitter and turner to work shoulder to shoulder with a non-White person at the lathe, but the United Party cannot give this assurance. On those occasions, this year and in previous years, on which I asked them in this House and in the Other Place whether this was their standpoint, they either remained silent or cleverly tried to evade the issue. That is why I say that there is only one conclusion one can draw, and that is that the United Party’s policy will necessarily bring about mixed working conditions, where Whites and non-Whites will work together in the same employment situation. It simply means that this “crash programme” of theirs for the training of workers, will have the effect that those people will inevitably start pouring into the White spheres of employment This is where the National Party says that we as the protector of our national honour will not allow our Whites to work with non-Whites in that humiliating position. Whenever complaints are made, I immediately give instructions that the matter be put right immediately, as in fact I did the other night at Brakpan, where a similar complaint was raised and where I immediately gave instructions that the matter be put right immediately at that factory on the East Rand. Would that side give such instructions?

Yes.

That will be the day, because those people’s history and their whole conduct give the lie to that. The fourth thing which this Government will not do, is to allow any White person to work under the authority of a non-White person. The fifth thing which this Government will not allow, is the repeal of these labour laws, this colour bar and the job reservation legislation, which enable us to protect the Whites. The United Party wants to repeal those Acts.

Who says so?

The hon. member wants to know who says so. I want the hon. member to take this down quickly and to get hold of this passage in Hansard before he speaks again. The hon. member may look up column 476 of the Hansard of 1970, and there he will find that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, in reply to a question which I had put across the floor of the House, that section 77— that is job reservation and the heart of that whole Act, without which we shall not have labour peace in this country—if that Act should be repealed. This is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, and the hon. member may look this up. For that reason I say that as long as this party governs the country, job reservation will remain on the Statute Book of this country. As long as this party is in power, the colour bar will remain on this Statute Book and be upheld. Without these labour laws we cannot maintain labour peace in this country, and without this labour law we cannot maintain the position of the Whites. Therefore it is clear that the White worker knows where he stands with the National Party. He also knows exactly what he can expect from the United Party. He knows exactly that a U.P. régime would sound the death-knell to the White worker in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, in a way the hon. the Minister has deserved our thanks for two-thirds of his speech in which he stated his policy calmly and dispassionately and showed us in what way he was going to try to get away from his own past, from the time when he and his party were opposed to the employment of non-Whites, particularly Natives, in the economy of South Africa. Now he is singing a completely different tune and the more he approaches the United Party’s standpoint, the more responsible and dignified he appears. Towards the end of his speech, of course, he again become a politician. He made a lot of statements which left one utterly speechless. That a man in his position can be so ignorant of the political differences in South Africa! He claimed, for example, that if the United Party were to come into power, we would not do what hon. members on the opposite side were doing, i.e. we would put non-Whites in charge of Whites and there would be mixed employment. Provision for separate spheres of employment, etc., was made in the Shops and Offices Act and the Factories Act, which were United Party legislation. He knows they make this provision, that this has been the position all these years. In the United Party’s time we conducted administrative investigations where friction could arise between White and non-White, and where complaints had been lodged. In terms of the provision of those United Party Acts those things were eliminated administratively. The Minister came forward with this untrue and completely irresponsible statement simply in order to create ill-feeling and incite racial feelings. He made the assertion that the United Party would drive Whites from their jobs and replace them by non-Whites. I do not challenge him, but I extend a kind invitation to him, for he is, after all, a student of the United Party’s past, to mention one time between 1933 and 1948 to us when Whites were driven from their jobs. On second thoughts, I do want to challenge him to do so. It is very easy for a Minister with the authority he has, to get up and make those wild assertions and to lend his authority to untruths. I do not think he did so deliberately. He gets carried away by his own political enthusiasm and then he makes assertions he cannot prove. He made the assertion that the United Party would have Whites working under non-Whites. That would not be our policy. Under this Government it does happen, but I do not want to go into this once again, because I proved it last year.

At Coloured schools.

Yes, I proved it last year. The other day the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development piloted legislation through this House for transferring medical services to the Transkei, and he stated with pride that those White doctors and White nurses would fall under the control of the Transkeian Government, in other words, under the control of Black people. We did not make a fuss about that. Such exceptions will be necessary. Why set us against each other about things which may be inevitable, which they themselves are doing? Then the hon. the Minister said we would put an end to influx control. On what does he base that wild, irresponsible, untrue assertion? Sir, influx control in Johannesburg was introduced by the United Party.

But how did you implement it?

It was introduced and implemented by the United Party, and not by this Government. We introduced it not because we are vindictive, not because we despise the non-Whites in South Africa, but because the influx of Natives into Johannesburg were creating problems which were unworthy of a civilized community, conditions we could not tolerate, and the United Party will not allow an influx into our urban areas which would once again create the conditions which existed during the war years, with shanty towns and a break-down of social facilities. If I had said, as I am reproached with having said, that the non-Whites, too, should be able to sell their labour on the best market, then I say now that the best market for the non-Whites to sell their labour, is not where they do not have houses and where they do not have recreational facilities. I should like us to debate the labour policy in the interest of the future of South Africa, but then we should show some responsibility and not say such untrue things without verifying the facts and without thinking what we are saying.

Sir, I was very pleased to learn from the hon. the Minister that the Industrial Conciliation Act and the industrial agreements entered into in terms of that Act, would apply in the border areas as well. But is it his policy that they should apply there as well? Would he, in the interest of the workers of South Africa, put up a struggle to prevent those industrial agreements and the Industrial Conciliation Act from being abolished or temporarily suspended in the border areas? What is his policy?

They are there. They are applicable in the border areas, and surely you know it.

Here I have a statement, an enunciation, of the Government’s official policy and the White Paper of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Decentralization of Industries.

†I refer the hon. the Minister to page 5. Again and again on page 5 we read things of this kind—

Listen why, Sir—

And then the hon. the Minister comes here and brags that these things are protecting the workers in the border areas, but it is his policy to make it possible for people to pay lower wages there. The Minister goes further; clause 14 of this report says—

This is the threat, Sir—

He is even prepared to come with legislation to Parliament to make it possible for him to override the industrial agreement and the Industrial Conciliation Act. Sir, cannot we have a sensible debate? Cannot the Minister tell us the whole truth? Why must he only tell us part of the story— Why does he not tell us that he wants to undercut wages in the border areas and that he is willing to bring legislation to make it possible for him to exempt people from the minimum wages and the conditions agreed to between employers and employees under the Industrial Conciliation Act? Sir, I find this an impossible situation. We are keen, I repeat, to have a sensible debate upon the facts and upon actual policies. But he not only mistakes the policy of the United Party; he mistakes his own promise. What must one do with a Minister like that? The hon. the Minister spoke about productivity and he indicated that 70 per cent of our labour force today is not White, and it is growing fast. I gave figures to show that while in two years the number of Whites in our labour force grew by 8 per cent, the numbers of Bantu grew by 20 per cent and that productivity fell as a result of this. Of course, it must fall. The higher the proportion of unskilled and semi-skilled workers in your labour force—I quoted the example of America to the contrary—the lower your productivity must be. It is not a question of numbers, Sir; it is a question of what they can produce; how they can use their hands and the skills that God gave them in order to make things out of the raw materials and the resources of South Africa.

And their basic education.

Yes. I am glad the hon. member made that interjection. We are committed to doubling the proportion of our national income spent on education in South Africa. But, Sir, the hon. the Minister says that it is the fault of the employers; that they should train these people. Of course they should, but what inducement have they got? I ask you, Sir, what employer will really spend a lot of money in training a man if he has no guarantee that that man will stay in his employment or will be able to return to his employment when he returns from holiday. He has no guarantee that he will be allowed to come back. Sir, we have spoken to other Ministers about what is happening in a city like Johannesburg, where people like private hoteliers, private boarding-house keepers, and the better class establishments, have to employ twice as many Bantu workers as they need because if the chef has to go, for example, it takes them six months to get a replacement. How can you expect people to train people in skills and to increase their productivity if they have no guarantee that they will get the benefit of that training? What becomes of the policy of the Government? How can the Minister make these statements?

The hon. the Minister said that we were concerned only with the ideological aspect of integration. I give him all the joy he gets from mere verbiage like that, which means nothing. But he added—this means something; it is not true, but it means something—that we are not concerned about the interests of the White workers. Sir, do you know who suffers most under the labour policies of this Government—the shortsighted, narrow, bigoted labour policies of this Government? It is the White worker. The White community in South Africa is one of the most highly taxed communities in the world. Why? Because the White community has to provide the amenities and the benefits to which the non-Whites in this country are entitled and those non-Whites are not allowed to produce enough and to earn enough to pay their share of the taxes required in order to run the country. A community of 4 million virtually has to supply most of the direct taxation to satisfy the needs of a community of 20 million. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Yeoville stated here that this debate ought to be a very responsible one. I want to concede that he is correct on that score. I regard this Vote as being the most important Vote which can be discussed here, but then it must be discussed with due allowance for the interests of the worker of the Republic of South Africa. The hon. the Minister stated his policy quite clearly and unequivocally here.

By exemption.

I shall come to that hon. member in a moment, who is not even a full-fledged member. No, I shall rather not say anything. Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville said that this debate should be conducted in a responsible way. I want to state here that a sense of responsibility is based on a policy which will entrench the future of the White worker in South Africa, and here I want to issue a challenge to the official Opposition; I want to refer them to things which they said in the past. I am not talking about what the hon. member for Yeoville said here today; he was talking today with an eye on Brakpan, as we all know. I want to discuss things which have been said in this Council Chamber during the past year about the large-scale influx of Bantu. All kinds of statements were made here by the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Yeoville. His speech today was aimed at Brakpan. I want to make it very clear that the policy of the United Party is inevitably based on their political concept, and their political concept is 16 non-White representatives in this House of Assembly. Or is it their interim policy which they now want to throw overboard again? Are they ashamed of that policy? Is it their policy? [Interjections.] Sir, if the hon. member for Turffontein will look at you, and not at me, I shall be able to carry on with my speech. If the United Party should come into power—this is merely a hypothetical question—and if these 16 representatives were to be sitting in this House of Assembly, then I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville what their reaction will be when pressure is exerted by these 16 non-White representatives, pressure to be absorbed fully into the world of industry world in the metropolitan areas? Surely they will be hand in glove with these 16 representatives, and they know it. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Simonstown must kindly confine himself to stinking fish stories. The hon. member for Yeoville made a statement here which I regret. I want to tell you, Sir, that our labour position in South Africa, the success and the productivity of the White worker in South Africa, is the support of economic growth and development in this country. The workers of South Africa know that this Government is entrenching their position, and they are acting with a great sense of responsibility. If you look at the economic aspects and you couple these to the labour set-up in this Republic, you will realize that wage increases without increased production is not to the benefit of the worker. When one is able to ensure greater efficiency and increased production, this serves to advance the worker. If we consider this last year, where we had a real growth in South Africa of 3,7 per cent, and a population increase of plus / minus 2,5 per cent, then our real growth was only slightly more than 1 per cent, which is inadequate. We in South Africa must grow more rapidly, and on what basis can we grow more rapidly? There is only one basis, one sound basis, of doing this, and that is to bring about industrial peace and quiet in the Republic, and this the hon. the Minister has done. Through this industrial peace and quiet the opportunity has been created for the workers to be productive. But I want to suggest here today that we must stop telling the worker that he should work harder. The workers of South Africa are working hard. You see, now the hon. members are laughing at the workers of South Africa. I say there must be greater efficiency on the managerial level as well. Sasol is an example of this. With a 5 per cent reduction in staff over the past two years, they had a 30 per cent growth in production. Take the South African Railways, with their bonus scheme by means of which they obtained wonderful results through greater efficiency. If we concentrate on greater efficiency, we will find that our production in the Republic will increase. But what is the position? I challenge the official Opposition to indicate where they had said to the industrialist of South Africa: Concentrate on and make use of this new training fund, which has been accorded statutory recognition, this training fund; make use of it; activate the industrialists to bring about greater efficiency. No, they believe that there is only one way for the United Party, and that is an ever-greater influx of Blacks (verswarting) into the industries. The hon. the Minister was quite right in saying, and Dr. Kleu proved this very clearly, that despite the increase the production dropped. We must concentrate on greater efficiency on a managerial level. In all fairness to the workers of the Republic, who have not, under these present economic conditions, asked for more wages, but who have displayed a sense of responsibility and the realization that greater production is essential before higher wages can be asked for, the responsibility now rests on the industrialist himself to ensure that the workers are offered greater possibilities for productivity. As far as the border industries are concerned, and what the hon. member for Yeoville said about them, I do not want there to be any confusion. He tried to instil a profound fear in the hearts of the White workers in this Council Chamber today, but I want to reject this. I do not want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville what he said to the hon. the Minister, that it is untrue and unfair. I do not want to sink to the level to which he sank. But I can testify that not only in the border industry areas, but also in the homelands themselves, in mining, the Industrial Conciliation Act is now being applied to the White workers by this hon. Minister. In the homelands themselves the position of the White workers is being entrenched, in the industrial sphere as well. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, as soon as you get them into a corner, the hon. member for Simonstown comes over and whispers to this little tyke from Turffontein.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. But I want to make it very clear that in the border areas the position of the White workers is entrenched.

How?

By means of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Study it, and you will realize how. If you look at these opportunities for employment in the border areas near the Tuwana homeland it is very interesting to study the report of the Human Sciences Research Council and then you will see what enormous progress is being made in the border industry areas, and you will realize that there is a wonderful future for the industrialist in moving to the decentralized areas. The White workers working there need have no fear, although an attempt was made here today by the hon. member for Yeoville to discourage the White workers from going to those areas. Where mention is made of exemptions, it has nothing to do with the White worker. It affects only the Bantu in the homeland and his wages.

It has nothing to do with Whites.

I say that as far as the border industry area is concerned, the position of the White worker will be entrenched, and with this suspicion-mongering against the border industries you are not only doing border industry development an injustice, but the White workers as well. Hypothetically stated, if this official Opposition wants to further the position of the White worker of South Africa, and, hypothetically stated, if there were unanimity concerning the entrenchment of the future of the White worker, you would find that we could make wonderful contributions in this debate. But the Opposition has only one object in mind and that is to ensure an influx of Blacks (verswarting) into the industries of South Africa, and that is why the White voters will keep on rejecting them. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Rustenburg said he would not like to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that he was speaking untruths; he did not want to descend to that level. I should like to tell the hon. member he need not say it; he may write it down, but I challenge him to mention one untruth which the hon. member for Yeoville told here this afternoon. But one hon. member after another on the opposite side told the one truth after another, as the hon. member for Rustenburg has just done once again. Without the slightest proof, and very clearly with a view to Brakpan, the hon. member for Rustenburg has in fact found it necessary to drag in the constitutional position in South Africa, i.e. the 16 people who will sit here in order to represent other races.

Are they coming or not?

If you will allow me to do so, Sir, I should like to deal very briefly with the constitutional position in reply to the hon. member. The hon. member for Rustenburg asked how we were going to prevent those representatives from increasing in number. Sir, how is that hon. member and his party going to prevent the Bantu getting more land, for which they are asking? Are you going to yield to their demands? No, I find this so ridiculous. I would never have thought that an Afrikaner people could be so scared of 16 persons representing other races, as the entire Nationalist Party is. If Piet Retief were to have led the Great Trek in the same frame of mind, he would never even have reached the Orange River. The hon. member stated a few facts. He said, inter alia, that the White worker was allegedly so entrenched in the mines in the Bantu areas. In terms of which Act are they entrenched?

The Industrial Conciliation Act is applicable.

You see, Mr. Chairman, it is not merely a question of untruths, but a combination of untruths and ignorance. This is what bothers me so. And yet the hon. members want to conduct a debate on an extremely important matter. I want to leave it at that as far as the hon. member is concerned. As regards the hon. member for Uitenhage, who is not present, I want to leave it at that as well, but he did not even read correctly. Not only did he tell an untruth; he did not read the policy of the United Party correctly either.

I want to come back to the hon. the Minister. I had hoped the hon. the Minister would provide clear leadership this afternoon, as the hon. member for Yeoville had requested him to do. I remember the hon. the Minister of Finance saying that when the industrialist of South Africa thought of bringing about industrial prosperity in South Africa, he should cast his eyes to the hon. the Minister of Transport —oh yes, the hon. the Minister of Planning—also added the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He said— “Turn your eyes to these people, look how they tackle the labour position, and follow suit.” This is the advice we received from the highest levels, namely from the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Planning. What is the position? The Railways train non-Whites, including Bantu, to do skilled work. The Post Office does the same. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon whether I understood him correctly when he said that, statutorily, no industrialist in South Africa was prohibited from doing the same. Is that correct?

He is not prohibited from making his semi-skilled workers more efficient. Those were my words. Quote them correctly.

Very well, if I misunderstood the hon. the Minister, I am asking him now: May the industrialist take his leadership from the Railways and the Post Office and act similarly?

That is skilled work. It is the misapprehension under which you are suffering.

What else is a telephone technician but a skilled worker?

It is semi-skilled work.

If we start playing with this type of terms, we will not get far, but I want to say to the hon. the Minister he has at least made a start in the Post Office and the Railways, too, have at least made a start. Will they now allow the industrialist in South Africa to start in the same way?

Yes, in order to make his semi-skilled worker more competent.

His motor mechanics, for example?

Will the industrialist be permitted—this is a simple question —also to train his Bantu worker to do skilled work in his industry?

Not in White South Africa. [Interjections.]

I was waiting for this guidance.

And not in the border areas either. I am helping you now so that you need not ask me that as well.

That is not even my difficulty.

But then surely the hon. member for Rustenburg told an untruth.

The point is that what I have just asked the hon. the Minister, is the very thing which is being done by the Post Office and the Railways.

But that is wrong. Those people are doing semi-skilled work.

We are playing with words. The only thing I am asking the hon. the Minister to do—I am doing so with great respect; he is in charge of one of the most important portfolios in South Africa—is to reply to the following question: If we are to take our guidance from the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and from the hon. the Minister of Transport, may we tell the industrialist of South Africa today, with reference to the guidance of the Minister, that he may do exactly the same thing as the Railways and the Post Office by, for example, having his Bantu trained to become a telephone mechanician or technician?

Yes, let him do so if he has such people. He does not have them.

In the White area?

If he has a telephone technician, but for what would he use such a person?

But for similar work?

Yes, he may train his semi-skilled worker. I have already told you so.

In the White area?

Yes, semi-skilled workers.

Thank you. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister has struggled for such a long time. Surely the matter is clear. Now I want to ask him whether he expects of the industrialist to incur the expenditure of training a Bantu to occupy a semi-skilled position—it is not done free of charge; it costs money and he adds it to his price so that the consumer in South Africa pays for it in the end. If the industrialist were to do this, would the hon. the Minister take steps to consult with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development so as to ensure that that industrialist would at least have some degree of certainty that that semi-skilled person would remain in his service?

Are you seeking permanency? It is an old United Party principle. [Interjections.]

Do you see, Mr. Chairman? What chance does one have with an hon. Minister of Labour who has just side-stepped the issue by using an old Nationalist Party platitude? Surely he is trying to play politics with a serious matter now.

But it is the truth.

All I want to say is that unless the industrialist is accommodated to the extent of there being some degree of permanency which will allow of the Bantu labourer being trained, we have no hope of training these people in White South Africa. In that case it would be of no avail for us to talk of productivity. Neither would it be of any avail for the hon. the Minister of the Interior to be so deeply concerned about the wage gap. We cannot pay the people more overnight unless we are prepared to train them and make them better equipped and more proficient. There is no point in the hon. the Minister saying that productivity has not increased in spite of the increase in the number of workers. One must expect it. I could continue in this vein.

Let us look at the hon. the Minister’s little speech; the things he wants to do and the things he does not want to do. He said: “I have accomplished the greatest task, I have created full employment opportunities for the workers of South Africa, for all our people.”

Yes, even for you!

Dare the hon. the Minister rise in this House and say that it is the truth? Seventy percent of the labour force of South Africa consists of Black people. Will the hon. the Minister tell me there is no unemployment among the Black people or will he admit to South Africa that he has no statistics and therefore does not know? Even so, he says in the highest body in South Africa that there is no unemployment.

There is no unemployment.

Then why have influx control?

I want to say the following to the hon. members: You should simply be so foolish as to abolish influx control tomorrow and the tens of thousands of unemployed will stream into the cities of South Africa. That is the answer. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maitland commenced his speech by saying that he had not known the Afrikaner nation was so easily scared. I hope he did not include himself in that, because I do not know where he got his knowledge of the Afrikaner from. I can only say to him that the Afrikaner nation is not so easily scared, but it is afraid of only one thing, something it has learnt from experience. It is afraid of being betrayed. It is afraid of people who would sacrifice all principles and would sell first-born rights here in South Africa for a mess of pottage. [Interjections.]

Like Jan Smuts did.

However, I do not want to follow up any further on what the hon. member said in his speech, because there is a more important matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. This concerns the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1941, as subsequently amended. I should like to refer to section 3 (2) (b) which provides for the maximum earnings of persons who qualify to be regarded as “workmen” for the purposes of the Act. I am aware that in order to qualify as a “workman”, so that he may be covered by the provisions of the Act, the maximum earnings of and pension have been increased from time to time as the earnings of our people have increased. Up to 1st October, 1967, that maximum income or wage was R60 per week or R3 120 per year. Subsequently it was increased to R5 460 per year. The Act provides further that it is not only the basic salary of the workman which is taken into account, but his overtime remuneration of a constant character is also taken into account in order to calculate those maximum earnings. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Act cannot possibly be amended in such a way that only the basic wage be taken into account. It is not always clear to me what is understood under overtime remuneration “of a constant character”. In addition, overtime remuneration never offers any security in respect of earnings and can also be very variable at times.

In the second place, persons now covered by the Act, may perhaps be excluded at the end of 1972 or 1973 if more overtime is worked, something we possibly foresee in the light of the economic boom awaiting South Africa. I think the hon. the Minister would agree with me that it creates a feeling of uncertainty in the workman who feels that the cover afforded him by the Workmen’s Compensation Act depends too much on economic conditions which determine the amount of overtime. In reply to a question in this House this morning, we heard from the hon. the Minister that the accumulated, unclaimed capital of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund amounts to approximately R63½ million. I am aware that this money was paid in by the employers and that the employees did not make any contribution towards it and, also, that it may not easily be spent indiscriminately by the Government. But I nevertheless want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to negotiate with the employers with a view to using some of the accumulated, unclaimed funds to cover certain workmen who did not qualify, out of that fund as well. In saying “certain workmen”, I mean only persons who have become permanently disabled but have been disqualified because of the overtime remuneration they received when they became disabled.

If I may mention a practical example to the hon. the Minister, I should like to refer to a person who was involved in an accident in 1965 when he was earning a basic wage of R40,25 per week. But the overtime remunerations he was earning increased his wages to more than the prescribed wage requirement of R60 per week, with the result that that person never qualified for that Workmen’s Compensation Fund. It appears now that, according to the specialists treating him, his disability was 35 per cent in September last year, and his condition is steadily worsening. There is no possibility of recovery or improvement for him. I am referring to that class of person who has sustained permanent disability but is not covered in terms of the existing Act, not because his basic salary was too high, but because of the overtime which was taken into account at that time.

A great deal was said here by hon. members opposite about the wage gap. The hon. the Minister referred here to the Johannesburg United Party City Council, a large city council which employs 20 000 non-Whites and which has the opportunity of narrowing that gap if they are in earnest as far as those non-Whites are concerned. The hon. the Minister also told us here that it appeared from an interview which Mr. Oberholzer had with Die Transvaler, that it would allegedly take decades before that wage gap disappeared. But, Sir, do you know what else Mr. Oberholzer said in that interview? He said [translation]:

In other words, the wages of the Whites have to be frozen while the wages of the non-Whites have to be increased, even though it may take decades. In practice, therefore, what this means to me is that if the United Party were to take over tomorrow, the wages of the Whites would be frozen. [Interjection.] This is what he said here. How can Skankwan shake his head at me now, Sir? The wages of the Whites must be kept in check, while the wages of the non-Whites have to be increased gradually. Surely this is what it boils down to. If they were to come into power tomorrow, the wages of the Whites would be frozen. This is their policy of “rate for the job”. But I shall tell you what it is, Sir, Keep the wages of the Whites in check, increase the wages of the non-Whites, even though it is going to take decades, because then we would have equal pay for equal work. I do not want to use that big word used here by the hon. member for Stilfontein, but it would be a smash if they were to take over. I want to predict, Sir, that in order to implement that rate for the job policy, they are simply going to reduce the salaries of the Whites and increase the salaries of the non-Whites, and then they would have the two groups on a par. Surely this is also what they want.

I want to ask any of those hon. members to consult the Hansard of the past six years that I have been in this House and to show me one single plea they have made here for the White worker in South Africa. They would not find one. But do you know, Sir, where they are the great champions of the White workers? Outside in the streets when there is a by-election, as is happening in Brakpan now. Then they go around telling the workers that this National Party Government is the “kafferboetie” that allows non-Whites to do the work of the White man on the Railways. There we have one of the biggest culprits sitting over there—the hon. member for Turffontein, who went even further than that. But do you know, Sir, that it was he who walked around in Newcastle with the photograph on which the Prime Minister appears sitting between the two Malawian Bantu women?

That is not true.

Those are the stories they are spreading there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we are grateful for the admission which came from the hon. member for Yeoville today. Throughout the years the United Party always consistently adopted the standpoint that they were not in favour of Bantu trade unions. But the hon. member for Wynberg took the lead here. She was at least honest, because she always said she was in favour of Bantu trade unions. The hon. member for Uitenfaage referred to that. I have a quotation here of what she said. I want hon. members to listen to it once again. She said—

In the past up to today the United Party always distantiated itself from that standpoint. I think the White workers of South Africa should take cognizance of the fact that the member for Yeoville made the admission today that they had now decided to bring the Bantu into the trade unions through the backdoor. The hon. member who is sitting over there and listening to what I am saying, the hon. member for Jeppes, must tell us whether he agrees. They made the admission today—The Whites should take cognizance of it—that now that the non-Whites, the Bantu, could become members of the trade unions. There is the hon. member for Turffontein—Zip! He cannot reply, Sir, The hon. member for Yeoville made this admission today. Sir, do you know how pleased the member for Houghton was about that? She could not restrain herself and had to congratulate the hon. member for Yeoville because he thought as she did. It was the first time that we got the truth from that party. However, I leave it at that and now I want to come to another charge which was levelled by the hon. member for Yeoville as well as other members of the Opposition this afternoon, and that was that this side of the House had neglected its duty as far as the training of manpower in this country was concerned, not only as far as the training of manpower was concerned, but also as far as its proper utilization was concerned. I want to refer more specifically to what the hon. member for Parktown said, i.e. “there are too many restraints on the training of manpower”. Now hon. members must pay attention and tell us what these restraints are, for this is a very serious accusation which they levelled at this side of the House. I want to accept, as will every person with common sense, of whom there are not many on that side of the House, that if more training opportunities were to be created, more educational institutions would have to be created. Here I am referring to technical and other academic institutions, such as the universities, in particular. The same hon. members who say that we have to spend more on education, were consistent in saying this session that “the Government must curb its expenditure”. I now want to ask where the logic of those hon. members is to be found. For the sake of popularity, they make a lot of statements here. I should like to point out what this side of the House is doing as far as the training of manpower is concerned. Firstly, I want to refer to our universities. For the year 1972-3 R67½ million was voted for the current expenditure of the universities, while the amount was only R1½ million in the days of the United Party. It is estimated that an academic year consists of between 180 and 190 days, so it costs more than R8 to keep one student at university for one day. And yet hon. members accuse us of withholding training. I do say, however, that we should withhold training from that militant group of minor importance at Wits who do not know how to behave themselves. Hon. members on the opposite side say we are not doing our duty as far as training is concerned, but the number of our students nevertheless increased from 18 500 in 1948 to 87 000 in 1971 and it is expected that the number will be 124 000 in 1980. Now, hon. members on the opposite side are inclined to say, “Yes, but that is only as far as the Whites are concerned”. But let us take a look at the numbers of students at the Bantu universities. In 1960 the University of the North had 60 students; in 1971 there were 901. The number of students at Fort Hare increased from 360 to 777, while the number at the University of Zululand increased from 41 to 701. These are the accusations that are made, but here is the concrete proof of what has been done as far as the university training of non-Whites is concerned. In the technical sphere our growth has been as phenomenal. Surely this is what affects us intimately when it comes to the shortage of technicians we are experiencing. In this regard I should just like to bring a few facts to the attention of the committee. As far as technical education is concerned, there were only eight courses with 306 students in 1958. By 1970 the number of courses had increased to 117 with 7 000 students. Is this a Government which is neglecting its duty as far as training is concerned? As far as vocational training is concerned, it is illuminating to take note of the capital expenditure for the ten years prior to 1948. For that period it was R½ million, whereas R35 million was spent for the ten years prior to 1968. Again, these figures are as far as the Whites are concerned. Let us take a look at what is being done as far as the non-Whites are concerned. Let us take a look at what is concerned, there are 19 trade schools with 2 800 pupils in 11 different trades and there are five technical schools with more than 550 pupils in eight different subjects. 800 schoolgirls are enrolled as dressmakers in the spinning and weaving industry. As far as the Indians are concerned, at the M. L. Sultan College in Durban with its branches at Pietermaritzburg and Stanger and in the other schools, a total number of more than 6 700 pupils are enrolled for technical subjects, 500 for commercial subjects, 900 for domestic science and 800 for various trades. As far as Coloured persons are concerned, there are 6 high schools at which technicians are trained and at which academic commercial subjects are offered as well. In addition there are 28 commercial schools, five trade schools for apprentices and nine technical colleges. Surely this is proof that as far as training in this country is concerned, the Government is not withholding it. Where are the so-called restraints? The number of Bantu pupils at Bantu schools increased by more than 8 per cent from 1969 to 1970. Surely it is from here that one is going to get one’s skilled labour in the future. In spite of this we still have accusations levelled by hon. members on that side of the House. I am not going to refer to the academic schools today. I want to proceed to another matter, i.e. the training of adults. This Government had the courage to establish Westlake where adults are trained. I want to plead very earnestly with the hon. the Minister for the establishment of yet another institution such as this where adults may be trained. More than 2 000 adults have been trained at this institution, and I think it is essential for more such institutions to be established. As an allowance is paid to those adults while they receive their training, I want to plead for that allowance to be increased. I think we shall draw more people in this way. I am not going to refer to vocational training now, but we are rather inclined to talk about the enormous manpower shortage. Quite recently the Human Sciences Research Council conducted an investigation into the requirements in this country. Their findings were that, as far as Whites were concerned, there would be a surplus of manpower by the year 1973. When we make an analysis of the employment of Whites, we find that more than 67 per cent of the Whites are employed in the private sector. Only some 31 per cent are employed in the public sector. It is this private sector which has a bounden duty to South Africa. They are the people who have to put their house in order; they are the people who have to make a proper investigation. In that case I think we shall find that our productivity per capita will rise much higher. However, this is where the fault lies. They are the people who like to point a finger at the public sector, whereas the fault lies with them.

Mr. Chairman, I think one has to look at this question a little more practically than has been done by the hon. the Minister and some of the speakers on the other side. The Department of Labour just recently issued a statement to the effect that job reservation played a very small part indeed in the labour pattern of today and affected only a very small percentage of workers. To keep up this myth that job reservation is a great screen which the Government is using to protect the White worker, is a lot of nonsense. What I would like to direct the hon. the Minister’s attention to is the aspect which was raised by the hon. member who has just sat down, namely the tremendous shortage of White workers in the country. The hon. the Minister himself has recently said in an address to the Co-ordinated Association of Trade Unions, I think it is called, he admitted that whilst he is making every effort to protect the White worker, which is the aim of all administrations in this country and of members on both sides of the House, he finds himself in the difficulty that he has not sufficient White people to fill the jobs that are called for in this country.

He says that himself. It has already been suggested by people like Mr. Liebenberg of the Artisans’ Association of the Railways that it is essential to try to fill the vacuum that is gradually being caused by prospective White workers in this country, and particularly the young White man who is looking for other avenues of employment today, who is leaving some of the avenues of employment that have been peculiar to him over a number of years, such as plasterer’s work and even bricklayer’s work. Now he is trying to find his future in an entirely different form of occupation. That particular procedure will accelerate itself and there will be many, many thousands of young men of the present generation who will be looking for an entirely different form of activity. They will want to be professional men, highly skilled electronic engineers; they will want to enter the general engineering field. They will want to enter radio and television work; there is an enormous scope of activity into which the young man of today will want to enter and for which he will require intensive training. That will cause a tremendous shortage in what we might call the lower-paid jobs, or perhaps the semi-skilled and skilled services of a more practical nature, such as artisan work. There will be a considerable shortage in this field and that will have to be filled. How do we fill that? It is all very well for the hon. the Minister, who has already admitted the necessity of training people for that purpose, to say that he will admit only some Coloureds and possibly Indians into that type of work to be trained for that type of work, when he knows that the number that will be required for a normal steady growth in this country will run into thousands, if not into hundreds of thousands. How will that vacuum be filled? That is the important aspect that we have to face in connection with labour in this country. There is no question of displacing anyone. That is a cliché which the hon. the Minister uses purely for political purposes. It was even put in the White Paper that was written subsequent to the report of the interdepartmental committee headed by Dr. Riekert, where they talked of their policy as being that no White person would be substituted in his employment or pushed out of his employment by a non-White. There is no one in this country who even suggested such a type of procedure. For the hon. the Minister of Labour to suggest this purely because it is a political cliché, I think, merely exposes him, if I will be permitted to say so, to the ridicule of the public. I hope that he does not take my words amiss. The public cannot understand that a responsible Minister of Labour should maintain such a stand and then expect it to be accepted seriously. What is the situation that faces us? It is not a question of replacing people; it is a question of filling the gaps which will appear in larger numbers year by year. Already the Public Service have drawn up to a minimum of 40 per cent of labour in this country. The percentage will grow even larger. Then we have a shortage at the moment of nearly 300 000 in the managerial field in this country. But the hon. the Minister realizes that South Africa is standing on the brink of tremendous expansion which is only being delayed not only by the fact that he is busy finding jobs for people as lorry-drivers, as shunters, as postmen, or in other smaller jobs in the various departments, but because what is needed is people who can play a part in the enormous expanding programme of South Africa. That is to what the hon. the Minister should direct himself. Instead of this, he says that he would like to have a lead from the private sector. He is not prepared to give a lead. The private sector must do its own work. The scheme of the hon. the Minister of Labour has already been incorporated in the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance as the policy of this Government, namely that they will use trained men in the border industries where there will be a shortage. This has been admitted and accepted by Mr. Human, the president of the Handelsinstituut, the other day when he made a speech at the Handelsinstituut, i.e. that there will be a tremendous shortage of labour and that will be supplemented from the reserves with men who may be trained, either semi-skilled or otherwise, to do that work. Does the hon. the Minister realize that Mr. Human has maintained that for each person that is used on the border industries, a capital investment of at least R6 000 will have to be made to enable him to be of some value in that area.