Mr. Speaker, with leave, I ask the Minister of Finance whether he will make a statement on the Government’s attitude towards the announcement on the devaluation of the dollar.

Mr. Speaker, I gladly reply to the question by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I do wish to mention, however, that even if there had been no question by the hon. the Leader or any other hon. member, I would in any case have made a statement to the House this afternoon. I have not given this statement to the Press because I believe that the first statement should be made to Parliament when Parliament is in session. The reply is as follows: The Government has noted the statement by Mr. George Schultz, secretary to the Treasury of the United States of America, that the U.S.A. dollar will be devalued by 10% and that the Japanese yen will be allowed to float; further, that the parity of the West German mark and French franc will remain unchanged and that it is expected that the British pound, the Canadian dollar, and the Swiss franc will continue to float.

The Government has considered the position of the South African rand in the light of these developments and has decided, after the usual consultation with the other members of the Rand Currency Area, to maintain the parity of the rand unchanged.

Hear, hear!

From tomorrow, 14th February, 1973, the South African Reserve Bank will again be prepared to enter into purchase and sales transactions in U.S.A. dollars at the new rates which will be announced tomorrow morning. A more detailed statement on the implications of this decision will be issued later during the day.

Arising from the hon. the Minister’s reply, do we then understand that, when he talks about the parity of the rand, the rand will have parity with Western European countries’ currencies and has in fact been revalued against the devaluation of the dollar? In other words, there is a difference of 10% between the rand and the dollar now?

The parity is the same parity as was the case in October last year when we fixed the rand, after floating with the pound.

In terms of gold it will be unchanged?

Yes.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”).

Mr. Chairman I move the amendment as printed in my name—

Hon. members have the amendment before them, so I shall not read it. Hon. members on that side probably would not understand it if I read it anyway. May I say that on page 4 of the English version of the Bill, I move the deletion, after “tribe”, of certain words up to the figures “1936” in line 11, and then—what is related thereto—in line 13, to omit the words “unless or”. Sir, to gather the significance of my amendment, may I say that at the present time under existing law a Native tribe which receives an order from the supreme chief or the Minister to move from one place to another and fails to carry out the order, must have its case referred to Parliament. The order can only be enforced after Parliament has approved of the order to move. Sir, that is a provision which goes back a very long way, in fact to the days of personal government in South Africa when the Lieutenant-Governor and subsequently the Governor-General was the supreme chief and where, if there was a dispute in regard to an order to move, Parliament came into the picture and the matter went before a Select Committee. The point here was that all the details concerning the moving of a tribe which was ordered to move were then brought out in the Select Committee where documents and witnesses could be examined and the whole matter could be gone into, and then a report was made to Parliament and Parliament had an opportunity of debating the whole of the matter and the circumstances. This is how important it was felt to be by the Parliament of the time that no tribe should be called upon to move without being given the opportunity of being heard in fact as to the circumstances, by Parliament. Now the amendment which has been put into the Bill before us and which I suggest should be deleted, has this effect, that in respect of a tribe living in a scheduled Native area or on Trust land or on land owned by a Native in a released area, if the Bill stands as printed and if my amendment falls, it means that the Minister can come in advance to Parliament and he can get the approval of Parliament in a general way for the issuing of notices to tribes to move, tribes who are resident in a scheduled area or on Trust land or on land privately owned by Bantu in a released area. He can get that approval in advance and thereafter, after receiving that approval, an order can be issued. This is the crux of the matter, Sir, that he can get permission from Parliament before he issues the order to move. We think that this is an unconscionable action. We think this is a terrible principle for us to introduce in our legislation in regard to a matter of this importance, something which Parliament has jealously and sedulously guarded against throughout the years since 1910. Here the Minister may come now and need not issue any order. Bear in mind, he need issue no order. Parliament is not aware of the circumstances under which that order is going to be issued. It is the general authority now conferred on the Minister; he takes that power from Parliament. Parliament divests itself entirely of the power to consider the circumstances and the conditions under which any order shall be given.

Having now forfeited its power, and having handed a blank cheque to the Minister, without any knowledge whatsoever of the circumstances and the conditions … may I proceed, Sir? Thank you, Sir. Parliament has now divested itself of that power, and the Minister can come along with his order; he can give an order to Bantu who are living in a scheduled Native area or on Trust land or on land owned by a Native in a released area. But those are the very Bantu who, under our laws today, are protected. They are the Bantu of all other Bantu who are entitled to believe that they are living on their own land. They are in a scheduled Native area, under the 1936 Act. This is their land, their home. The last people who can feel themselves in jeopardy are the people who are living in terms of our 1936 Act on scheduled property or land owned by the Native Trust, but it is those very people who can now be moved under this clause, if it goes through as printed and if my amendment is defeated, by an ex post facto order from the Minister after he has taken a blank cheque from Parliament, without us having the slightest knowledge about the matter. If I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister now to say what tribes he has in mind whom he is going to order to move, the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot tell me. He cannot tell me whom he has in mind. He does not have anybody in mind. [Interjections.] Well, he may have a mind. I am not suggesting the hon. the Deputy Minister does not have a mind. It may be blank in this respect at the moment.

You are very generous!

I say that the hon. the Deputy Minister does not have any idea as to which tribes he is going to order to move. May I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister? Has the hon. the Deputy Minister any ideas as to what tribes he is going to order to move?

There are plenty of tribes.

In that case then I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to stand up presently—he has all the time in the world—and to tell us which tribes in regard to KwaZulu’s consolidation he contemplates ordering hereafter to move in terms of the clause with which we are now dealing. After Parliament has given him this authority—assuming we do—what tribes does he propose to move without further notice? The tribes’ names are not before us. We do not know where they are living at the present moment, except that they are living in scheduled areas or Trust land or land in a released area owned by Bantu. We do not know where they are to go. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us what tribes he proposes to move, where are they living at the present time and to what point does he propose to send them so that we can debate the issue with some meaningful intention in so far as our debate is concerned. However, as it stands at the moment, we believe this is an unconscionable action and we must oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, there are other aspects apart from those dealt with by the hon. member for South Coast which arise in the consideration of this clause. Let us deal with the first part, that is to say the amendments on the first page, of this particular clause. There was a lot of discussion yesterday on this question of consultation. The hon. the Deputy Minister has inserted an amendment to indicate that there must be consultation by the Minister with the Bantu Government concerned. That is welcome so far as it goes, but the important point is that the consultation is only in respect of the conditions which attach to the movement of the tribe. He is not required in terms of this to consult the tribe on the question of movement or no movement. There is no consultation on that required. In other words, he can say to the tribe that they are moving, and nothing more need be said on that issue. The only issue on which he is required to consult is the conditions which will attach to that obligatory movement of the tribe. That is the manner in which the amendment is worded and one assumes that that is the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. So, he does not have to consult on whether or not there should be movement; he merely has to consult on the conditions under which that movement will take place. That is the first objection. So, even if there is the fullest consultation by the hon. the Minister, it does not overcome the objections raised by the hon. member for South Coast, because the consultation is in respect only of a limited part of the operation.

The second point, of course, is the point raised by the hon. member for South Coast and I should like to take it a stage further. We have had experience of the movement of Bantu people under this Government before. It is quite possible for the hon. the Minister or his successor to come to this House and say: I propose moving a certain tribe and I ask for a resolution of this House in respect of that movement. The conditions under which the movement will take place are these and the land to which it is expected they will be moved is this particular piece of land, and the following preparations will be made in regard to housing, employment, communications, education and a variety of factors such as that, before the tribe is moved. We have experienced in the past the movement of people into areas like Limehill where the conditions which were attended to there prior to the movement of the people into that place were, in the view of the Opposition, totally inadequate, while in the view of the Government they were quite appropriate to the occasion. In the example that I have just given, it would be possible when the time for movement came—it might be a year or two or five years later—for the position to be that what was expected and envisaged by way of preparation had not been undertaken; conditions may have changed during the time which has elapsed between the time he got his resolution and the date the movement has to take place, for people to say that it is wrong, that this movement should not take place, that proper preparations have not been made, or that conditions have so changed that this movement cannot now take place. It is the right of the tribe concerned and of this House to judge this situation in the light of the reaction of the people of the tribe who have to be moved and in the light of the circumstances which exist at the time that the movement has to take place. Of course, the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast is to bring this situation back to what it is now so that when the movement is required to take place, but there is objection from the people against being moved, the validity of the objection can be inquired into by this House and we can perform one of the duties which I believe rests upon us as members of Parliament. That is the gravamen of our opposition to the amendments introduced by the hon. the Minister in clause 1, and those are the reasons why I support the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast.

Mr. Chairman, …

A maiden speech.

It might be a grass-widow speech, but not a maiden speech. This proposal which, on the one hand, deals with consultation, must in the first place be seen in terms of the practical consideration of the implementation of the whole policy of the consolidation of the Bantu homelands. Where we are faced, especially in Natal, with an extremely difficult legacy of the British colonial policy, “the grid system”, which left a legacy of more than 200 separate Bantu areas in Natal, the aspect locked up in this clause is of the utmost importance. At some stage it is simply no longer possible to ask Parliament for its consent in each individual instance after consultation has taken place. At some stage the policy must be implemented. The real question which arises in this regard, is whether the United Party in every case wants to have the consent of the Bantu tribes concerned before this may be implemented. Now I do not know whether they will give an answer. I may indeed expect them to say, “Our policy is what it is”, something which reminds me of the story of “Popeye the Sailor man”, who says, “I am what I am and I don’t care a damn”.

It is simply true that the United Party takes up certain standpoints, but as soon as things are brought to a head, they have no standpoint whatsoever. After all, it must be clear that if any progress is to be made in the direction of consolidation, especially of KwaZulu, then some kind of authority must be given to the department for carrying it into effect. Another thing one should remember is that the department is not like a steam-roller which simply overruns everything in its way. It goes without saying that it is the wish of the department to have negotiation, to have discussions with a view to trying to reach agreement, but if it appears that these discussions, this dialogue, this consultation, are being obstructed simply to throw a spanner into the works, surely it will be completely impractical to come back to Parliament to obtain Parliament’s consent first for each individual case.

What have you got in your hand, Val?

It goes without saying that it is the wish of the Government and the department to have discussions with a view to trying to reach agreement. This will be the department’s attitude in the future as well, just as it was in the past. But then there is the difficult problem of the consolidation of KwaZulu. At the moment KwaZulu consists of more than 48 Bantu areas. In addition to these there are approximately another 150 separate Black spots spread over the whole of Natal. It is obvious that a stage has been reached where we simply have to say to the department: Please continue and do your work, be practical …

And fair.

It is for this reason that this clause is being inserted. If the amendment of the United Party were to be accepted, it would simply mean that we could be delayed for another 20 years in the implementation of the policy of consolidation. We cannot afford that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken has let the cat out of the bag. He has indicated to the House that the Government expects so much opposition to the orders which are to be issued to Bantu tribes that it would, in practice, be impossible for this Parliament to consider all those objections.

With the help of the United Party.

In other words, he is admitting, in advance of an order being issued, that the Government expects those orders to be opposed and to be rejected by the tribes concerned. He misses the point which is that there is no need for this House to give its approval and that there is no need for a resolution of this House if the order is accepted by the tribe concerned. By introducing this amendment which makes it possible to obtain advance approval from this House to issue removal orders, the Government indicates that it will obtain so much opposition to its plan that it could not carry out the procedure which has worked satisfactorily throughout the years. It indicates that the procedure which has been followed with all the removals in the past, where under a tribe which has an objection to being moved had an appeal to this Parliament, is considered too unwieldy for the volume of work which will be loaded upon Parliament if it continued to apply in respect of the consolidation of KwaZulu. In other words, the Government does not expect to get the cooperation of the Zulu people in the consolidation programme for which this amending Bill is making provision. If it expected co-operation, it would not have to come and ask for this steamroller-power taking from Parliament the right to consider on its merits any particular order which is issued. We know the Government of old and they will not be surprised if we say that we treat with great care the assurances of Ministers—on whatever the issue may be—that they have consulted with and obtained the consent of the people with whom they consulted. Time after time have we found that the consultation has consisted of simply sending a document to the body concerned, whether it be a provincial council or whether it be KwaZulu. As was admitted yesterday, consultation on this Bill consisted of submitting the Bill and that was all. There was no consent and no acceptance. Knowing the form of consultation which this Government considers to be satisfactory, we are suspicious of accepting any assurance, an assurance which will be given without doubt by the hon. the Deputy Minister when he asks for blanket permission to move tribes, the assurance that he has consulted and that it has been accepted. It is only when the order is given and when the tribe objects that for the first time this House will have the opportunity of knowing, firstly, that there was an objection and, secondly, the nature of the objection. As is our duty in terms of the law as it stands now, we could consider the merits of that objection. But the hon. the Minister does not want this House to consider the merits. He is simply saying: “Give me the power. I am going to go ahead and do it.” The hon. member for Klip River admits that he expects so much opposition from the Zulu people that it would be physically impossible for us, in fact, to consider the merits of those objections and that it would take 20 years for this House to deal with the objections which they are expecting. It is a lot of objections which will take 20 years to consider. It may well be that their policy cannot be carried out for 20 years because it is incapable of implementation, but the hon. member for Klip River has another reason for 20 years delay, namely the volume of objections. This amendment seeks to rob Parliament of the power of hearing appeals and we are not prepared to give that blanket authority either to this Minister or to this Government in the light of their record of consultation and co-operation in the particular field with which we are dealing now. In the light of the Deputy Minister’s own admission yesterday that the KwaZulu Government has rejected in toto the plan which has been submitted to them, and despite that rejection, we are being asked to surrender our power to act as a court of appeal; to surrender our power as Parliament to deal specifically and individually with each proclamation of land to be released or excised from the various areas concerned. We are not prepared to give that blank cheque to the Government in the knowledge of the situation and the views of the people who are concerned and who are to be moved in their hundreds of thousands as though they were pawns on a chessboard. We oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, naturally I cannot consider the amendment. It is very clear to me that the Opposition is posing here as a model of consultation and while it should have acted as a model of consultation with regard to its new policy, it failed outrageously. Now it wants to gull the world into believing that it knows how to consult. If we in the Department of Bantu Administration were maintaining that standard of consultation, they would have had a case. Each of these cases is first discussed with the tribe or the community. Secondly it is discussed with the Government concerned. Since we have the Bantu Governments with whom we have consultations and with whom we have long discussions on these matters, this Government cannot see why there should be problems. In some cases in the Transvaal I myself travelled to the Governments, met them wherever their seats may be and discussed certain removals in detail with them. I cannot see any reason for retaining an appeal to the House of Assembly. We are satisfied. We have a record of proper consultation, of comprehensive consultation. We know the problems of the people.

Why should Parliament be eliminated?

The problem is that the Opposition can use each of these things to try to make an impression and to waste time. While it is an extreme task just to keep them informed, we have already covered all that ground with Bantu Governments. I cannot see how a case can possibly be made out for that desire to contribute their mite as far as the question of consultation is concerned. It is quite obvious that it is more effective and easier to discuss and settle the question directly with the people and their authorities.

The hon. member for Durban Point said that not only should there be consultation, but also consent. It is clear that there will be cases where there will not be consent to removal. That is so. But he implied that they would have obtained the consent of the people. If we want to obtain the consent of all the people concerned, it stands to reason that we would not make any progress. It is simply so that the majority decides. In this case it is the White Parliament, the majority in this Parliament, who decides. When the principal Act was placed on the Statute Book, there were no details available as to which spots would be moved. Now the hon. member asks me for details as to what spots will be moved. Surely, it is clearly absurd to want to argue in that direction. The position is that when we come forward with planning at a later stage, it will be decided which groups have to be moved. Then the hon. members will be given the details and they will be able to argue the matter. I hope they will be able to reach uniformity as regards their view on this matter. Last year, too, when this matter was debated, there were six speakers and six different opinions. I do hope they will consult with one another and reach uniformity before they come to Parliament with all sorts of arguments. Therefore I cannot consider this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, this clause is the main reason why I oppose the Second Reading. It is really the crux of the whole Bill. I intend to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast.

The hon. the Deputy Minister’s reasoning, that this is a waste of time and that it will not be necessary to come back to Parliament to get its consent before moving these various tribes, simply shows up the arbitrary nature of the Government. The whole idea of coming back to Parliament surely is to give some right of appeal against the decisions which have been taken by his department in respect of moving people around. Thousands of people have already been moved by the Government. Limehill is only one instance. One could mention dozens of examples. Not only does it apply to the removal of Black spots, but also to the removal of thousands of urban dwellers. I am not talking about people who are illegally resident in the urban areas, or even the people who at one time—and I am glad to say no longer—were called “superfluous appendages”. But it applies also to large, settled urban communities throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. These people are now being moved, if they are anywhere near a homeland, from the small rural towns into the homelands. Communities throughout the country are being affected. I am not prepared to give the Government any further authority to move people around as though they were pawns.

Who are you, after all?

Well, I am a duly elected Member of Parliament and I am entitled to express my point of view, just like the hon. member on the other side.

No, he is not. He is not allowed to. His caucus will not let him.

Well, that may be so. Fortunately, my caucus does let me; so I do not have any problems in that respect. Mr. Chairman, I do not think this Committee ought to give the Government any further powers; because studying the maps which have already been prepared, which I certainly have seen and I am sure other members too must have seen, it is evident that what is envisaged, is the removal of thousands of people from one part of South Africa to the other in order to tidy up the apartheid map to fit in with the Government’s plan for consolidation. I am not confusing, as the hon. member for Zululand thought yesterday, plans for consolidation with the 1936 Act but, of course, these removal plans have a great deal to do with the Government’s plans for consolidation.

In terms of the present law, as I see it, the Minister can order—and indeed does—the withdrawal of any tribe, portion of a tribe or individual Bantu. But if a tribe refuses to withdraw, the order is of no force and effect until the resolution is approved by Parliament, and in the case of a portion of a tribe or of an individual Bantu the order can be wiped out after 12 months by resolution of Parliament, in a post hoc manner. I believe that is the correct interpretation of the existing law. As I see it, this measure is going to enlarge the power of the Government, first of all, as I said yesterday, by reducing the protection which was given to any tribe. That protection is now reduced and applies only to a tribe living on scheduled or released areas. Now Parliament can approve of orders of withdrawal in advance; in other words, not after the order has been given.

There is also another difference, another extension of the powers of the Government. In terms of clause 1 of the Bill as I read it, the Minister is given the power also to move communities. The word “communities” has been inserted in line 17, and that is a further power that he is taking. The only protection given to them now is the protection that is given to portions of tribes and to individuals, and that is that Parliament can undo the order 12 months later. I do not really know what good that protection is, because if the withdrawal has taken place in the meantime, I should think it would be very difficult 12 months later to withdraw the order. One can only assume that the situation stays frozen until 12 months have passed. I am not too sure of the legal position here.

… they do not move.

Well, do they not?

This is what I am not sure of. Maybe the lawyers in the House can tell me. Do they in fact leave them sitting where they are until 12 months have passed?

Yes.

Well, then it was some sort of protection, but that is the only protection that is being given now to the Bantu communities as such. I agree with members on this side who have already spoken, that prior consultation means nothing at all unless, inherent in the term “prior consultation” is the idea of at least getting the consent of the people concerned. If it simply means that you go along to them and say, “this is what we are going to do; what do you think of it”? and they tell you what they think you ought to do, and then you pay no attention to them, that, as far as I am concerned, is meaningless consultation, and I shall therefore vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, when I spoke just now, I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister if he knew the names of the tribes that he was proposing to move, and he said “yes”. You will remember that, Sir. And I challenged him to give us the names of the tribes.

Do you want to be on this the whole afternoon?

Sir, if it were to take us the whole afternoon in pursuance of a matter of this importance, Parliament would be spending its time wisely on a matter that really matters to South Africa, in my view. The Deputy Minister has spoken, Sir, and he has not given us the name of a single tribe. But with what I believe is the height of cynicism, he says: “When the next Bill comes along and we are setting up the borders of a Bantustan, that will be the time for us to debate that kind of thing.” The power which he is seeking today, under which he will act, is here, in this Bill. What is the good of us waiting until he comes along with another Bill which may or may not come to this Parliament, and which may or may not have the effect which he claims for it now? We do not have it before us; we know nothing about it.

The time to deal with the power the Minister is taking under this Bill is now, and again I challenge him to give us the names of any of the tribes he proposes to move. He does not have them, Sir. That is the truth of the matter. This is an idle boast he makes when he says he knows the lot of them. He said yesterday that he did not have a plan. How can he give us the names of tribes to be moved if they are not on the plan, because he does not have a plan. The tribes are not on the plan, so how can he tell us that he knows the names of the tribes? How can he tell us where they are to be moved from? From whence are they to be moved? He does not know; he does not have a plan. He says the plan will only be known when it comes before Parliament and is approved by Parliament. So, from whence are they to be moved? He says he knows, but he will not have the plan until Parliament has approved it. To where are they to be moved? He says he knows; he does not know, Mr. Chairman. This is not guess-work; it is complete folly, as far as the Deputy Minister is concerned. It is not good him looking at his officials; they will smile with him when he laughs, of course they will, because they are good officials.

Mr. Chairman, I kept back one point that I wanted to make, deliberately, because I wanted to hear what the Minister had to say about the movement of the tribes. Sir, do you know that under his proposals for KwaZulu they will have to vacate two million acres of land? Two million acres—that is the magnitude of the matter that we are putting to the Minister. Here he sits with a smile on his face, cutting across all the principles which have been looked upon as the basic principles of Native administration in South Africa, not only since Union in 1910 but in the days of the colonies before that, the basic principle that when once a Native’s right was entrenched in law it remained there, that the honour of the White man was attached to those principles. Here the Minister comes along with what I can only call absolute cynicism and says: “I am not interested in what has gone before; I want this power now; I want a blank cheque. I know what I am going to do when the time comes, but I am not going to tell you; I am not going to tell Parliament.” He is not even prepared, Sir, to discuss the matter with us now, let alone provide for the Bantu tribes who are to be moved to have the right of appeal or to come back to Parliament to have their case heard, as in the past. No, he is not prepared to do that; he is not prepared to come and lay the plan before us and tell us in so many words who are the tribes, over two million acres of land, who are to be moved in Natal—not two million acres in South Africa, Sir, but two million acres in Natal.

Sir, he thinks that he is going to get away with that in Natal under existing circumstances. What is the use of the hon. the Prime Minister coming here and saying that one of the lessons we have to learn from the strikes is that the Bantu are people and that we have to talk to them and not at them, etc.? That, Sir, was also just an empty show of words, which means nothing in the present situation. Here the honour of this Parliament is in the hands of the Deputy Minister today if he continues with this proposal, because let me repeat that this is not the law, as it is today, which is just being amended in respect of a tribe that is not living in a scheduled Native area. This amendment, Sir, is dealing with the tribes living in a scheduled area or on land belonging to the Trust, or in a released area where the land belongs to a Native.

A tribe, in terms of this amendment, which is not in a scheduled area or on land belonging to the Trust or in a scheduled area where it belongs to a Native, can simply get its notice and it has got to go because the Minister is taking the power to do that without consulting with anybody. But this particular amendment which I am fighting is in respect of Bantu who have every right to believe that their rights are protected under the 1936 legislation, with all the blood and tears that that legislation occasioned here. If my memory serves me correctly, I think the late Gen. Hertzog had a committee sitting for something like six or eight years before that legislation was finally put on the Statute Book but, Sir, those provisions and principles are to be swept aside, and these Bantu living in the scheduled areas can hereafter, at the whim of the Minister or his successor, be told to move, and Parliament will have abrogated its rights to have any say whatever in the conditions under which that tribe is to be moved and where it is to be moved. I think, Sir, that this is a shocking thing that the Minister is doing today, to rupture the relations between Black and White in our country.

The Minister in his reply has given the impression that we on this side of the House are opposed to any consultation, that we are opposed to the amendment which provides that he shall consult these people. Sir, we are not opposed to consultation. We are not opposing this amendment which obliges him to consult. What we are opposed to is his suggestion that the right of consultation is adequate compensation for losing the right to have their case discussed here in Parliament. He says that because he consults with the tribes concerned and with their leaders it is not necessary for their rights to be discussed here in Parliament. That is the line he takes and we say that that is nonsense. If, when they are consulted, they approve of the withdrawal, as it is called—of being placed somewhere else—then of course the matter does not come to Parliament because there is no refusal to move and then they can be moved. The protection which they are given is where they refuse to be removed.

Sir, in his second amendment the Minister mentions particularly the tribes living in the scheduled or released areas or on Bantu-owned properties in the released areas. Why has he excluded all others? What about the other tribes who can be removed—tribes who are in Black spots, for instance? As the law stands now, if those people refuse to move, they can be moved only after this Parliament has approved of the order. I asked him yesterday why he only mentioned particular tribes living in particular areas. If it does not affect any other tribes, why does he find it necessary to mention these two particular cases that he mentioned in this amendment? The Minister also said that if they were consulted it was unnecessary to come to Parliament because it would only be a waste of time; we, the United Party, would waste time, and the newly returned member for Klip River also suggested that if the law was allowed to remain as it was now, it would add another 20 years …

I did not say it would; I said it could.

Yes, 20 years could be added on to the time it would have taken. I ask this Minister how often has this House been held up by objections from the United Party to resolutions of this nature.

Of course.

I do not know who said that, but I ask the hon. member who said “of course” to stand up and give us examples. When did it happen? When did we oppose? Give us examples. Do not just stand up and say the United Party are going to oppose and therefore it will take a long time. Sir, resolutions of this nature have come before Parliament and we have given our consent. I can remember—I may be wrong; I am just thinking back quickly now after the Minister’s speech—only one occasion when we refused to agree to the removal of a tribe, where they objected. That was a long time ago. I ask him to substantiate the statement he made here, this allegation that we are unreasonable in respect of these matters. We do not say that they may not be removed unless they agree. We do not say that at all. We say if they refuse to be removed, it is only right that their case should be aired in Parliament so that we may know what their objections are. I want to repeat what the hon. member for South Coast has just said about the honour of the White man. We hear this so often; it is drummed into us, that the implementation of the 1936 Act involves the honour of the White man; the honour of the White man is at stake; that this is a promise made by the White man. Let us observe that honour. Let us abide by the regulations and by the provisions as they were included in the 1936 Act. There was not only one provision, that they should be given a maximum area of land in certain provinces. That is not the only provision. There were other protections which were given to them. When they were pegged in a certain area and they were not allowed to buy out of those areas, certain protections were given to them. That was part of the promise of the White man. We are definitely opposed to this alteration now proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I was very interested to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister saying a little earlier on this afternoon that the 1936 Act did not foresee the problems which arise at the present time, and that that is one of the reasons for the necessity for this amendment, that is to say the purchase and the exchange of land for different tribes which will follow upon the amendment set out in clause 1. That, of course, is what I said yesterday.

I did not say that.

I said yesterday that the 1936 Legislation had nothing whatever to do with the consolidation of the Native areas. What the hon. gentleman has said today is precisely the point I tried to make yesterday and I am glad to hear it from him at last. These extensive consolidations were not foreseen in 1936. The opinion of the people behind the 1936 Legislation was that they were perfectly satisfied with the fragmentary pattern which the hon. member for Klip River finds so objectionable now. The hon. the Minister in his reply also tended to suggest that any movement of tribes was largely a matter between the Bantu authorities and himself, i.e. the Government, and that it was not really the concern or the province of this Parliament or of the White representatives. Nothing could be further from the truth. Firstly, so far as Natal is concerned, what is the situation? There is not a town in Natal that is more than 10 or 15 miles from a tribal area.

Not one more than five miles.

The people of Natal live amongst the tribal areas as they exist at the present time. Whether one is a townsman or a farmer—I speak of the White, the Indian and the Coloured communities—you live amongst the tribal areas. We are all, with regard to the areas we occupy, cheek by jowl with the tribal areas. The picture is so graphically put by the hon. member for South Coast. What is envisaged, on the information we have at the present time, is two million acres of Black land to be excised and the people to be moved off, nearly two million, about 1¾ million acres of White land, to be purchased and the people to be moved off and the population of both those areas, almost four million acres in extent, are to be moved. What we know at the present time and, as I say, we know no better until the hon. the Deputy Minister reveals his plans, is the change of hundreds of thousands of people on million of acres of land. When you have that picture before you, Sir, if you bear in mind the fact that we are living, as I say, in regard to our areas in Natal intermixed with the tribal areas wherever you may be, if you bear in mind the current climate of opinion amongst all races and if you bear in mind that nothing is more important to a peasant population than the land on which they have lived for generations—that is what you are dealing with, a peasant population living in an area in which they and their forefathers have lived for generations—under conditions of permanency, then, in those circumstances how can anyone say with a sense of responsibility that the White people and particularly this Parliament have really no say in this matter? It is of the utmost concern to them. Good race relations in many parts of the country and in Natal in particular are an existing fact and the attitude of mind which is behind this clause, with the amendment it seeks to bring about in the existing legislation, is the one thing which, so far as I can judge, can disrupt those existing good race relations. That is the reasons why we are supporting the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast.

There is one final point that we should consider. When this amendment is passed as, no doubt, it will be and the Government acts upon the amendment which is embodied in clause 2, when these millions of acres have changed hands, when the hundreds of thousands of tribal Bantu have been moved and all this expense and upheaval have been gone through, I ask hon. members to think for themselves and to ask one question: How does all that implementation of policy go one inch along the road to meet the problem of the majority of the Bantu, i.e. the urban Bantu and those living in the White areas? Not one problem is solved at the end of all this.

Mr. Chairman, there is a principle involved in this. It is not only the 1936 Act that is involved. It must be seen in a context. From this side we see it in the context of the policy of the Government in regard to consolidation. The question which now arises is: Does the Opposition view this 1936 legislation in the context of their federal idea? If they see it in the context of their federal idea, do they envisage that there shall be consolidation, in this federal plan of theirs, is there provision for consolidation? Or is this a question, of as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said today, shut up about the details of their policy? The question now arises whether the Opposition sees this in the context of a general plan, and they must give us an answer to this. Do they see this in the context of a plan? This Bill fits into the context of Government plan of consolidation. The question on which we should like to have a reply from the Opposition is whether they are prepared to work towards a process of consolidation. Are they prepared to work towards a consolidation where the Zulu areas of Natal will be reduced from the present over 200 Zulu areas to a minimum? Unless they are prepared to give a reply to this question, we must doubt their bona fides. The hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Transkei speak about the honour of the White man. This Government has always honoured the word of the White man. [Interjections.] I look to my right and I see the hon. member for Houghton. I think in 1958 the United Party split asunder because the hon. member for South Coast was not prepared to let the United Party honour the word of the White man in terms of the 1936 legislation. If they then want to speak of cynicism, let them look at themselves. There you have an example of cynicism; on their side they only speak of the honour of the White man if it suits them and they know they are in the Opposition and whatever they say need never be carried out.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose you will allow me to reply to the speech made by the hon. member who resumed his seat a moment ago, even though it has nothing to do with this clause. My reply is very clear: If in the mind of the Government consolidation means the bringing together and moving of people for the exclusive purpose of carrying out an ideological, impractical and unrealistic political programme, we oppose it. We are opposed to the moving of people with the exclusive purpose of putting a blueprint on paper just to carry out an impractical, vague, ideological nightmare or dream. Even if the Government carried out the plan and even if it consolidated, and even if it moved 10 million people and brought about consolidated blocs, then one would still not have solved one problem in South Africa; then the most important problem, the problem of people not living in those so-called homelands, remains just where it is. The people referred to by my hon. friend for Zululand, the Coloureds …

On what clause are you speaking?

I am speaking on the same clause as the hon. member for Klip River did.

What clause is that?

Are you reflecting on the Chair?

Even if one carried out that consolidation, then one would not have solved the problem of the urban Bantu yet, then one would not have brought about the viability of the Bantu areas and one would not have created the infrastructure necessary for the existence of an independent state at all. What is more, we are now talking of KwaZulu, where the chief Minister himself totally disapproves of this plan, totally and completely rejects it. He does not see it as a practical solution. This is my reply to the hon. member, and this is my reply to all hon. members who are trying to avoid the reality of the problem by discussing vague generalities and are trying to get away from the practical problems before us.

† There is one aspect of the hon. Minister’s speech, something that he has said, something which the hon. member for Klip River raised equally seriously and which I am not prepared to allow to pass without comment. The hon. Deputy Minister said that the White man was in the majority and: “Ons is die meerderheid in hierdie Raad en sal doen wat ons wil”. Those were the Minister’s words: “We are the majority in this House and we will do what we want to do”. [Interjections.]

They deny it too.

Do they deny it? The reason why they want this Bill is that they are the majority and they will do what they want to do. This indicates a state of mind, an attitude towards the institution of Parliament itself and towards the role of Parliament in South African life, which strengthens our opposition to this clause. Our very opposition to this clause results from the fact that we do not trust the government. The arrogance of this statement …

Insolence!

… and the insolence too, that the Nationalist Party is in the majority and they can do what they like! They do not want Parliament to subject their action to the test or to the searchlight of public inquiry.

Even with their majority in Parliament.

With all their majority, they are afraid of the searchlight of public inquiry on their actions.

Order! I think the hon. member is going too far.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, this clause wishes to remove the right of Parliament to determine a dispute on a removal when that dispute arises from an order given by the Government. My case is that the reason for wishing to remove the right of Parliament to determine such a dispute, is that the Government is not prepared to face the spotlight of public debate and public investigation, in the open and before the eyes of all the people of South Africa, into a dispute which they have caused. They have caused it by the issue of an order. It becomes a dispute when a tribe refuses to move in terms of that order. If the Government have confidence in their policy, if they are confident that they are right, they should welcome public debate because that public debate would then show the people of South Africa that what they are doing is correct. It should strengthen their hand and it should show that what is being done is in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of the Bantu people themselves. Their fear of such a debate and of the public knowing the facts, indicates that they do not in fact believe that the public would accept that what they are doing is either in the interests of the Bantu or in the interests of South Africa. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that we are dealing with people who, as the hon. the Prime Minister warned us on Friday, have feelings and emotions. They are human beings and not simply labour units. The hon. the Prime Minister emphasized this aspect and appealed to South Africa to think of the non-White people as human beings with all the emotions and feelings which we as White people have. This attitude of the Government, that they must have the right and the power to move people willy-nilly without reference back to Parliament, is a denial of that appeal by the hon. the Prime Minister. It looks on the people to be moved, not as human beings whose rights should be discussed in this the highest body in the land, but as units who can be moved at the whim and wish of the Government, without question or query. It indicates the attitude of the hon. the Minister, his unwillingness to accept Parliament as a body to which he should come for approval of his actions. His attitude to this measure strengthens our confident belief that we are correct in our opposition to the clause and correct in the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for South Coast. We will not give this blank cheque to a Minister who clearly has an attitude towards authority which is foreign to the democratic approach which we believe should underlie parliamentary government.

Mr. Chairman, the hon., only just member for Klip River was vehement in his statement of the fact that his Government had always upheld the word of the White man towards the Bantu, and so was the hon. the Deputy Minister vehement in this respect. I want to mention one specific case, because when challenged by the hon. member for South Coast, the hon. the Deputy Minister seemed very loath to mention specific cases. I want to mention the case of a community which will be affected by this amendment; the specific community is in the Fingo village of Grahamstown, a community which were given a grant of land on which they had freehold rights. This was done because of the services they had rendered during the Kaffir Wars to the White people of the Eastern Province, both Dutch and English, as they were then, and they were to reside on that land ad infinitum. What has happened to this Community? With a little gerrymandering under the Groups Areas Act these people have now been told that they are no longer entitled to live there and that they are to be moved 19 miles away to Committee’s Drift. They will ultimately under this amendment be ordered to move. At the present Fingo village they are within walking distance of their work. At Committee’s Drift they will have to have subsidized transport. In cases like this, and this is why we want it to come back to Parliament, it is not subsidized transport that is needed, but free transport. When you are moved from within walking distance to bussing distance it costs that much more to live. That is why we have moved an amendment to this clause and that is why we want these things to come back to Parliament. I mention this specific case and I challenge the hon. member for Klip River and the Minister to tell this House that in this specific instance we are honouring the word of the White man.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—92: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—39: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—93: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—39: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I just want to furnish a brief motivation of the amendment. When I went through the Bill as it was originally drafted, the word “to” did not appear there, but “to” was inserted when the Bill was printed, and to my mind it does not reflect clearly what is intended and we are therefore unable to achieve the intended object. I therefore move this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

I move the amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The effect of this amendment is to add a provision to the clause where by the details of any leases which may be granted under this subsection will be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament, that is to say, after the date of commencement of this particular Bill. Apparently, Sir, a great many leases have been granted in the past and the procedure laid down has not always been followed. One of the objects of this amendment is to legalize those leases which have been entered into since the original legislation was passed in 1936. One can understand the desire to legalize anything which may not have been done strictly in terms of the rules. But, Sir, two factors make the amendment which I have proposed necessary. Firstly, the lease of land in Bantu areas to persons other than Bantu is gradually on the decline. One knows that the policy is gradually to remove, for example, the trading stations in the Bantu areas; to do away with the White traders and to substitute Bantu traders. One knows that in many parts of Natal, for example, the White traders who are closed down are not substituted by anybody because they cannot find the right people to run these businesses, with resultant hardship to the Bantu population. Nevertheless, Sir, that is the policy. One knows also that the mission hospitals and mission schools are being phased out, and consequently leases of the old type are becoming fewer and fewer and no new ones are being entered into. Nevertheless, Sir, with the Government’s present policy for the industrial development of the Native areas there are leases being granted to enable quarries, sand-pits and enterprises of that kind to be established in the Bantu areas, particularly where you have new development taking place such as at Richard’s Bay. Whilst it is desirable in some instances to bring about industrial development in the Native areas through leases of this kind, I nevertheless believe that it ought not to be done in the dark. I believe that the details as to who gets the leases and the manner in which the land is leased and the persons to whom the land is leased, which is most important in my view, should be made known, and, as I am reminded, the purpose of the lease as well. I say that, Sir, because there have been cases brought to my notice where it is very difficult, as I said on a previous occasion, to get all the facts; prima facie some of the leases appear to have been granted to persons to whom they should not have been granted. Now, Sir, that is why I move the amendment which is on the Order Paper and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will find it possible to accept it. If he does not, I hope he will get up and debate the issue with us because earlier on, in the clause we have just dealt with, the hon. the Minister seemed to take the view that the best way to keep out of trouble is to sit tight and say nothing.

That is what you were doing last week.

I hope he has learnt as a result of the debate on the previous clause that sitting tight and saying nothing does not keep him out of trouble. Indeed, he will probably get into more trouble than he imagines because there are other debates to come yet on this Bill and other matters. But it is highly unsatisfactory both from the point of view of the subject matter under discussion and from the point of view of this Parliamentary Chamber for Ministers to take the attitude which the hon. gentleman appeared to do when the first clause was under discussion. I hope that we do not get that attitude any further.

Sir, the last thing that I would fear or that would frighten me is a member of the United Party, but to waste one’s time having to listen to a lot of senseless arguments is rather unpleasant and neither productive nor constructive. Besides other things, we are here also to try as far as possible to make a contribution towards effective management and not to see how long we can sit here blowing off steam and kicking up dust.

I told the hon. member for Zululand what my attitude was. The hon. member had problems in another connection and we spent hours in my office cordially discussing these matters. This we can do if you have genuine problems, but I refuse to be a party to it when fictitious arguments are raised here and when an attempt is made to create an impression by arguing about those things. Neither am I prepared to reply more than twice to the same points. After all, we had an opportunity during the Second Reading when the clauses were discussed owing to the particular nature of this Bill. This is something which is normally done during the Committee Stage. For the information of the hon. member for East London City, this is what normally happens. This was discussed yesterday. In the arguments that were advanced, the hon. member said that he suspected that some of the leases were not in order. I invite him to discuss any of the leases he knows of—and I think there are very few in Natal—and about which he has any suspicion. Surely he would fail in his duty if he did not do so or if he did not follow these matters up with me or with my department. He wrote a letter to me stating that there were some leases and that he would have liked to have details about them. The hon. member referred to Richard’s Bay where there are quarries that are being leased. The Bantu Mining Corporation, in the interests of the Bantu, granted certain rights for the development of mines. If one wants to be consistent and comply with the request of the Opposition, it would amount to all these transactions now having to be tabled in Parliament. I do not think this would be a sound procedure or that it would lead to sound administration and efficiency to cause the department to compile this mass of details every year and to draw up a list so that these could be laid upon the Table. The fact remains that in 1936, when the United Party was still in power, this practice was started immediately after the approval of that Act. And as things go, if one legal adviser is of the opinion that it is correct, it is continued until the contrary is proved. After an investigation of the Act it has become quite clear that some of the leases were not dealt with in accordance with the legal provisions. I do not know why they ever proceeded with these leases without obtaining the approval of Parliament. This was done while they were still in power. In other words, it has now been going on for close on 36 years. We had a close look at the Act and there is no doubt whatsoever that, legally, this is not allowed. I do not know why we have to come back at this stage and obtain approval for future leases. As I said yesterday, there is most likely to be an increase in the short-term leases. It is sometimes merely a tiding over period. In such cases it would amount to all the different minor leases and agreements having to be submitted to Parliament. I can see no reason why this should happen. If a leasing transaction takes place in any area, hon. members are welcome to ascertain what the position is. As I said yesterday, we will consult the farmers’ associations and the agricultural unions in this connection. But I cannot load extra work onto my department simply for the sake of the curiosity and this acquired suspicion the hon. member spoke of. These transactions are investigated by the Controller and Auditor-General and if there is any question of possible irregularities these will come to light. Each one of these leases is approved by me personally and I simply do not see the necessity for drawing up lists every year. Of course, I can try to advance lengthy arguments and protract the discussion to try and create the impression that the longer one speaks the more important the matter is. However, I want to conclude by saying that I do not see any necessity for the drawing up of lists to be submitted to Parliament, and the amendment is, consequently, not acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to disabuse the minds of those in this House from the fact that these are trifling matters. Some of the leases which are today granted to industrial enterprises in respect of the Bantu areas produce profits of hundreds of thousands of rands.

Per annum.

Yes, per annum. Where you have large-scale developments, like the Richard’s Bay complex, you have industrial enterprises in the Bantu areas operating under lease from the department either directly or indirectly through one of the Bantu Investment Corporations which yield to the lucky fellow who gets the lease profits of hundreds of thousands of rands. I was at pains yesterday to choose my words carefully and I said specifically that the facts were extremely difficult to come by and consequently one could not say more than that prima facie leases have been granted to persons to whom they ought not to have been granted. I could not have been more careful than that and I did it deliberately. However, I raised this matter because an instance has been brought to my notice. I am not in a position to say who the instance is, although I know the names, nor am I in a position to say what the circumstances are precisely, because, as I say, I cannot get the full facts, but this much did appear in the case in question: There was the grant of a lease for a substantial industrial enterprise—I shall not even indicate the type of enterprise—not to the party who first made application for it, although the rule is first-come-first-served, but to somebody else. There was some suspicion—I cannot even put it any higher than that—that the entity which was largely responsible for the grant of the lease, and it was not the hon. the Minister’s department, was not unconnected with the body that obtained the lease. I could not put it more obliquely than that if I tried and I do it deliberately, because, as I say, I do not have all the facts and I cannot get them. However, it is sufficient to warn me that a clause of this kind would be highly desirable, that is to say a clause of the kind that I have mentioned in my amendment. Even if that were not the case, even if one had not an example like that placed before one, surely it is in the interests of Parliament as the overall authority in charge of public land, and Trust land is public land although it is for the use of a defined group of the population, and in the interests of the country, that where public land is dealt with, the circumstances on which it is dealt are made known. That is all. That is a fair principle and I believe it is one which we should adopt in this case.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister takes the line that he can go on talking, but he is not going to waste time talking unnecessarily. If he has the impression that the more he talks, the more he justifies his case, he is making a mistake. We did not ask him to talk unnecessarily; we just asked him to give us the necessary information. That is all. He was challenged during the discussion of the previous clause, but he did not answer the challenges. He made accusations and he made assertions, but when we asked him for details he could not give the details. That is what we are objecting to.

As far as this matter is concerned, the hon. member for Zululand has referred to public property and has said that people should know what is happening to it. Since it is public property, the Government should give an account as to what it is doing with it. As far as this particular land is concerned, there is a greater necessity for the Government to tell us what is happening to that land, because it is Trust land and not ordinary Government-owned land. Money was set aside by Parliament to buy land for the Bantu, and in this law that we are now amending there is a provision that the trustee can let or sell Trust land to Bantu without coming to Parliament. The whole purpose of setting the land aside for the Trust to acquire was that it was for the Bantu. The law says that when the trustee disposes of the land in any other way than to a Bantu, Parliament should be told. Therefore I say that when this Act was originally passed, definite restrictions were placed on the trustee as to what he could do, and the whole implication of this Act was that Parliament must know what is happening to the Bantu land. All we are asking him to do is to Table details of the leases in this House. In what way is that going to upset his administration? When the lease is typed, one extra copy need merely be made and that copy can be handed in to Parliament. That is all, and it does not give him any extra work. We do not ask him to upset his whole administrative procedure; it is not too much to ask him merely to make this information available to Parliament so that we can know what is happening to Trust land. We are holding this land in trust and Parliament should know what is happening to it.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I addressed the hon. the Minister on this clause and I indicated that we were opposed to this amendment because it imposed an additional burden on the employer of African labour. The effect of this amendment is to place an obligation on any person in a prescribed area. It does not affect the farmers, in reply to a question raised by one of the hon. members opposite yesterday—it only affects the people in the prescribed areas, in that if an African is employed for more than three days he must be registered. I want to ask the hon. the Minister the same question I asked him yesterday but which he did not answer, and that is: What difficulties have come to light with the law as it stands now? There may be difficulties in connection with the collection of the fees in terms of the Bantu Labour Act, but I do not know whether that is a problem. Before I address him further I would like him to tell us why it has become necessary now to introduce this amendment. The only problem I can think of relates to these fees under the Bantu Labour Act, and those fees have obviously been collected. I would be glad if he could tell us what his difficulties are.

Mr. Chairman, as far as influx control is concerned, I do want to point out that you can have people roaming around in these city areas for up to 30 days. It makes it impossible to have influx control. These people are there and to a certain extent they are legally employed and they need not be registered for a period of up to 30 days. That makes it impossible. The other thing is, of course, that at the present time people are compelled by proclaimed regulations to register all contracts in respect of periods longer than three days; so the position at the moment is that all contracts in respect of periods longer than three days in the urban areas have to be registered. We are merely rectifying the Act. The regulations currently in force make it three days. At the moment that is in contradiction of the Act. We are now bringing them in line. In the Act we are changing it to three days because otherwise there would be complete chaos. I can assure the hon. member that.

In other words, you are legalizing illegitimate regulations?

Mr. Chairman, I do not quite follow the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument that this is to assist influx control. After all, if the African comes in from outside of the prescribed area, he cannot stay for longer than three days, 72 hours, without a permit. He has to get a permit to stay in the area for more than 72 hours. So, he must have some document to prove that he has the right to be there. I do not see how making the employer register him is going to assist influx control What about the person who is entitled to be there, the man who under section 10 does not have to have a permit? He is not affected by influx control; he is entitled to be there. Why must the employer then be given this added burden when he employs a person who is entitled to be in the area? I do not think that the excuse given by the hon. the Deputy Minister is a sufficient one. There are other ways of checking up on an African under the influx control regulations. Under the Urban Areas Act one can deal with them.

It makes it more difficult if you have this longer period.

I am sorry, but I do not see eye to eye with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I do not think his explanation has been satisfactory. He has only given us one instance, namely influx control, but he admits that under the Urban Areas Act you can deal with influx control. I say we must not unnecessarily put burdens on the employers in the urban areas.

Mr. Chairman, if we look at the existing legislation, the hon. member for Transkei will see that his objection really falls away. In terms of the existing legislation there is a discrepancy between the regulation and the Act as such. The regulation lays down that this should be done within a certain period, viz. three days, but the Act lays down 30 days in which to do this. Now the problem arises that …

The regulation will then be illegal.

Both the regulation and the Act have been accepted by this House. At this stage there is, therefore, a discrepancy between the regulation and the Act. Now, in practice it has simply developed in such a way that …

Change the regulation then.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. members would only listen, one would be able to accomplish a great deal with them. The whole point is that there is a discrepancy between the regulation and the Act. Hon. members must please listen now, because I am now coming to the point at issue. The hon. members have not done their homework. They did not consult either the regulation or the Act. In practice it has happened that action was taken only in terms of the regulation. The matter is being rectified now. The period stipulated in the regulation and the Act has to be brought into line with the accepted practice as it has always been, except in one respect, and that is that in the non-prescribed areas, in respect of which the Act provides that it should be 14 days, it must now also be changed to 30 days so that there is in fact a concession as far as the non-prescribed areas are concerned. What is being done here—and I think the hon. member for Transkei will agree with me—is that the discrepancy which exists between a regulation and an Act is simply being rectified. Whilst in the past the regulation has been followed in practice, the practice is simply being rectified by means of this clause in a general amending Bill such as this one. If the hon. member for Salt River had only read what is written here, he would have noticed that we are rectifying the Act and a regulation and not only a regulation. We are eliminating the discrepancy which exists between the Act and the regulation. This is all that is happening here. The principle involved in this matter is exactly the same, because what it means in practice, is that the discrepancy which existed between a law and a regulation is being rectified now. I simply cannot see the point of the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us when was it found that there was this clash between the regulation and this Act? Was it found that urban areas could not be administered because of this difference? Has a court found these regulations to be ultra vires? Against what practical difficulty has he come up? If he has been applying the regulation and it has been working, what practical difficulty has he had?

The regulations are ultra vires the Act.

Then why did you not tell us that the court has found these regulations to be ultra vires?

We know that.

The hon. Deputy Minister says he knows it. How long has he operated under ultra vires regulations? When was it found that the regulations were ultra vires?

During last year.

How has it handicapped them in their administration?

It does not handicap us, but we cannot go on like that.

If it does not handicap the administration why does he then put a burden on the employer? What is then the Deputy Minister’s difficulty in administering the Urban Areas Act?

I have no difficulty.

If he has no difficulty, why must we agree to a burden being placed on the employer?

If somebody goes to court tomorrow these regulations are not valid.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

My amendment has the effect of leaving university education under the powers granted to the Transkei Government. Yesterday we were told that the reason for this amendment, which has the effect of taking away control of university education from the Transkei Government, was that it was never intended by the Government when they passed the Transkei Constitution Act to give them Bantu education. As I said yesterday, education means one thing and unless you talk particularly about primary education, you mean education as a whole. When we talk about education as far as provincial councils are concerned we usually talk about primary education and higher education but the fact is that when the Transkei Government was given control of higher education, of all education, of university education as well. Why is the Government taking higher education, university education, away from the Transkei Government? Why are the powers of this body being reduced? The inclination has been to give these African legislative assemblies more power, not to reduce their power. Every year we come to Parliament …

There is no reduction.

I am glad the Minister is there. He can now take over from the Deputy Minister.

No, he can do his work.

Why then does the Minister intervene when he is satisfied that the Deputy Minister can …

To help you …

Are you afraid he may not know the answer?

He knows it very well.

Sir, I hope the Minister is going to make a speech. I am glad to see the Deputy Minister has moved closer to his officials. Perhaps they will tell him what we want to know. I hope we will get more information from him now.

As I was saying, the inclination has been to give more power to these legislative assemblies and not to deprive them of power.

Nothing is being taken away.

I beg your pardon?

The universities have a separate Act.

The fact is, no matter what that hon. Minister may say, it is specified in the Transkei Constitution Act that the Transkei Government will control Bantu education. If it does not mean university education and the Government does not want them to control university education, why is the Government amending this Act? Why is it necessary to amend it now?

For legal purposes only.

Well, they are having a lot of trouble with law advisers all of a sudden. Everything now is illegal; there have been mistakes by the lawyers in drafting their Bills. I do not believe that this is only a legal construction and that the lawyers have said it must be amended. The lawyers have said that “Bantu education” includes university education. Is that not what the legal advisers say?

It can be interpreted like that.

I am sorry, Sir, did the hon. the Minister see the explanatory memorandum?

Do you think I did not see it? Stupid question!

Did you read it? It says this …

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause and not put questions to the hon. the Minister and expect an immediate reply.

I am not expecting him to give me a reply immediately, Sir. I just want him to get up, as soon as I sit down, and tell us what we want to know.

Paragraph (a) on page 6 of the explanatory memorandum reads, inter alia, as follows—

Sir, I am addressing the Minister; will the Minister please listen?

There are no “ifs” or “buts”. It is quite clear. The interpretation is that university education is included as well.

What about it?

That is the point; it means university education. There cannot be any doubt as to what it means. If the Transkei Government was given control of university education, why does this Government now want to take it away?

It was not given.

Sir, we passed this Act. We were a party to passing the Constitution Act, and education, which includes university education, was also covered by that Act. Now I ask the Minister: Why do they want to take university education away from the Transkeian Government? After all, we are told that they are about to become independent. The Prime Minister two years ago invited them to ask for independence. Surely when they become independent, they are going to control their own education. I want to know why they cannot control university education. The Minister must be frightened of something. Why must he take it away? I can understand that he gives more powers to them; but here he has given something but is now going to take it away. I hope the Deputy Minister will reply.

Mr. Chairman, the key to this matter is not to be found in the fact that the hon. member for Transkei has discovered only now what the Act provides or that these things were continued in the Act in this manner when one reads the speech he delivered yesterday, the key to his argument is to be found in the fact that he argued that the Act did in fact provide that the Transkei Government also had the right to control universities, because this fitted into his so-called federal system. He stated that very explicitly yesterday. Yesterday I told the hon. members opposite that they should go and read the debates which preceded the passing of these Acts. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Transkei whether he had read the schedules concerned.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2).

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Labour is one of the most important matters, or shall I say the most important matter, in the life of a person and in the life of a people. Labour is therefore, we can say, life itself. It is therefore my pleasure to move this motion this afternoon and to discourse on it.

Where is the Minister of Labour? [Interjections.]

Sir, the United Party is still confused after last Friday, and that is why they are now rowing with someone over there. The National Government has been working on the labour machinery since 1948 in order to set it right in this country. Measures were created by the National Government to order the socio-economic life in South Africa. I should very much like to dwell for a moment on the Durban events and mention a few matters we must bear in mind when we think of them.

In the first place it was not a dispute between the employees or the Bantu workers and the Government. It was dispute between employer and employee. These people felt, quite rightly, that they wanted to resolve the matter, and that is why they did certain things. There is not a single person on the National Party side, not a single member of the Cabinet, who is opposed to the improvement of the wages of Bantu workers, not one single one. It is also necessary to note that no one claimed there was no justification for wage improvements for these Bantu workers. The determination of minimum wages on a national basis is an impossibility. The United Party and its press have now said several times that a national minimum wage should be fixed. I want to say that this is impossible, because circumstances vary from place to place and from industry to industry.

Then we must bear another point in mind, and that is the role of supply and demand. Let me now tell you this afternoon, Sir, that if United Party policy had been applicable, or if they had been ruling, the position would have been much worse, because what does the hon. member for Yeoville say? He says we must allow the Bantu to sell their labour on the best labour market. This is nothing more than the uncontrolled influx of Bantu to the metropolitan areas. In other words, one’s supply becomes very large and one’s demand therefore smaller, and the result is that there is even more of an opportunity to pay those workers less. Sir, it will be a tragic day when the Government has to tell employers: “That is what you have to pay your workers; that is what you have to pay your Bantu workers.” I think it is only right that the employers and business entrepreneurs should also see these Bantu workers not as labour commodities or labour machines, but as people that have certain vital needs.

I then want to refer to the hon. member for Houghton, who can safely listen to this. I also want to refer to Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, who can also safely listen to it. This also applies to the hon. member for Hillbrow. The Government has not prohibited any business entrepreneur or employer from paying his Bantu workers more. Within the existing machinery, created by the Government, they could have paid those people what they were worth. But we must also keep another matter in mind, and that is that these business undertakings must realize that profits are not, and must not be, the only motive in the economy of this country. As far as productivity is concerned, I want to say that productivity rests, in the first place, with the management of business undertakings. They are the ones who must arrange their matters and organize them in such a way that they achieve the optimum utilization of labour. Cheap labour eventually becomes very expensive labour, and people never realize this.

We must also bear another point in mind. There were and are opportunities for in-service training and here the Railways set the example. No one has prohibited them from training their people, as long as they do not oust Whites in the process. Even with respect to Bantu education, it is the Government’s policy that the Bantu should be trained at school, academically and scholastically, to at least the primary school level, Std. 6, to make them ready to enter industry. Then they are qualified to receive further training.

When it comes to the communication channels established by this Government for employers to negotiate with their employees, we think of the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 1953, in which provision is made for works committees. Use could have been made of these works committees. Then we think, secondly, of the Wage Act, which provides for wage board sittings. We think also, thirdly, of the Conciliation Act, which provides for Bantu labour officials to sit on industrial councils in order to lodge pleas for increases in wages for Bantu.

There are also other matters we must bear in mind when we look at the Durban events, and one of them is that there were, in fact, agitators. No one can deny that. There were, in fact, agitators, people who wanted to stir up Black unrest, people who exploited these events in Durban, and the Durban wage situation for purposes other than the real ones. Then there were the intimidators whom we must also bear in mind, those people who tried to intimidate the willing Bantu who were satisfied to return to their work after negotiations had taken place.

There is another point we must think of, and that is that unreasonable and unfair demands were also made. Here I am thinking of the bus drivers who simply demanded double their present wages. Then there were those who refused negotiated action, who refused to negotiate when the employers wanted to negotiate with them. Mr. Speaker, the size of the families cannot serve as a basis for the fixing of wages. Workers are paid according to what they are worth. Another point we must bear in mind very clearly in this connection is that a person must not take upon himself responsibilities that he cannot meet. While thinking of these events, another matter which is very important is that the Bantu in White South Africa are here solely to sell their labour in South Africa. In addition the Government is helping the Bantu homelands to help themselves, and if I think of everything that is being ploughed into the homelands by a small White population in South Africa, I stand amazed. Last year, in 1971 -’72, R 125,8 million was pumped into the homelands to help them help themselves, and also to provide labour for them there.

How much do they contribute to White South Africa by their labour?

Sir, the Opposition accuses the Government of having stood aloof to the events in Durban and the Minister of having adopted a devil-may-care attitude. I think it is foolish to make such allegations. What should the Minister have done? Should he have flown down to Durban, and what should he have done there? Sir, the hon. the Minister held discussions here in Cape Town with several business entrepreneurs and industrialists who came to ask advice, and he gave them advice.

A general is usually at the battle scene.

In the meantime the Government was not sitting still. The Government sent heads of departments, inter alia, the Secretary of Labour, to Durban to see exactly what the problems there are, and police were sent to keep in check a potentially dangerous situation. Sir, we cannot but take note in passing either, of the calm, quiet and level-headed way in which the police handled this matter in Durban. We must also express appreciation to the Whites in Durban for the attitude they displayed in helping with essential services. They did not want to imply to the Bantu, in doing that, that they could do without them; they simply helped carry out essential services. Sir, it would also be only right for us to note with appreciation the conduct of those Bantu workers who decided to accept the higher wages they were offered, and who returned to their work without trying to strangle the goose that lays the golden egg. Sir, the United Party hides behind the Government.

They stick their heads into the sand like ostriches and hide behind the hon. the Minister of Labour and the Government. They carried on, helter-skelter and in a panic, as if something terrible were going on and as if the trouble could simply be resolved in a flash. Sir, I wonder what would have happened if something like this were to have taken place while they were in power? The whole Cabinet would have sat in Durban, and heaven alone knows what they would have done there. Sir, I just want to say that the Opposition has exaggerated and stirred up this matter; they have, thereby, in no way improved the position. But, Sir, there is yet another reason for the Opposition’s attitude. After all, they would very much like to have their integration ideas implemented, and hence this fuss. I want to tell you, Sir, that the policy of the National Party can only be changed at the polls, because the National Party has a mandate from the people, who have told the party: “This is what should be done.”

And then we think of the Industrial Conciliation Act. In 1948, when the National Party came into power, as early as October of that year, they appointed the Botha Commission to investigate industrial legislation. In 1952 a report was issued, and at the end of 1952 a ministerial committee was appointed to draw up legislation in that connection. In 1954 it was referred to a Select Committee after Minister Schoeman had stated the principles clearly in Hansard, Vol. 86, col. 5863. What were the principles? We must again test this against those principles. The primary basis of the Bill was to preserve industrial peace and quiet, and that was not simply snatched out of thin air. There were reasons for that, for going into this legislation, for having it investigated, and for having it drawn up. Last time we debated about this, the hon. member for Maitland said these were Jan Smuts’s Acts. The second principles was to have justice and justness done to both employer and employee. The third was to place labour relations on a sound footing. The fourth was to protect employees against exploitation and also to grant protection to the general public. The fifth was to maintain and improve the standard of living of employees. The sixth was to promote and to retain self-management in industry. The seventh was to place the economic progress of the various races on a sound footing. This Industrial Conciliation Act was passed in this hon. House by the National Party in 1956, and the following sections are very important to the National Party and to our people at large: There is section 4 which deals with racial division. The United Party again wants to undo that division. Section 6 deals with the division of assets, section 17 with the establishment of an industrial tribunal and section 77, another provision they want to delete, is aimed at eliminating racial competition. We know the history. We remember the outbursts that were forthcoming at the time from that side of the House and how the Opposition Press carried on and said it would mean the end of the trade unions in South Africa and would cause chaos. As one newspaper expressed it, it would be the “death knell” of the trade unions in South Africa. According to the predictions of those prophets of doom, South Africa would no longer have even existed today. But the United Party must give us unambiguous and clear replies to questions we have repeatedly put to them with respect to labour measures that exist and how they are applied by the hon. the Minister. They must tell us how they want to implement the “crash programme”. After all, the cry goes out: “Bring the Black labour in, uncontrolled, and this will solve all our problems.”

Who said so?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, surely, that the Prime Minister does not know what he is talking about because he speaks of a nation of 3¾ million people, while the nation consists of 20 million people.

What has that got to do with it?

We have, after all, the proof of all these things, and we want to know how they are going to implement the “crash programme” that they want. Do they want uncontrolled labour? How do they want to protect the Whites against exploitation and the Bantu against unfair competition on this basis? They must tell us; the first speaker on that side must tell us how they want to keep non-Whites out of supervisory posts over Whites. How do they want to manage this if they say that the Bantu and the Whites should simply be mixed together when working in the same job situation? We want to know how they get past that. They must tell us. Must Whites be enrolled as apprentices in White South Africa to be trained by Whites or non-Whites—in other words, Coloureds or Indians? They must not tell me now that it will work out. To give the next hon. member an opportunity to speak as well, I must now conclude.

Mr. Speaker, I move the following amendment—

I think one should welcome the opportunity to talk about labour in this House, and especially on this particular occasion and in this particular period in which we live and especially, perhaps, against the background of what has happened in Durban. I find it interesting that the hon. member for Hercules, who most probably—I say it in all courtesy—prepared his motion before the Durban incidents, devoted much of his speech to these very same Durban incidents. He made a few statements in that connection which I wish to deal with before I come to my amendment. The first is that he came forward once again with the old familiar cry that we stood for the uncontrolled influx of non-White labour. I have heard this argument so many times, and whenever we ask the other side for proof, we hear a long argument to the effect that we supposedly said by implication that we stood for uncontrolled influx. Apparently it does not help to say that that is not the truth and I wish to leave the matter just there, because I believe that we have now reached that stage where every thinking person in South Africa, including the workers of South Africa who can also think, knows that that is not the truth because any government which allows an uncontrolled influx of non-White labour in South Africa is totally irresponsible and certainly not worthy of the confidence of the people.

The other point which was made by the hon. member and which is interesting to me, is that he said that we had to remember, when it came to the Durban dispute, that it was a matter between the employer on the one hand and the employee on the other and that it had nothing to do with the Government or possibly the Department of Labour, to be specific. I wish to submit to the hon. member for consideration that his statement is not the whole truth. Even if it were the whole truth, I wish to put it to him this way: The picture would change completely if the employers or the employees called in the help of the hon. the Minister of labour to improve matters. I wonder whether the hon. member will agree with me that when I prove to him that the help of the hon. the Minister was called in an attempt to improve matters in Durban, it becomes a totally different matter. I say that it is then no longer a question of a dispute between employer and employee only. Then I say that in this particular instance a great responsibility also rests on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister of Labour. I now wish to read a passage which I found in the Financial Mail of 9th February of this year. In it appeared the following paragraph which I wish to read to the hon. the Minister, and then I want to take the matter a little further. The paragraph reads as follows:

I do not wish to name the firm—

The following short sentence forms the crux of the whole matter—

The Textile Workers Union stated that the request it had addressed to the hon. the Minister, and he is the only person to whom it could address this request, fell on deaf ears. Now I return to the hon. the Minister. This is my information, and if my information is correct, a completely different complexion is put on the whole matter. Firstly, it is my information that the Textile Workers Union went to the Natal division of the Department of Labour in May, 1970, and requested a wage determination in respect of the sayette and cotton divisions of the textile industry in Natal. That was in May, 1970. In June, 1970, a month later, the Department of Labour wrote back and said that the union of the sayette division and the cotton division had spoken, but to which division did the union give preference for such a wage determination? That was in June, 1970. The matter was investigated, and in September, 1970, they advised the department in writing that they were giving preference to a wage determination for the sayette division of the textile industry in Natal. And now, and this is why it is important …

How long ago?

Two and a half years ago. My information is, and this is in my opinion what makes the matter a serious one, that to date nothing has been heard from the Department of Labour. The only person in South Africa who can order a wage determination or order an investigation which can lead to a wage determination, is, according to my interpretation of the labour laws, the hon. the Minister of Labour. He is the only person who can order such an investigation, and if my information is correct, I cannot imagine that he would sit still in spite of the information which had reached him and that he did nothing as far as this particular matter in Natal is concerned. Now it would appear to me as if it is some of these very people, these thousands of people for whom there has been no wage determination, who went on strike and were involved in these problems in Durban. I think the hon. the Minister will understand if I say to him that in this respect a burden rests not only on the shoulders of the employer and the employee, but also on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister. Therefore he will understand if I say to him that in this respect he owes this House an answer.

The other point which I wish to raise in connection with the speech made by the hon. member for Hercules, is that he stated that we had supposedly exaggerated the events in Durban. I wish to say to him that he must choose his words carefully. He may have heard the wise words—“wise” as they were landed to the skies—and in my opinion a very natural statement for the hon. the Prime Minister to have made: “I also learnt a lesson.” Even he treated the matter very seriously. This afternoon I wish to say this to this House: It is true, the hon. the Prime Minister may have learnt a lesson, and I hope that he will apply it in the future …

You United Party people never learn.

… but I also wish to say that it is not only the Whites who have learnt a lesson, but just as important, if not more important, is the fact that the Bantu have also learnt a lesson, and that it may be of great importance to us to remember in the future that that was the case and that it is the very result of those particular incidents in Durban.

Now I wish to return to the motion and in my small way I wish to try to obtain a measure of consensus in this House, because I believe that labour matters are of extremely great importance to South Africa. As far as labour is concerned, the first point which I wish to make is that the economic progress we have achieved in South Africa over 60, 70 and more years, is the combined product of both Whites and non-Whites in South Africa.

With the United Party acting as a brake, bringing up the rear.

The hon. member is trying to be facetious and silly; I do not think it becomes him to do so. I repeat: The economic progress which has been made, is the product of the combined effort of both Whites and non-Whites in South Africa. My second point is—and I do not think that anyone can contradict me—that if we wish to go forward into the future in peace and with greater prosperity, then we must not go on as we have been doing. We shall have to maintain a greater measure of progress in South Africa if we wish to succeed in providing the growing mass of people in South Africa with work and food.

The National Party has always done that.

The conclusion I wish to draw from that is that in the future we shall increasingly be forced to make use of non-White and particularly Bantu labour in South Africa. Now I wish to ask: Is there anyone who differs with me? They are quiet. It seems to me as if I have consensus; they agree. If I have consensus, I wish to ask: Where does the Nationalist Party stand regarding this matter?

Look at our past.

Do they also agree that we shall have to use Bantu labour to an ever-increasing extent, or do they not agree? I remember that two years ago, in this the highest Chamber, the hon. member for Springs pleaded that the White economy be weaned of Bantu labour. There should no longer be Bantu labour—we should wean ourselves of it. We know how it works. The philosophy of the Nationalist Party is modelled …

On a controlled basis.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say in passing that all labour in South Africa is on a controlled basis. This “control” is a word which every responsible Government in South Africa applies. Forget about controlled and uncontrolled labour. That is no policy, but normal practice with every government. The point which I wish to make is that I know why my hon. friend for Springs says “wean the White economy of Bantu labour”. It is because that accords perfectly with the philosophy of the Nationalist Party which states: “Rather poor but White.” If the Whites in South Africa should become poor, hon. members can take it from me that the Black man, the Bantu, would be without work. They would not have work. That I do not doubt. My hon. friends must remember what Anton Rupert said: “If that Black man does not eat, then you, White man, will not sleep.” When I come here and plead for a change in approach regarding this matter, then I say to my Nationalist friends that they should not come here and talk of Whites who want to sell us out. They should not come along and say that I am fighting for the Black man. I am fighting for the preservation of civilization, for the White man and for the security and progress of the non-Whites in South Africa as well. I believe that if we cannot have peace and the goodwill of the Bantu in the labour pattern of South Africa, there is no future for the White man in this country.

Are you suggesting that we do not do that?

We should not think that we can buy the goodwill of the Black man. We cannot buy his affection. We should live in such a way that he will show it to us. Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister was right, but rather late, in reminding the people of South Africa that the time had arrived for us to remember that even the Black man, the worker, was not just a unit, but also had a soul. It is from this philosophy of the Nationalist Party that as far as South Africa is concerned the Black man is only here temporarily and is in fact a stranger and may leave tomorrow—here today and gone tomorrow!—that all the problems of South Africa spring.

The first problem is that, because the Bantu is regarded as a stranger, the Nationalist Party has over a period of 25 years purposely broken down, step by step, the traditional pattern and relationship which existed between employer and employee, until today one has next to nothing. In fact, one has now reached a stage, regarding labour in South Africa, where the Government stands between the Black worker and the White industrialist. The relationship which existed previously has been broken down completely.

What was the traditional relationship?

Point number two is that the Nationalist Party has in the course of 25 years done nothing to teach the Bantu how to become responsible workers in South Africa and to impress on them under what obligations they are when use is made of the labour machinery. We missed a golden opportunity: a quarter century has gone by and we have taught the Bantu workers nothing. They stood there in the cold as strangers while we could have used the opportunity to teach them how to behave as responsible workers and possibly as workers in a group on an organized basis. They did not learn. Look at the works committees. That was a wonderful idea. What became of them? Nothing whatsoever. There was no encouragement. Why not? This was the case because the philosophy of the Department of Labour and the Government is such that they do not really need them. A situation has arisen in South Africa in terms of which the Bantu are complete strangers, not only in the eyes of the White workers, but also in those of the White employers. One of the biggest mistakes we have made in South Africa, was the breaking down of the traditional relationship between employer and employee and the fact that we did not use this machinery.

Thirdly, we—and specifically the Nationalist Party—failed shamefully to encourage any training of the Bantu in South Africa. To tell me that we do not forbid training, is so much nonsense. Training must occur in a favourable atmosphere. The Nationalist Government has created no atmosphere by means of which the Bantu may be trained by the employer in South Africa. Now, we can talk about production just as much as we like, but unless we succeed in training the Bantu, I say we have done South Africa a disservice. We have done South Africa a disservice as a result of this particular philosophy of the Nationalist Party. No training, and now we stand where we do today! What can we do now? It is very clear what we must do now.

In my humble opinion, the first thing that must be done is that the poorest workers must immediately get a wage concession. I know that one cannot train a hungry person. One cannot argue and negotiate with a hungry person. [Interjections.] There are many people living under the breadline in South Africa. The first thing to be done is to make amends to the poorest amongst the poor; give them money immediately so that they may at least lead a viable existence to a certain extent. After that the machinery established by law, namely the works committees, must immediately be overhauled and put into operation. Establish them, as my hon. Leader said, by the hundreds and by the thousands. Encourage them and encourage them strongly and try to place the Bantu on that level where one may slowly but surely teach them to use the machinery.

Last but not least, there must be training. That I expect from the Government. It should not come along and tell me: “I forbid no-one to train a Bantu.” No, it should tell me: “I am going out of my way to encourage the people to train the Bantu; I create the atmosphere; I do not cloud the atmosphere through job reservation and physical planning; I create the atmosphere in which the employer will be prepared to train the employee, because in South Africa we need the services of the trained person.”

To conclude: Unless the Nationalist Party abandons its philosophy which makes the Bantu worker a stranger in South Africa, unless it takes heed of the words of the hon. the Prime Minister and remembers that it is not dealing with a work unit, no amount of talking or legislation in South Africa will put the matter right. What we need, is a complete change in approach, a realization that the interests of the labour force in South Africa are indivisible. One cannot divide it. One cannot expect the Whites to be prosperous and not the Blacks. If the one is not prosperous, the other will also become so. May I repeat, Sir, racial harmony and goodwill is the basis on which rests the prosperity of Whites and non-Whites alike, and unless the Government succeeds in arousing that attitude in South Africa, I say that no legislation, no ministerial speech nor any motion from the other side will contribute to solving the labour problem in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland has now been trying for 20 minutes to criticize this Government’s labour policy. Now I want to tell you, Sir, that he has failed hopelessly. I think it is certainly an unenviable task for any hon. member on that side of the House to criticize the labour policy of this Government, because I believe that for the past 25 years this Government’s labour policy has run like a golden thread through the history of South Africa. I believe that as a result of this Government’s labour policy we have had peace and quite in South Africa over this 25-year period, something which, I believe, is unique in the world. I believe there are many countries in the world that envy South Africa’s labour legislation.

Sir, some of my hon. colleagues have now returned from Europe. When one hears from them that there are strikes in almost every country in Western Europe at present, when they tell one that the petrol pump attendants and postal workers in Italy are striking, when they tell one of the succession of strikes in Belgium and that the Black man is also striking in Belgium, we cannot but express our thanks and appreciation for this Government’s good labour legislation over many years.

But, Sir, I should like to hurry myself along and tell hon. members on that side that I believe that the strikes that took place in Natal came like manna from heaven as far as they are concerned. In the first place, it carried them away from their so-called federation plan. In the second place, it gave them the opportunity to criticize this Government in a scandalous manner. In their criticism of this Government—and I am sorry to say this—hon. members on that side were guilty of great irresponsibility—and I am going to prove this. As a result of their over-zealous political opportunism, hon. members on that side made use of this opportunity to try to expose the Government, as though this Government’s labour policy had given rise to the strikes in Durban. Some of those hon. members, in their over-eagerness and haste to criticize this Government, were guilty of exaggeration and great irresponsibility. I am thinking, in particular, of the hon. member for Zululand—he is not here now—who made a certain statement in the no-confidence debate. After one speaker after another had spoken about this matter, he stated in passing: “The Bantu are busy looting the Indian shops in Durban.” When the hon. the Minister pointed out to him that it was not true that there had been any complains in that connection, he sat still, shrugging his shoulders. If an hon. member, moreover the Leader of the United Party in Natal, displays such irresponsibility, I wonder then whether the hon. member for Durban Point would not have been a better leader for the United Party men in Natal.

Bur, Sir, I want to come to the hon. member for Yeoville, and in speaking of the hon. member for Yeoville I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Prime Minister said. I want to tell him—and I say this with great respect and esteem—that in the years I have had the privilege of sitting in this House, I have always had great esteem for him. I think it is a shame that a person, who has done so much for the United Party over the years, should be refused point blank by the United Party in the Transvaal, if I may put it in those terms. Sir, as someone who has also been in politics for many years, I want to say this to the hon. member for Yeoville: One inevitably has political disappointments, and I want to say to the hon. member, with the utmost civility, that he must be careful that those political disappointments, which one inevitably experiences in politics from time to time, are not the cause of his suffering from the most serious of diseases, figuratively speaking—worse than cancer—i.e. political frustration, because if one suffers from political frustration one is inevitably inclined to do irresponsible things. I do not want to say that the hon. member for Yeoville is suffering from political frustration, but I want to tell you, Sir, that he has been guilty of doing seriously irresponsible things.

Has this any connection with the motion?

During the no-confidence debate I asked the hon. member for Yeoville whether he still adhered to his standpoint that the strikes in Durban could lead to a second Sharpeville, and this was the answer of the hon. member for Yeoville—

Sir, the hon. member for Hercules put the hon. the Minister’s contribution very clearly to this House. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that I think it is unfair and unjust to accuse the hon. the Minister of Labour of having adopted a lackadaisical attitude to matters that are of serious, cardinal importance. Sir, since he referred to Sharpeville, I want to tell the hon. member that we in this House must be careful. I just want to quote to you what appeared in the newspapers the following day. Here is a report from London (translation)—

Sir, let hon. members on that side of the House criticize this side of the House. Let them do so; that is their task, from the nature of the case, in season and out of season. Let them criticize this Government in respect of its labour policy, in season and out of season, but, Sir—I say this with the utmost responsibility at my disposal and I address these words to hon. members on that side—South Africa will forgive them everything, but if, in their over-zealous political opportunism, they are saying things to hurt South Africa, South Africa will never ever forgive them.

Sir, I want to turn briefly to the hon. member for Houghton before I show you what the actual reason for the strikes in Durban is. I do not want to fight with the hon. member for Houghton; I want to speak to her very nicely over the floor of the House. The hon. member is a person who stands up in this House, in season and out of season, and lodges pleas for the interests of the Bantu in South Africa, and I can find no fault with that whatsoever. She presents herself as the only spokesman for the Bantu in South Africa, in season and out of season. I just want to say in passing that I have respect for the hon. member’s standpoint, even though there is a world of difference between us, but I gain the impression that when the hon. member acts as spokesman for the Bantu here, it is merely lip service, “because she is not practicing what she is preaching”. She delivers pleas here in the House, and in practice she does not do what she is advocating here. Sir, you could have knocked me down with a feather when I read the following report in Die Vaderland of a few days ago …

That is a gross misrepresentation.

This report reads as follows (translation)—

I first thought this report could not be correct, but to my great surprise I saw the hon. member stating the next morning that the report is correct.

I said it was a gross misrepresentation.

I now want to remind the hon. member that it is logical that one should practice what one preaches, and I want to tell her, with great courtesy, that what she says in the House in future I shall take with a pinch of salt, because I believe that one must also practice what one preaches. Mr. Speaker, I say that hon. members opposite have accused this Government of being responsible for the disturbances that took place in Natal. The hon. member for Maitland quoted from the Financial Mail. I should also like to quote a small passage from it and draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that the Financial Mail is not a journal that supports this Government.

Nor this side of the House.

The Financial Mail states the following—

It then continues by pointing out what the wages are that are paid by this particular firm, concluding with the following—

Thus I could continue to quote here, from the Financial Mail, very illuminating figures in respect of what some of our biggest employers in the country pay for Bantu labour. I am thinking here, in particular, of the Anglo-American group. I could quote this, but I think that, seen in the light of the fact that their profits increased last year by almost 70% and they made a profit of more than R500 million, even Mr. Harry Oppenheimer and the Anglo-American group should also think seriously of searching their own hearts and paying their Bantu workers more. I am aware of the fact that there was a wage increase of 20%, but I really think that if they mean well, as far as the Bantu workers are concerned, they must search their own hearts. However, what astounds me most, as far as the Opposition is concerned, are their ideas—as we heard again today and as we heard during the no-confidence debate—about a link-up of Bantu in existing trade unions, the creation of, as they call it, affiliated trade unions. I want to ask the hon. members whether the conduct in Durban is sufficient proof …

Affiliated membership. There is a big difference.

Does the lesson we learn from Durban not make it clear to us that our Bantu today are not yet ready for trade unions? Trade unions are in their essence negotiating machinery. Negotiations must take place round a table between employer and employee. That is surely the essence of the trade unions. Means of communication, such as works committees, already exist, although I do not have much time to devote to that. I want to conclude by saying, and I direct this at the hon. members of the Opposition: To think like Tucsa, or like the Opposition who trots after it with this affiliated membership story of theirs, that the Bantu and the country’s economic position can only improve if the Bantu are linked to existing trade unions, is not only an illusion, but would most certainly be the most dangerous and foolish action any Government in South Africa could take, i.e. recognizing Bantu trade unions in this country. This Government definitely does not intend to experiment with South Africa’s stability in such a for some people popular, though nevertheless basically reckless way. I therefore want to ask the employers in South Africa, who are serious about the maintenance of good labour relations in their respective industries, factories and places of work, to now use to the full this only practically acceptable communication machinery, i.e. that of works committees. Let fair and just wage improvements come gradually; if not, I believe we are all going to suffer. It is my pleasure to support the motion of the hon. member for Hercules, and just a final thought: I believe that as a result of the fortunate labour policy of the Government, it will be our fate to continue with that for another 25 years.

Mr. Speaker, save for conceding the fact that the question of the minimum wage as determined can be improved upon by the employer, which is what the hon. the Minister of Labour alleged when he addressed the House last week, I must say with the utmost responsibility that we must lay on his shoulders the entire blame for the unrest in South Africa today in the labour field. This is not a question of political opportunism of which this side of the House has been accused by the previous speaker.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No. For a number of years this side of the House has been drawing the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that he has all the necessary powers in his hands through the Wage Board to ensure that constant cognizance was taken of the increasing cost of living and of the necessity to ensure that workers receive fair and reasonable remuneration for their services. In fact, it was my privilege in 1959 to address this House and the hon. the Minister of Labour at that time on this entire question and to make certain suggestions with regard to the basis of the minimum wage, as we call it, and which is known in some other countries as the “basic wage of the worker.”

Are you in favour of it?

Sir, I say that …

No, reply to the question!

I say that when these problems arose recently, instead of the hon. the Minister of Labour coming to this House in a responsible manner and allaying the fears of the country, advising the country that he had the matter well in hand, he resorted to certain political manoeuvring in order to highlight whatever was said on this side of the House in questioning him about the situation, on a purely political basis. I say that was most irresponsible and something for which the hon. the Minister must take the full blame. Let me go further There have been complaints from the Government side as to our pleas for am improvement in wages. There have been complaints as to whether one ought to expect the wage to be measured against the size of the family or against the productivity of the worker. I can do no better than to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of Labour to Die Kerkbode of 24th January, 1973. This is a very responsible magazine. It is I think issued monthly and this issue deals with this whole question on a very much higher basis than the Government side of the House. Let me for instance read the conclusion to another editorial written in another responsible newspaper called Loog, issued by the students of the University of Potchefstroom. It reads as follows—

This is the conclusion of quite an interesting and important article supporting this whole question of wages; in fact, in both journals there is the same theme that the Government as the leader of the country’s destinies should accept the responsibility to ensure that there are proper conditions of labour and that people are being paid sufficient so that they can live decently. I do not want to continue reading it, but the hon. the Minister can receive these at any time he likes; then he will learn, and so will people on the Government side, a very important lesson on the moral aspects of dealing with the labour situation in this country and not the political aspects of dealing with it. That is the most important issue in South Africa today in order to maintain peace and harmony among our people. After all what is the objective of the Government if it is not to maintain harmonious progress and growth in South Africa which will give contentment to all sections of our community and enable all of them to play their part in the building up of a country like our great country.

Let me go further. The hon. the Minister talked about works committees. He said that he had all the necessary machinery. Does he realize—and I am sure that he as the Minister of this important portfolio should realize—that the Wage Board is very badly understaffed? It cannot maintain a constant surveillance of wages throughout the country, even if the Minister had been sufficiently inspired over the last 10 or 15 years to ensure that constant care was taken to know what was going on in the wage field. In a country like Australia they have had arbitration and conciliation legislation since 1903. They have instituted a tribunal which consists of a very much larger number of people than is provided for in South Africa. There for instance—I can tell him right away—the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, at the end of 1969, had a president, five deputy presidents, a senior commissioner, 11 commissioners and four conciliators, and it also had the right to make use of other commissioners if necessary, in order to maintain this watch over the wage situation in the country. I may say that their total labour force is no greater than the total labour force of South Africa. I do not want to go into the question as to what the minimum wage should be, because the examples I have given from these publications make it clear that any decent reasonable man wants people to work for a wage which will enable them to live decently in a reasonably civilized manner. These are the words which the Wage Act actually uses. The Wage Board itself cannot go beyond the immediate provisions of the Statute itself, and it is bound by certain provisions in section 7. We know that, as was rightly pointed out by the hon. member for Maitland, the whole attitude of the Government has been such in so far as the country is concerned, that there has been complete disrespect for the value of unskilled labour in this country. There have been no normal conditions under which unskilled labour has been permitted to exist. There have been no normal attitudes towards unskilled labour; in fact, had the Government shown a different attitude and had it shown respect, the respect about which hon. members of that party are now talking, we would have had an entirely different approach. They talk about “temporary sojourners” who have come to sell their labour, but they do not have any regard for the personal or the family lives of these persons. There is no question of dignity of labour, something very much pleaded for in Die Kerkbode. All the normal requirements, such as adequate housing, proper training, recreation and other social amenities are completely missing. Does the Minister of Labour expect the employer to provide this? The employer is after all living a hard economic life; he is human just as all employers have been over the centuries. Unless they themselves are led towards sound thinking by a proper responsible Government, they cannot respond. That is where the lead should have come from; it is there where the responsibility rests upon the hon. the Minister of Labour. He is afraid, and so are other hon. members like the mover of the motion, that there will be an “onbeheerde instroming van arbeid” if any improvement takes place. This is the biggest nonsense in the world! If the hon. member would only consult the various divisional inspectors of labour throughout the country, he would know as we know that the Bantu is coming into the labour market because the White man is moving into other fields. There are many fields which he has neglected completely. He does not want to make use of those fields. So the Bantu is coming in. Who can prove that it is not a fallacy to say that, if you improve their standard of wages or their standard of conditions of labour, they will push the White man out of a job? I think it is absolute nonsense. Even the Physical Planning Act, which restricts labour, results in the hon. the Minister constantly having to deal with applications for more and more labour because of the expansion of industry on the Witwatersrand.

Also the building industry.

Yes, it is perfectly true in regard to the building industry too. There are many industries in which there is a constant demand for certain types of labour, fields in which the White man today does not want to play his part because he has now moved into other and perhaps more lucrative fields.

There is another point I wish to make. It is interesting to know how people, who have a high moral standard, think. According to this particular publication:

I quote this to show that a minimum amount of education results in the productivity which the hon. Minister and the employers are concerned about. I can go even further. One of the biggest employers in the country, Huletts, the big sugar people of Natal, maintain—and I shall give you the actual words of one of the leaders of that industry, Dr. van der Pol:

He goes further and tells us that, if the slack is taken up on the technological side of industry today, if there is better and more efficient management, and if there is the incentive to make use of labour which it can regard as something of value, something that is more human than mere units and chattels, then management itself will ensure that the more unskilled workers that come in, the greater will be the productivity and the more they will learn just as everyone else has had to learn in years gone by.

There is another factor which is very important in the growth of South Africa, and is very neatly described by Nedbank in one of its reports:

The entire export market of South Africa depends on the internal consumer market. It is a point we have stressed on many an occasion in order to encourage the thinking of the government with regard to the proper use of labour. We believe that works committees should be established on a practical basis, as my hon. leader has said. If the hon. the Minister and his followers are sincere when they say there is adequate machinery, we believe they should make use of that machinery to teach the Bantu that he has an opportunity to negotiate with and talk to his employer. They should not, as the hon. Minister has done, dismiss him and say he has not yet reached that stage, that he is a different type of person. They say he must have an induna to look after his work. He is not one who can talk to his employers. Here the Government is taking 7 or 8 million Bantu people of South Africa, a number of whom by our standards are completely uncivilized, and wants to give them self-government. It has established Cabinets for them, chief ministers, flags and anthems. It resorts to all the trappings of modern, democratic parliamentary life in order to install these people. Indeed, many of them are capable of achieving it for they have their leaders. In this way the Government has had some chance of talking to someone because there are leaders today who are sufficiently educated to deal with that. Why then cannot the worker, especially the sophisticated urban worker, whose father may have been a labourer before him, has grown up in a town and has rubbed shoulders with labour over years, be given the opportunity of learning through a practical works committee—which can also be encouraged as an appendix of a trade union—be trained, developed and taught how to negotiate with regard to conditions of work, his wages and all other matters which are so important to the worker.

Why can that not be done? It cannot be done only for one reason, namely because there is a peculiar fixation of ideology, particularly in the mind of the hon. the Minister of Labour—I do not want to be personal, because he probably had predecessors of similar ilk—that believes that if they keep the Bantu worker down it will keep the White worker on top. That is nonsense. The White worker will be able to develop even further and rise to greater heights and make use of his background over centuries if he has this tremendous proletariat working with him, a proletariat which can be used for so many different and varied occupations, in the light of the industrial and commercial development in this country. I need hardly repeat the trite points, namely that the tremendous yield of our mineral wealth has been made possible through the fact that we have been able to use teams of Bantu workers who are prepared to do this type of work because it gives them a means of earning money for themselves and their families. I cannot see why there should be any sense of fear in the mind of the hon. the Minister. I say that whilst boasting that we have perhaps the best legislation in the world, he should realize that the best legislation comes from years back. It is not a new gimmick that has been evolved by this Government. There are other countries in the world from which we can learn lessons. Although the Minister will reply that they have more strikes than we have—our legislation is peculiar because of our particular problems, and I have no quarrel with that—I say that they have a very much more enlightened approach to labour which enables their people to earn very much better wages.

One final point is about the minimum wage which, although it affects mainly the Bantu, also affects every other person in this country, because there is no differentiation of colour or race when wage boards make their determinations. That cannot be one of their conditions. It is interesting to note that in Australia the actual basic wage, the wage at which a person can live decently in terms of a principle which was established in 1907 for the average worker, excluding overtime, rose from 20,62 dollars per week—their dollar is equivalent to our rand today—in 1950 to 52,17 dollars in 1969. In a matter of 20 years it rose not by a percentage, but to a livable standard. This falls in with the last point I want to make in regard to percentages. To say that a person gets 100% more because he used to earn R2 a week and now gets R4 a week and that consequently he has had an enormous increase in salary is utter nonsense. In fact, if you take this percentage principle to its ultimate, you reach a complete state of absurdity. If a man earns R500 a month and get a 10% increase, he receives R550. The man who earns R100 a month will then get R10 more. If you give another 10% increase, the man who now earns R550 gets R55 more, whereas the man who now earns R110 gets R11 more. His increase has then risen by R1, while the other man’s increase has risen by R5. When you talk about percentages, you continually increase the gap. It is a completely fallacious basis on which to work. I believe that, as I have said many a time here, there should be what we call an effective minimum level, a poverty datum line or call it what you wish. What I think we should really call it is a basic wage to enable every person to live decently, in other words, to enable a worker to get to his place of business, to have the transport to get there and pay for it, to have some clothing to wear in order to be civilized, as we call it, to have a home where his wife and children live and to be able to feed them. We do not need anything more than those basic important requirements. If we base our improvement of legislation, thought and direction on these factors, that a person must have the bare necessities to enable him to start the labour in a fit and contented manner, even though it is merely sweeping a floor, then we will have a proper basic wage from which to start. From then on, with training, teaching and experience, productivity will increase. I say that any Government that is worth its salt does not sit back and let other people decide the destiny of the country. The representatives of the Government ought to give a lead, because the Government should not lose control of the destiny of a country. That is what the hon. member for Yeoville meant by what he said. He did not say anything to “vernietig Suid-Afrika”. No, no! He said something that was very important. The destiny of our country lies, unfortunately at the moment, in the hands of the Government, because the Government is in power. But that destiny is something that dare not be sacrificed.

You have never been so prosperous.

I could not care what that hon. member interjected but I say: The destiny of the country should not be sacrificed by the Government through this peculiar ideological approach they have. There must be courage. There must be a new direction. A lead must be given. That will spread throughout industry and commerce, which are very sensitive to any lead that the Government may give.

Mr. Speaker, in expressing our appreciation here for the labour policy of the National Party Government, we must necessarily contrast policy with policy, we must necessarily compare the policy of the National Party with that of the United Party. This applies to an even greater extent this afternoon, after an amendment has been moved, an amendment which is worded in such a way as to reject the policy of the National Party and which then, by implication, recommends their policy.

Sir, in one of the debates last year the hon. the Minister summarized the labour policy of the National Party in one single sentence when he said that as long as the National Party was in power the colour bar would be maintained in our labour legislation. Sir, because the National Party can give this assurance to the White worker, the White worker knows where he stands with this Government. But, Sir, the same does not apply to the United Party. The Minister said in that same speech:

In reaction to that speech and that statement, the hon. member for Yeoville became very serious. I will not say that he became angry, but he was irritated. Now I wish to say this afternoon that it is immaterial to us whether or not the United Party differs with our policy. It is immaterial to us whether or not they become annoyed when we draw conclusions from their policy with which they do not agree. But I want to tell them one thing: We wish to assure them that we shall continue with our interpretations and conclusions until we know exactly what that party’s labour policy is which they are, by implication, trying to present here this afternoon—that policy which they want to be adopted in place of the policy of this Government. Lip service is decidedly no longer enough. The speakers opposite have not spoken this afternoon on basic, fundamental matters of policy. They have spoken about measures.

The United Party has changed its overall policy. The United Party has not changed its overall policy. I do not know which of these two statements is correct. But a policy is being presented now, a policy in terms of which they are creating an upper structure, something new and strange in our political thinking, an upper structure which they call “a federal assembly”. Sir, one of the building-bricks of that upper structure is manpower. That body will, among other things, talk about manpower. Sir, what does that word “manpower” include? It includes the whole of the field of labour. We wish to put a very simple question to the United Party this afternoon. We ask them whether that one building-brick of that upper structure which we have been discussing this afternoon, namely labour policy, makes provision for the retention of the colour bar concept, as it is embodied in our policy. Sir, I ask this question because should the answer be “no”, then surely we would have reason to accuse the United Party of sounding the death knell to the White worker should they come into power.

Sir, in the handling of the whole labour question, it is necessary that we take account of four. Time does not allow me to discuss all four of them, but what I feel is involved here is, firstly, the political parties; secondly, the worker with his organizations and his leaders; thirdly, the employer; and, fourthly, those people who wish to dictate policy in respect of labour or the labourer from outside the field of politics, for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the worker.

Sir, regarding the first matter, viz. the political parties, I need say nothing about the National Party. What has not been said, will still be said this afternoon in respect of our policy. I need also say nothing about the Progressive Party. We have here a pamphlet, “This is our Policy”, distributed in Johannesburg West. Sir, I can give you the assurance that it is larded with integration from A to Z—undisguised integration—and that is sufficient. We know exactly what that embraces.

Sir, concerning the United Party, we have unfortunately quite a number of problems, some of which I just want to mention here. Our first problem is that we do not know whether any labour policy which the United Party announced in the past, will still be their policy tomorrow or the day after, for the simple reason that the chairman of the Transvaal United Party, Mr. Harry Schwarz, appointed some time ago a commission with tremendously wide terms of reference, a commission charged with a tremendous number of tasks, which really amounted to a rewrite, a reformulating, of the United Party’s labour policy, which would first be submitted to the Transvaal and then to their federal body. We know that Mr. Harry Schwarz is a man for “change”, and I believe that that labour policy will be full of “change”. It will be revolutionary in the extreme. Sir, I do not wish to come back to the hon. member for Yeoville; he himself must explain why he is not collaborating in that formulation of policy in respect of labour, because he does not serve on that committee. We have a second major problem, viz. with the hon. member for Hillbrow. Just this last weekend he said at Caledon in respect of these matters—

“Change,” Sir. That hon. member is good enough to be vice-chairman to Mr. Harry Schwarz, the chairman of the Transvaal United Party. Now we can imagine for ourselves how close those two “change” men are to each other. Sir, it is that same hon. member for Hillbrow who will be marked in this House in future as the man who made a speech on discrimination. We remember his speech on discrimination which he made here the other day in the no-confidence debate. That speech would not have been serious, but what disturbs me, and what should disturb the United Party, is that he was a member of Sprocas, which is the offspring of the Institute for Race Relations …

That is totally untrue. I have never been a member of it.

Sir, the public Press reported that he had been a member. Now the hon. member denies it in this House this afternoon. Were you a member of the economic committee of Sprocas?

[Inaudible.]

Very well then. Then I do not want to impute things to him which they said. But then the hon. member should rise in this House and tell us that what was decided by the economic committee of Sprocas, is not the trend which United Party thinking is following. Apparently he does not wish to be associated with those people, and I think we should pat him on the back for that. But those people have come to the conclusion “that South Africa is the opposite of a responsible society”. Not John Vorster, not Marais Viljoen, not the National Party, not the National Party Government, but South Africa. May we accept that a responsible member from the opposite side can join those people in saying these things, viz. “that South Africa is not a responsible society”?

† The hon. member for Hillbrow was a member of the Sprocas Economic Commission according to the newspapers. This is what they found. They suggested “the abolition of migratory labour, the scraping of the industrial colour bar, the abolition of laws which prevent Black families from living together in towns”.

On a point of order, has this anything to do with the motion?

Yes, I shall just explain it now. It has a great deal to do with this motion, the reason being that those people are formulating a new policy at the moment, a policy which they wish to present to the people, a new labour policy. Mr. Harry Schwarz is reformulating it now. Now we have an hon. member, the member for Hillbrow, who has associated himself with these people to whom I have just referred. He is involved in this matter, or he must deny it now, stating to what extent he was not involved in it.

Sir, we have another problem. I refer to the hon. Senator Bill Horak, who openly, in public, contradicted his leader. I am glad his hon. Leader is here. That leader said in this House that if clause 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act were repealed, Whites would not work under non-Whites. Senator Horak stated, however, that that could in fact happen.

Sir, I do not have the time to go into all this detail. I shall let this suffice since the hon. Senator is not here to defend himself.

But we have a fourth problem, which concerns the statement made by the chairman of the South African Wages and Productivity Association, a Mr. Pearce. Mr. Pearce said—

Sir, I would like to see any member on the other side of this House rising here and saying that they do not endorse this standpoint of Mr. Pearce’s. This was reported in the Rand Daily Mail of 9th May last year. I would like to say something in connection with the trade unions. Perhaps I could just make this one point. Tucsa’s point of departure in connection with this whole matter of labour is that they believe in going all out in so far as the admission of non-Whites to White trade unions is concerned. This is also endorsed by Mr. Murray, their senior vice-chairman. Because of the time factor, I shall content myself with these comments. I wish to put this question to the United Party: If they reject our policy by way of an amendment this afternoon, are they going to be content with Mr. Harry Schwarz going all out for the policy of integration in the field of labour? Is the hon. member for Hillbrow—he is laughing now—prepared to go all out, as Tucsa wishes to do? I stress “all out”, because if they went “all out”, they would be supporting the hon. member for Houghton unconditionally. The other day, when the hon. member for Hillbrow was standing there talking and making his “discrimination” speech, we had to witness the spectacle of the member for Houghton literally licking her lips at seeing how he was walking into her net for this labour policy. I want to conclude with this: I believe that we can with every right move a motion of thanks to the Government today, because those people lost an election in 1924 as a result of their labour policy. In 1948 they were also defeated as a result of their labour policy. Truly, they will never come into power again, also as a result of their labour policy. Therefore we thank the Government for sticking to its guns in the matter of its labour policy.

Mr. Speaker, here in the year 1973, I pinched myself to see whether we were really here. We have listened to speeches that could have been made round the year 1914 during the strike period then. It was difficult to follow the speech of the hon. member for Westdene since it was impossible to know what he was really getting at. He was so muddled up with Harry Schwarz and my friend here from the Progressive Party that he did not know whether he was coming or going.

When this motion appeared on the Order Paper it looked a very innocent one, praising the Government. We have become used to these motions. We had one a couple of years ago and we have this one here from the hon. member for Hercules. As it was said by the hon. member for Maitland it is quite evident that this motion was thought out and published before we had our troubles in Natal. The Government was inclined during the no-confidence debate and speakers on that side were so inclined today too to try to blame the employers for what has happened in Natal. I think that we in South Africa—as I have said we are now in the year 1973—and particularly the Government, should take note of what the situation is. We not only have the Whites in this country; we have the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu. It is a fact that we have to live with. One of the characteristics of this House at present in so far as the Government is concerned, is that they are trying to run away from that fact. Throughout the whole of the no-confidence debate and today they did that. Our friend, the hon. member for Welkom, speaking at the rate of a machine gun, tried to make a case for the Government. What is the Government’s responsibility as far as the Bantu is concerned? I know that they are at present trying to hand over Bantu Affairs to the Department of Bantu Administration and Coloured Affairs to the Department of Coloured Affairs. But here in the latest report of the Labour Department it is stated quite clearly what the responsibility of the Government is as far as Bantu labour is concerned. It is no use members telling this House that it is a case of employer and employee. I blame the Government and not the Department. Here it says quite clearly (R.P. 75/1972, P. 11):

In applying this Act …

That is the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act—

That puts the responsibility right back on the hon. the Minister. I quote further—

We know full well that there must be hundreds of factories in this country, employing a considerable amount of labour and one wonders why we do not have more works committees. What happened in Natal did not happen overnight, because these things do not just happen overnight. I am fairly certain that had the Government applied the Act and the regulations and had they done their job, they would have noticed what was happening. I am fairly certain that the employers and the employees could have got together under the Act, but that did not happen. We know what can happen in this country and we know what world conditions are today. We had the peculiar position of the hon. the Minister sitting in this House when the serious state of affairs existed in Natal—it was serious; there is no running away from it—when he should at least have been there to find out what it was all about. I am surprised that he at this stage has not set up a commission of inquiry in order to find out exactly what the position is. The situation just cannot be left as it is. Something has to be done. Not the employer or the employee, but the Government has to initiate the steps to find out what the position is because what happened in Natal can spread. The labour unrest that we have had there can spread. Something is wrong and I think that the hon. the Minister and the Government have failed in their duty as far as this dispute is concerned. It is peculiar and silly when you read the motion of the hon. member for Hercules …

What is silly about it?

It says—

We know what has happened; it is surprising that this motion was not scrapped in the light of that.

I would like to get back to the workers in general. As I have said, we have had similar motions every year in the past. I would like to say to the hon. member for Hercules that although the Government has been in power for 25 years, the foundation for the industrial machinery was established by this side of the House, by the United Party. The hon. member read out a complete list of amendments that have been made to the Industrial Council legislation, but those amendments have not benefited that legislation. Every one of those amendments—and I have had quite a lot to do with them—has had the effect of watering down that legislation to such an extent that today that legislation does not serve as a link between employer and employee, but it functions between the Government, the employer and the employee. The Government has taken … [Interjections.] Yes, it is true. The hon. the Minister can laugh but the idea behind the whole Industrial Conciliation Act is collective bargaining between employer and employee. However, that has largely disappeared today. That has happened because the hon. the Minister has taken upon himself the right to establish trade unions without proper representation. He did that not so long ago just to help a certain gentleman and a certain union, which then turned against him. The idea was that the unions should become party to the Nationalist Party. There is no greater danger to a trade union than to get allied to any political party. It is wrong, and trade unions do not usually ally themselves to political parties. The Government has resisted any suggestion of real social security for the worker. The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions said last year that the Government has no policy of social security. It is well to read in the report of the Department of Labour how many agreements have been put into effect and to take this into consideration. I quote from page 7: “Approximately 770 000 workers were covered by pension and provident funds provided for in industrial council agreements, while approximately 380 000 workers were members of the funds which had been established for providing medical aid.” The Industrial Council and the employers have got together and are providing social security, something which the Government has failed to do. The workers have nothing to thank this Government for because there are thousands of workers who are not covered by any pension or medical aid benefits …

Who opposed the introduction of compulsory medical schemes?

That is not the point. This concerns ordinary employer-employee relations as far as the negotiating of agreements is concerned. You would know that if you had had anything to do with it.

You opposed it …

No, it has not been opposed by anybody. In all my experience, it has been a matter of negotiating between the employer and employee. If the hon. member had anything to do with it, he should know that. What has the employee got to thank this Government for? Then the Government comes along with this motion this afternoon and tries to bluff its way through and claim that it is the friend of the worker. The hon. member for Westdene and other members only get in at elections by trying to frighten the White worker. They say: If you do not vote for our Nationalist Party, you will lose your job because the Black man will do the job.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. the Minister of Mines said just the other day at a meeting of the Mineworkers Union that, if productivity did not improve as far as the White miner was concerned, they would have to accept that Black workers would move in on mines. I think hon. members must wake up to the fact that it is 1973. Let us not live in the past. In order for South Africa to exist, industrially, to be the nation it should be, we must make use—and I want to emphasize this—of the labour that is available. That does not mean that we are going to put every white man out of a job. Hon. members here know that that is not the truth. It is nothing else but cheap Nationalist propaganda. I think it is sheer impertinence for an hon. member of the Nationalist Party to come along and put such a motion on the Order Paper, because they are not the friends of the worker. Furthermore, nothing has been said about the wage structure of the workers. Over the last few years there has been devaluation, which in effect has meant nothing else but a reduction in their cash earnings. The cost of living has not gone up; the value of the rand has gone down, but the Government has done nothing about that. They say: Now, with cheaper labour, we can improve our exports to the overseas markets. The worker does not realize that fact. In the process of devaluing, the workers have lost out and they are feeling the effect today. This is the Government which is the friend of the worker!

Mr. Speaker, after having listened now to the reaction of the Opposition to this motion of the hon. member for Hercules I realize to what a great extent the incident in Durban is regarded as a welcome argument for their integration policy. They are reading various things into this now. They are reading into this firstly that work reservation should be abolished. They are reading into this that the Bantu should be trained in order to enter White spheres of employment. They are also reading into it, in the words of the hon. member for Maitland, that the Bantu should be absorbed. This is the other term now for that of the hon. member for Yeoville who offers the Bantu affiliated trade union membership. Next week, on the basis of a motion of the hon. member for Houghton, we are going to discuss in this House the question of the recognition of Bantu trade unions. I think it would be a very good thing if the House were to give this matter its attention. It would also be a very good thing if the Opposition could then be afforded an opportunity of adopting a very clear standpoint on this matter, and does not adopt a standpoint which is perhaps going to amount to their saying: “It is now what it is.” I really hope that next week, when hon. members on that side participate in the debate, we do not have an “it is now what it is” attitude in regard to the United Party’s attitude on Bantu trade unions. This matter is of such real importance to South Africa that any responsible party, particularly one which aspires to take over the Government, should be very clear on this matter. Meanwhile I am not going to occupy my time with it, and I let it stand over for next week.

I come now to this motion which we have before us. In this motion the House is being requested to express its appreciation to the Government for the labour policy and the machinery which has been created, which has given us this great measure of labour peace in this country. In dealing with a motion of this nature it is a good thing to remember that it was this party which, when it came into power, immediately proceeded, under the leadership of our present Minister of Transport when he was still Minister of Labour, to appoint the Botha Commission with one major object, which was to overhaul our labour legislation in this country properly and cause it to satisfy the requirements of the time. As far as the results of this are concerned, as far as the legislation which resulted from that Botha inquiry is concerned, from that very first step which this Government took, we achieved considerable improvements for the workers of South Africa. For example we found that their basic conditions of service were being gradually improved. We achieved various essential protective measures such as work reservation, which is built into our legislation to eliminate racial friction in this country so that one may have a harmonious labour force in this country. As far as social safeguards are concerned, the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act were constantly adjusted. Over these past 25 years these two social measures have been constantly adjusted to provide the workers with improved benefits. Thanks to this humane and realistic approach on the part of the Government, thanks to this labour policy which was implemented in this manner, South Africa can today, after a quarter century of National Party Government, boast of this labour peace which we have in this country, a labour peace which in comparison with the rest of the world is something unique and without precedent. That labour unrest has in fact occurred, as now in Durban, is true, and because the Opposition have made it their principal task to refer to this, I intend to confine myself to this in the rest of my speech.

Firstly, as far as the Durban matter is concerned, I want to express my sincere thanks to all who co-operated in bringing this situation under control and dealing with it. On behalf of the Government I want to express my greatest appreciation to all of them. As far as my own Department of Labour is concerned, its local office in Durban handled the situation there under very difficult circumstances. They were in continual contact with the Bantu strikers. It may perhaps surprise hon. members, who at times can be so critical of the way in which the settlement was reached, that many of those Bantu strikers in Durban preferred to liaise with the officials of the Department of Labour rather than with those of other organizations.

At the same time I want to express my greatest appreciation to the South African Police for the extremely tactful way in which they handled an extremely difficult situation. They deserve our greatest respect, and this I consequently want to add to what has already been said to them.

We agree.

It is unfortunately the case that employers were only prepared to grant wage increases, which they had previously opposed, as a result of the situation which then arose. It is a great pity that they only then agreed to do so. There is the case of a specific employer in a specific industry who at a Wage Board inquiry during the past year maintained that the basic wage for the worker could not be increased by 92 cents per week. They opposed the increase which was proposed only last year by the Wage Board. But just before the strike, when the strike was imminent, the same concern was prepared to increase the wages immediately by R2 per week.

A pattern which emerges from this strike in Durban is that employers who previously did not find higher wages possible have now suddenly found that they are. It is therefore a pity, I think this is a lamentable charge against such employers, that a strike had to force them to give workers a wage which they were in fact capable of giving before. I want to emphasize that the wages which are prescribed in terms of the Wage Act are minimum wages. The wages prescribed in the Wage Act and in the Industrial Conciliation agreements are mini-Prime Minister and other responsible mum wages. I want to repeat what the people have already said: There is nothing in the Wage Act or in the Industrial Conciliation Act which prohibits any employer in this country from paying higher wages. I shall come in a moment to that specific aspect, but I want to say that it is deplorable that employers maintained at the Wage Board inquiries that they were unable to pay higher wages, and then waited for strikes before paying what was in fact within their means.

On the other hand it is also true that strikers made certain wage demands which were unrealistic, demands which could not be met. Let me mention a single example. There was the case of between 1 000 and 1 000 Bantu workers who were receiving R9 per week from a specific firm. Without any indication, request or warning, they proceeded to strike. The first indication the employers then received from those making the demands was that they wanted R20 per week. Shortly afterwards they increased this demand to R30 per week. There is another case where workers who were receiving R31 per week demanded R80 per week. In spite of unrealistic demands of this nature employers did let it become apparent that they were in many cases paying their workers less than they were capable of and ought to have been paying.

But, Sir, I want to repeat, despite the way the English-language Press has berated me personally in this connection, that this wage situation was in fact thoroughly exploited by agitators. I repeat, despite the pleasant way in which I have been berated, that all those involved in this matter—and this includes the Police—are of the opinion that more was at stake than wage demands. Is it not then my duty, and the duty of anyone involved in this matter, to inform the country of this? The Government is aware of this matter, and I just want to state that the Government will pursue this aspect of the disturbances, this incitement of people by agitators who took advantage of the wage situation for additional purposes, and that the Government will certainly see to it that those concerned are brought to book.

Would you tell us more about this?

The hon. member will hear about this in due course.

Not today?

No. Today is the occasion for dealing with this motion in this connection. Sir, since these are the factors which played a role in the strikes, the role played by a section of the English-language Press and the Opposition is so reprehensible.

As always.

Yes. I repeat that in this case the role played by the English-language Press and the Opposition in this connection was reprehensible. Tendentious banner headlines appeared in the English-language Press in Durban, which tended rather to fan the strikes than to bring calm. Sir, a strike in any country in the world is a difficult and delicate matter to deal with, but I think that in a multinational country such as this a Bantu strike is an exceptionally delicate matter, and when one has to deal with a delicate matter such as a strike, which is also being egged on by additional motives, then it requires the greatest measure of sound judgment, not only on the part of the State; it requires the greatest measure of sound judgment on the part of everyone who is able to influence those people, whether it is the Press or whether it is the Opposition. But what sticks in my craw as far as this matter is concerned is the attitude of the Opposition which on the one hand elaborates clamorously on the maintenance of labour peace while on the other hand there are members of the Opposition who participate in firms that pay Bantu workers insufficient wages, and who are guilty of statements, such as those we heard in this House as well, which do not promote labour peace but tend instead to encourage labour unrest. I am thinking now of the hon. member for Zululand who in this debate again referred emphatically to “looting”. I have his speech here in my hand. Three times in this speech he spoke of “looting” …

Disgraceful!

He spoke of “the looting of shops in Umgeni Road”, of “the looting of Indian shops by Zulus”, and of “the looting and the baton charges by the Police”. Sir, people who use such language in this highest Chamber are not promoting labour peace. Just listen to the language which the hon. member for Durban Point used here. He was not prepared to allow himself to be excelled by the dramatics of the hon. member for Zululand; he showed that he had even greater dramatics at his disposal. I shall quote to you what the hon. member said, Sir, and then I want to ask you whether this is the language of people who want to promote industrial peace. He said—

That is right; that is your attitude.

Let us see what we did; let us see how “unconcerned” we were, and which steps we should have taken which we supposedly failed to take? Through the Department of Labour, which is the department to which this matter of labour relations has been entrusted, we acted precisely as could be expected of us. Not only officials of the department who have been entrusted with Bantu matters, but other officials as well, have in the past few weeks sprung into action and visited every factory where strikes were threatening or where strikes have already begun to take place. They went to speak to these strikers; they tried to persuade them, and they also warned them. They tried to bring those strikers to a point in regard to their grievances. Is that not the task of the department? To stand up in this House now, as that hon. member did, and to say: “We are not concerned with taking any steps to stop it”, is that not a disgraceful presentation of the actual situation? [Interjections.] This department and I as the Minister concerned did what was humanly possible, but it seems to me this does not satisfy the Opposition. One gets the impression that they are in fact disappointed that the strikes have ended. [Interjections.] And then there is this what I want to say in regard to the actions of these officials of my department, who really worked round the clock. They had a very difficult task because they had to work in a stirred-up atmosphere, stirred up by the Press of the people on that side. [Interjections.] But thanks to the judicious action on the part of the State and also of the local authority, we dealt with this difficult situation and in a very short time brought the strike to a very satisfactory conclusion. Now, as to the future in regard to this sphere, the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, when he told us that we should learn a lesson from this matter, are of more than special significance to all of us. But what is the significance which the Leader of the Opposition attaches to them? For the hon. the Leader of the Opposition there is unfortunately nothing else but a national minimum wage which must be introduced, the basic wage to which the hon. member for Florida referred. He advocated a national minimum wage throughout the country. In his reply he had this to say—

[Interjections.] In the past the Opposition advocated a national minimum wage and for that reason I am surprised that the United Party are even running away now from what they themselves advocated. On the one hand I am pleased about this, for it is such an ill-considered thing. This realistic wage that “basic wage” of the hon. member, is in fact this national minimum wage. One should now decide that a certain national minimum wage should be paid from the Cape right up to the Limpopo; this is now the “basic wage”. A general minimum wage, or a “basic wage” or a “realistic wage”—these are the terms which they are using; a “realistic wage” or a “basic wage” or a “minimum wage” should now be introduced. These are different terms for the same kind of arrangement. Sir. I wonder whether the United Party realizes what it is going to mean to have this “basic wage” which the hon. member wants, or the “realistic wage” which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants, or the “national minimum wage” which the other hon. members want—I wonder whether they know what this means? I wonder whether the hon. members realize that it means only one thing, and that is that one has to draw a line through the entire bargaining machinery in this country? I wonder whether they realize that? I wonder whether the Opposition has ever given attention to this matter, which certain people have been advocating over the years, for it is very popular. It is a very popular thing that one should have a national wage, or a “basic wage”, or a “realistic wage”, but how is this thing to be implemented? After all, industries differ throughout the country. Circumstances differ from one industry to another, and from one area to another. And not only as far as the industry is concerned; one finds that the wages of workers, the low-paid and the highly-paid workers, as well as their circumstances differ from one industry to another. In addition one is surely dealing here with the profitableness of the industries. Surely that is one of the basic considerations. Then there are in addition certain industries which have to give the workers more transport facilities, while others give them food. How must one now determine a “basic wage”, a national minimum wage, a “realistic wage”, for all these terms point to precisely the same concept?

They are not the same at all.

What is the difference?

How must one draw a line through the bargaining machinery now? As far as the question of the recognition of the cost of living situation of these people is concerned, I want to point out that the Wage Act provides that this should be taken into account; it is also taken into consideration in the Industrial Council agreements. I wonder whether the hon. members of the Opposition know that there are 538 000 Bantu workers who are not covered by the Wage Act, but by Industrial Council agreements. The cost of living of those people is in fact being taken thoroughly into consideration. This is, in parentheses, also a reply to the hon. member for Maitland who stated a moment ago that there was in Natal a textile industry which supposedly has no wage agreement. Let me inform the hon. member that as far as the textile industry in Natal is concerned, a wage agreement which affects most of the textile workers came into operation last year. These people are among the 538 000 who fall under these wage agreements. Now a line must be drawn through this, however, and through our entire bargaining machinery, everything which has been built up in this country since 1924, the entire system of collective bargaining must be frustrated. The Government has no intention of dealing with this situation in such an ill-considered manner. No, what can in fact happen in this country and what ought to happen is that employers should gradually effect wage adjustments for their workers on the basis of their knowledge and experience of their own industries and on the basis of their knowledge of the living conditions of their workers. That is what ought to happen. There is, as I have said, absolutely nothing in our legislation preventing this. This is what the employers must do, for owing to the differences which exist between one area and another in our country the application of a uniform minimum wage—even if one calls it by any of those other three names which have emanated from the Opposition benches—throughout the country is made absolutely impossible. Adjustments which are made by the employers on the basis of their knowledge of their industry, and who therefore know whether such adjustments can be borne, and on the basis of their knowledge of the productivity and the working ability of the workers and their knowledge of the living conditions of those people, and the determination, on that basis, of the wages which they ought to receive, is the only realistic and satisfactory arrangement which can take place in this field. In this way the rising costs of living which are being experienced in the areas concerned can be dealt with in a far better way than with the aid of this imaginary minimum wage, or “basic wage”, which is being proposed from the Opposition benches.

As far as the Bantu workers are concerned, whose wages are being determined by wage determinations, I want to mention that the Wage Board is performing a major task. Years ago it was divided into two, and its activities have been speeded-up considerably. At the moment I am going into this matter in order to establish whether the Wage Board can pilot through certain adjustments even more rapidly than in the past. I want to repeat that it will be an act of absolute escapism on the part of the employers if they proceed to hide their responsibility behind the Wage Board or behind Industrial Council Agreements; in other words behind the Government. It is their own task and responsibility to effect these adjustments.

I am pleased to be able to say that I got the impression in the course of talks on this matter which I held during the past week with some of the biggest employer organizations in our country that the responsible employers in our country are prepared to take the necessary steps to effect justified adjustments of their own accord. I say that I am very glad that I got that impression during these talks. Likewise, I am pleased that I also got the impression from the talks with these organizations that they are prepared to give positive assistance with the expansion of the works committee system. I gave these delegations the undertaking that I would send them the Bill on the works committee system as soon as it was ready, so that they could comment on it and could give me their suggestions with a view to the introduction of the Bill in the House. It is obvious that this will require speedy action, but they realize it. I am grateful that there is therefore such a great measure of co-operation from the organizations concerned, so that it will be possible for us jointly to eliminate the grounds for this labour unrest. I say “us … jointly”, for the State must play its part, but the employers, the people who employ these people and who have to pay them a fair wage must also play their responsible part, and in this way it can be done jointly. To want to use, as the United Party is doing, the latest Bantu strike as an argument for the overthrow of this Government’s labour policy, this labour policy which has made South Africa such a force in the economic world, will surely be utter foolishness. The Government’s labour policy rests on four corner-stones. These are the four cornerstones of work opportunity, of a fair subsistence opportunity for all with the necessary social care and the protection of the various ethnic groups against unfair competition, inter alia, by means of work reservation. This policy is a policy which has made this country’s phenomenal development over a quarter of a century possible, and it is on the basis of this policy that this country will proceed to expand its labour development to the benefit and happiness of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, may I correct the hon. member for Westdene on a point of fact. I am not and I have never been a member of the Sprocas Economic Commission. I was a consultant to it, but the report makes it quite clear that I do not identify myself with some of its findings, nor with some of its recommendations, and as a senior information officer of the Government party, I think he should have been able to discern that.

As far as the hon. the Minister of Labour is concerned, I would like in the limited time at my disposal to react to some of the points he has made and also to some points other hon. members on that side have made. When the hon. the Minister of Labour started off today, we saw him in a completely new guise. Really, it was with such a measure of responsibility that he approached this problem that he quite clearly must have had visions of his new appointment in Lusikisiki, but it was impossible for him to maintain that sort of stance; I timed him and found that within three minutes he had reverted to type and was beginning to say exactly the same things he had said in the no-confidence debate. He referred to job reservation and what a pillar this is of the Nationalist Party labour policy. He referred to our contention that we would repeal section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. We have said so and of course we will do it because practice has shown that this provision gives the White workers no protection whatsoever and places an artificial ceiling upon the occupational development of the non-White. For those reasons we will repeal it. The hon. the Minister has always had one supporter on the job reservation clause and that was Mr. Gert Beetge. However, Mr. Gert Beetge also deserted him during the recess, has repudiated him completely, and has said that he now accepted the principle of the rate for the job. That is what he said officially, but unofficially he said that the hon. the Minister is far too weak to implement job reservation properly and that it clearly provides no protection and no defence to White workers _ and for that reason he has changed his view. The hon. the Minister refers to the Botha Commission and how important this was, but why does he not tell this House that the Government did not accept many recommendations of the Botha Commission’s report? They did exactly the same as they did with the Tomlinson Commission. They neglected many of its cardinal recommendations, yet now it is held up that their whole industrial machine is based on the Botha Commission’s report.

The hon. Minister and speakers on the other side make great play of the fact that we have industrial peace in South Africa. We are thankful that we have had industrial peace until recently, but surely hon. gentlemen over there realize that you seldom get industrial upheavals in an expanding and fast-growing economic society. Those normally occur when you have a mature economic society which we do not have. But, Sir, 80% of our industrial workers are Black and they are prevented from striking. It is illegal for them to do so. What point do you prove then? If 80% of the people cannot strike, how can you claim that there is industrial peace? Then the Russians might just as well say that they have industrial peace in Russia too. What do we prove thereby? The hon. the Minister again talks about agitators. Our point of view is that if he has information about agitators, we think it the height of irresponsibility that no action has been taken against them. After ten days, he still tells us he does not want to discuss it with us, but will do so on a subsequent occasion. The hon. the Minister says, too, that the conduct of the Press and of the Opposition on this whole issue was reprehensible. That might be a point of view, but it is, of course, no argument at all. He then offered a series of generalizations but did not provide us with any proof of this contention whatsoever.

To return to this motion, I think the irony of the situation that we face in this Chamber today surely can not escape anybody, nor can it escape the hon. the Minister for Labour. After having had, within the last week or two, the most disturbing industrial disturbances in the whole history of our country, disturbances which can be attributed largely to the inadequacy of the Government’s policy and its negotiation machinery, an hon. member now comes here and not only condones what the Government has done, but commends it. I think this the most ironical situation that I have ever come across. These strikes have clearly shown that the hon. the Minister of Labour is inadequate to this situation. How could these disturbances have arisen without his knowing about them? Then there is the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who controls a vast bureaucratic machine with tentacles into practically every nook and cranny. How could these disturbances have arisen without the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development knowing about them? The point, of course, is that the Government has never heeded the warnings which have come from important people. Let us for the moment forget about the Opposition. Because I am thinking of the hon. Minister’s ex-colleague, Mr. Gerdener, who sat there and spoke about the wage gap and all its implications. He told us that dire consequences would follow for South Africa if this wage gap were not narrowed, and what happened on that side? Mr. Gerdener was hounded from the Cabinet and subjected to a campaign of vilification that was quite sickening even in our political society. The question I want to ask, if the hon. proposer of this motion is happy about this situation and if he commends the Government, is what sort of traumatic experience is necessary to jolt the Government out of its complacency? If this does not shake him, what will shake him?

I am surprised that this Government has given priority to this kind of motion, as it obviously has, and that it allowed it to go forward in this form and with this wording. What is quite illuminating is that with all this discussion on labour only one point has emerged, and that is that the hon. the Prime Minister said he has learned a lesson. What this lesson is we still do not know. He is most obscure. But if I listen to the contribution which came from that side today, I am forced to the conclusion that, whatever the lesson the hon. the Prime Minister learned, it has certainly not percolated through to anyone else on that side. Had this hon. member come with a motion in which he said that the Government’s labour policy has failed, that we must review the situation, that we must examine it in depth, then it would have been relevant to the situation in South Africa at the present time. But as long as we have that approach from that side, it is completely impossible to have any form of dialogue with one another. It is completely impossible to have any form of rapport, because this Government is in fact really talking in a vacuum and is completely disregarding the reality of the situation in South Africa.

What is obviously at the back of the minds of hon. gentlemen on that side is that this hon. Minister of Labour—and I am sure it is a view he shares too—is the Minister of White Labour. They do not see him as the Minister of the total labour force. They regard him as the protector of the White worker. This situation is changing dramatically. The White sector of our work force is a rapidly diminishing one. In fact, in many sectors of our economy at the moment, the White workers are out-numbered by four to one. But we can never get perspective from this Government on this sort of issue, because here we have a Government which, even under the most favourable circumstances, is drawn from less than two-thirds of one-sixth of the total population of South Africa, and hence they can never have perspective on this kind of issue.

We have not heard from anybody on that side what lessons the Government have learnt on the labour disturbances. I think that in the absence of any guide of that nature coming from the hon. the Minister, perhaps we should spell out some of the lessons which we believe South Africa should learn immediately. What we have had in Natal might well be the beginning and not the end of a development which will have a profound impact on South Africa. The sooner we realize that the sooner we can move into tomorrow. What these disturbances have shown is that the Government is completely out of touch with the Black labour situation; they have shown that the Government is powerless to initiate negotiations, because no adequate machinery exists for doing so. What we have seen in this debate and also in the no-confidence debate is a Government that is avoiding the real issues in South Africa in an attempt to camouflage the sterility of their ideas. This Government has clearly shown—and this is a lesson—that it cannot achieve a restructuring of our industrial negotiating machinery because it would mean the rebuilding of links which this Government has systematically been destroying over the last 25 years. What these disturbances to my mind have also shown dramatically is that our economy is an indivisible one and that dismemberment of the South African total political structure will have dire consequences for South Africa. Can you imagine, Sir, what would happen under Government policy if all the Bantu homelands were independent and 80% of the workers in South Africa were foreign citizens? Why, Sir, every problem in the work situation would then become a question of an international incident and might well have to go to the United Nations for mediation. What this has shown too is that the Government is creating in our urban areas a landless, rootless and voiceless proletariat that constitutes one of the most important reconditions for strife. This tend is greatly accelerated by their migratory system which must obviously grow under Government policy. Sir, what sort of situation will you arrive at when a large percentage of your workers are migratory workers and citizens of a foreign state? I think what these disturbances have also demonstrated so vividly is that our economic inter-dependence in South Africa, this partnership between Whites and non-Whites, has brought many benefits to the whole of South Africa. This much is clear too: If this partnership were to be dissolved today, South Africa would be bankrupt in six months’ time. What the Government is doing throughout, even where there is some action, is to try and treat the symptoms of the disease instead of treating the disease itself. They are looking for microbes and other organisms that are causing this trouble, when the whole metabolism of the system is wrong. What we need is an examination in depth of the situation, not to slide over the thin ice as so many on that side are trying to do. But what, to my mind, this issue has also clearly demonstrated, is that the Government is impotent to act in a crisis. Here we have a fair weather Government. As long as a situation goes well, they can cope with it. But the moment there is a crisis, they are completely out of their depth. This has not emerged from anything that has come from the other side but unless we can solve the fundamental problems as manifested in the Durban strike, we will face a long period of industrial strife in South Africa. It will tear the guts out of our economy. It will bedevil race relations in this country, and it might well trigger off a holocaust through the whole of South Africa.

The Government really has no understanding of what is happening in the country. They are denying the non-White people, and particularly the Blacks, any form of industrial representation. Sir, this will engender and lead to a completely new development in South Africa. Already there is a gentleman, called Mr. Drake Koka, who is a Black trade unionist. Now he is not recognized in terms of the law, but that does not prevent him from making very important statements. He was quoted recently as saying that “power commands respect”. His whole line is—and I am quoting him verbally—

So, when you do not recognize workers’ needs, this is precisely the type of development you must expect. Throughout the world it has been shown that chances of industrial disturbances are greater when the workers are not organized. Here we have the hon. member for Welkom saying that the Black people are unfit to organize themselves into a union. He obviously is terribly ignorant of the position. There is at the moment a Black garment workers’ union which has 14 000 members. But no strikes came from those people who were organized in unions and had industrial representation. It is in the absence of that kind of negotiating machinery that one finds a situation like the present one developing in South Africa.

This motion commends the Government for its machinery and its policy. We have been talking in the past about the wage gap. Could we for a minute look at what I think we could call the “manpower gap”. The hon. the Minister’s department’s report, which was issued recently, shows very startling figures, as far as White people are concerned. It shows that the number of vacancies for White and Coloured workers in South Africa has over the last two years shot up from just over 70 000 to close on 100 000. Sir, this is an immense indictment of the Government’s policy. The report shows that there is a shortage of about 20 000 artisans, and additionally thereto, of 5 000 apprentices. This report shows that in the motor industry they have not been able to obtain one-third of the apprentices they need. In the light of these figures and conditions, how could the hon. member conceivably come with a motion to commend the Government and to slap it on the back and to tell it how well it has done in the labour field, when in fact the Government’s total labour policy has collapsed?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendment lapsed.