I move—

1. (a) ensuring that all workers are paid a living wage;
2. (b) increasing the internal market; and
3. (c) combating malnutrition.

This motion emphasizes a national minimum real wage. I say that it emphasizes the word “real” because, Sir, it envisages variations of minimum wage rates according to regional differences in living costs, and also takes into consideration wages paid in kind. But subject to these variations, and providing that allowances are accurately determined and fairly applied, the motion recommends a uniform and comprehensive national minimum wage, less than which no employer should be allowed to pay to an. able-bodied adult worker.

I want to stress at the outset that this does not mean of course that it is contemplated that the fixation of national minimum wages in individual industries or occupations should preclude collective bargaining. On the contrary, as has been expressed before, it is the policy of my party to extend the benefits of collective bargaining to the categories of labour to which at present this is denied. I do not also intend to imply by this motion that the restrictions which reduce productivity of African labour and also their wages, should not be withdrawn. Again, it is the pronounced policy of my party that restrictions on mobility, restrictions such as job reservation, which tend to restrict the earning capacity of the Africans should, of course, be withdrawn. The general objective in the motion itself is to ensure the payment of a living wage, to extend the internal market and to combat malnutrition. Now. to some extent, Sir, both the extension of a living wage to all workers and the combating of malnutrition are one and the same thing but, of course, not entirely. As I propose to show, hundreds of thousands of unskilled workers are at present earning starvation wages, and simply to enforce a living wage on which the worker can at least support himself and his family is the primary objective, but the enforcement of a mere subsistence standard can hardly be really called a living wage; a living wage involves a higher standard; it involves a standard which includes more than simply a poverty datum line; it involves more than supplying simply the bare necessities of life; it at least implies also some of the ordinary amenities of life in addition to bare subsistence living. In other words, the sort of standard which I propose would be one which would raise man above what I call a “mieliepap” standard, which would enable them to buy the products of agriculture, of the canning industry, of the furniture factories, of the shoe factories, of the sugar industry. And thereby my second objective would be achieved, which is, namely, the expansion of the internal market in South Africa, which is something I believe that even the hon. member for Cradock would probably appreciate and support. I contend that the extension of the internal market would in itself stimulate the national economy as a whole and thereby of course benefit classes beyond those of the actual persons receiving the higher wages which I am advocating to-day., Before going on to a detailed examination of the proposition, I should perhaps mention something about the sort of machinery which would be necessary before this could be implemented. I envisage some sort of semi-judicial tribunal, some type of judicial tribunal, with wide powers of investigation and of inquiry, and with jurisdiction which would embrace the entire labour field. I envisage that it would be necessary to set up some such form of machinery. The Wage Board does, of course, conduct inquiries, but I believe it is completely overburdened with Work, and it would be impossible to load existing machinery with further work, and therefore I propose that special machinery would have to be set up in order to conduct the initial investigation which obviously must precede such a step. One needs a thorough and comprehensive inquiry into the whole field of wages in kind and of cost of living in the different regions. It is not difficult to find precedents of such machinery. They exist in other countries, particularly Australia and New Zealand, which countries, I might mention, are similar to ours in that the greater percentage of their export trade lies in primary products.

The support for this motion in brief is as follows: Firstly, the vast majority of workers in South Africa live in desperate poverty, and the low wages are, of course, the main reason for this poverty, and in turn this poverty has led to malnutrition and disease on a large scale in this country. Now I am not saying that there are no White workers who suffer from poverty and who have got malnutrition. I do not say that only African workers suffer the twin diseases of poverty and malnutrition. But since the vast bulk of our working force, and particularly our unskilled labour force, is made up of Africans and not White workers generally, it is obviously to those workers that I am directing the major attention in this particular debate. Secondly, I contend that such poverty is unnecessary in so far as South Africa possesses economic resources which, if properly used and properly organized, should immediately alleviate and should certainly ultimately eliminate such poverty and such disease. Thirdly, I propose that minimum wages are an essential part of this alleviation, the alleviation of existing conditions, and finally I say that the entire well-being and prosperity of the whole country and an expansion of the national economy of the country as a whole would accompany such measures. I want to elaborate on each one of these propositions.

Firstly I think that the evidence as far as the first proposition is concerned, is overwhelming. All of us have seen poverty-datum surveys which have been conducted over the last few years by highly reputable and authoritative bodies which reveal that there is a wide gap between the pay of the unskilled workers in this country and the minimum that is required to maintain the worker and his family in reasonable health and decency. In 1951, the well-known survey of the Institute of Race Relations revealed that at that time £24 3s. 3d. per month (R48.32) was required as a minimum per month for a family of five living in the urban areas. In Pretoria in 1961, a similar survey was carried out by the University of South Africa for the Bureau of Market Research and that disclosed a corresponding figure of R43 per month as the minimum essential amount needed to provide a family of five in that area with the ordinary decencies of life.

In fact I would call them the " subsistence decencies of life”, not the additional amenities which, as I say, would raise man above the so-called “mieliepap” standard. Now, according to Professor Steenkamp in his article in the South African Journal of Economics for June 1962, the average monthly earnings of Africans in private manufacturing and construction were about R26 per month in 1959 and about R3l a month in 1961. Now I must mention that Professor Steenkamp's figures include not only the unskilled workers, but also semi-skilled workers. So one can readily imagine that the real position as far as unskilled workers is concerned would be even worse than these averages tend to indicate. But these figures in any case, I must point out, are representative only of the better paid unskilled workers. Professor Hobart Houghton conducted a survey of the Cape border region, which was published last year, and his survey revealed that less than £6 or R12 is the average monthly income of an African family of five in King William’s Town, and it disclosed further that in East London only 10 per cent of the African workers there, earned more than R30 a month. Now there is not very much data available in regard to. farm wages per se, but it is generally known that they vary widely in the different localities, and it is also known that the remuneration is largely in kind, and a very small proportion of that remuneration is in cash.

Nonsense!

A survey was conducted a couple of years ago by Margaret Roberts also on behalf of the Institute of Race Relations in the Albany and Bathurst districts, and she arrived at an average figure in cash and kind, that is including allowances for free living quarters, casual gifts, medical attention, etc., of £8 18s. per month for a family of roughly between six and seven. A comparatively small proportion of this figure was paid in cash.

Mine wages of course fall in a special category since they are based on the needs of migratory workers who in themselves are adequately fed and they are also housed by the mines. But of course mine wages are far top low, because they are based on the fallacious assumption that the Reserves are able to supply a proper subsistence for the families of those migratory workers. I must also add that mine wages are based not only on conditions in South Africa but on the economic conditions in adjoining territories which, as we know, supply more than 50 per cent of the labour requirements of the mines, and this too has had a tendency to keep down the average wages on the mines. Despite rises over the last few years and certain schemes which are now being considered, schemes to increase wages and productivity, mine wages too are lamentably low.

The consequences to the families of all these workers and indeed the workers themselves, other than the cases where the workers themselves at least are adequately fed, the consequences in deprivation and disease, of low earnings and the tremendous gap between what is required for mere poverty-datum standards of living and the wages that are paid are exactly what one would expect them to be. Last October, Dr. Mitchell, who is the M.O.H. of the Gape Divisional Council, warned the annual conference of the Institute of Public Health in East London of the mounting incidence of diseases such as kwashiorkor, gastro-enteritis, pellagra, tuberculosis, etc., which are all either due to, or are in fact malnutrition diseases themselves, or are aggravated by malnutrition, and he warned too that the mortality rate due to them has now assumed the proportions of a national crisis. At a recent hospital survey in the Cape, 54 per cent of the non-White children were severely under-weight per age and as many as 17 per cent were at a level than can be accepted as indicative of gross starvation. These are the words of Dr. Hansen, who is the associate Professor of Child Health at Cape Town University. In his address to the same conference—

Sir, none of these figures come from any other but the most authoritative medical sources, not only that but they have also been published in State documents, one of which I am now going to quote.

How do these figures compare with those from the rest of Africa?

There we have this argument again. I do not consider South Africa an under-developed country, unlike the hon. gentleman; I consider South Africa a modern industrial state, and therefore 1 do not expect the incidence of malnutrition in South Africa to be the same as malnutrition in the rest of Africa, although I might tell the hon. member there that in some cases it is even worse than the malnutrition figures elsewhere in Africa. Now in Cape Town, according to the M.O.H., 100 times as many non-White as White children die per year of gastro-enteritis, and it is a known medical fact that mortality in gastroenteritis is closely related to malnutrition. In the eight major urban areas alone some 10,000 non-White infants die annually of gastroenteritis. Last year the Minister of Health informed me in this House in response to a question that the annual morbidity rate of tuberculosis amongst African children under five is 9,469. The corresponding figure for White children is 161. The general infant mortality rates of African children are simply appalling, varying from over 200 per 1,000 in the cities to 300 to 400 in some of the rural areas. The corresponding figure for White children is 27, which, to our credit, is one of the lowest in the world, whilst the African figure is one of the highest recorded figures in the world. Now kwashiorkor is considered medically as being the index of the general state of malnutrition in a community. According to the C.S.I.R. Report, No. 190 on Nutritional Deficiency, kwashiorkor was found in 5 per cent of the Bantu children treated by doctors who assisted in the study. The hon. the Minister himself told us last year that it was estimated that 22,000 children in Cape Town and vicinity alone had kwashiorkor; nearly 3,000 cases have been notified since the Minister—something to his credit—last year declared kwashiorkor a notifiable disease. Already more than 3,000 cases have been notified, and as the C.S.I.R. report itself said, it can be assumed that the actual incidence of the disease is much higher than is suggested by the figures reported. Indeed, some epidemiologists actually suggest that plus/minus 20 per cent of cases in fact are ever reported. Now kwashiorkor is considered by medical men as an index of the general state of nutrition in a country. It is also medically considered only as a disease which occurs in undeveloped countries. Medical men do not find kwashiorkor in the normally developed countries, and, as I said before, I am one of those who would like to consider South Africa as a modern industrial country and not as an undeveloped African territory, and therefore it is quite immaterial whether or not —and in fact in some cases it is not the case— South Africa’s figures compare favourably with those of other African territories.

I know that there is a slick answer which is given to all this by Government spokesmen, and even unfortunately on occasions by the Minister of Health. This slick answer is that malnutrition has nothing whatever to do with poverty or low earnings, but is due to the culture of the Africans who do not appreciate the value of milk and among whom the men customarily eat before the women and children. leaving nothing for the latter. That was the answer given by the hon. the Minister of Health to the Institute of Public Health last October, and I sincerely hope that neither he nor other members of this House will have the effrontery to repeat it.

Do you deny it?

Of course. Anyone who knows anything about the customs of the Africans will know what an important part milk played in their diet, especially sour milk. Anyone who knows anything about the customs of the Africans when they were able to hunt will know the importance of meat in their diet. It is not the normal diet of Africans to live on maize and mealie-meal. That was imposed on them by the restrictions cf land, by their poverty and their inability to earn productive wages and to buy protective foods. This is not a normal feature of the natural African diet, and everyone who takes the trouble to look at our history will observe the fallacy of the absurd statement that it is due to ignorance only that the Africans suffer from malnutrition. I do not deny that there is much room for education about food values, but to put ignorance of food values down as the primary cause for the appalling rate of malnutrition in this country is self-deception of the worst sort. The obvious and most glaring cause of it is poverty and low wages. It was disclosed in Durban recently that 60 per cent of African workers whose cases were investigated had no breakfast at all and that a large number of African schoolchildren in Durban and other areas where similar investigations were carried out had nothing whatever to eat until supper-time. Is it an old African custom, I wonder, for Africans to starve themselves and their children to this extent? Of course it is not.

The Minister of Health and other hon. members like the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) the other day waxed indignant about the campaign which was waged to its very great credit by the Rand Daily Mail last year against the level of malnutrition and starvation in this country. I think there is another Private Member’s Motion on this subject on the Order Paper. I am hoping that the hon. member will think about withdrawing his motion from the Order Paper in the face of the facts and figures I am quoting to-day. But the Minister of Health said of that campaign that it created the impression that the Blacks were suffering through the inaction of the Whites and the articles provided ammunition for our opponents at UN. I suppose the obvious conclusion to draw from that is that we must suppress the facts and let people continue to starve and suffer from malnutrition, and in that way we will not give ammunition to our opponents at UN. But does it not occur to hon. members that if we did something about this problem and improved the whole position in regard to malnutrition, that that would destroy the ammunition of our opponents? It may very well be that the poverty and the malnutrition suffered by the vast mass of workers may not be due to the inaction of the White people generally, but it is certainly the responsibility of any modern Government to see that its people are properly housed, fed and clothed, according to the available national resources. As I mentioned before, this is not an undeveloped country. We have resources, and in view of our resources, malnutrition in this country is nothing but a national scandal.

This brings me to my second proposition, and that is to prove that the country has the resources immediately anyway to alleviate and ultimately to eliminate poverty and low wages. I do not think it is necessary for me to discourse at large about the natural resources of South Africa. All of us know about our fabulous gold and other mineral deposits. We know that there are pastoral activities which can be carried on with a great deal of profit. I simply mention it again to make the point that the existing conditions of poverty and malnutrition cannot be explained by the lack of natural resources and the inherent poverty of this country as they can be explained in other territories in Africa and in India, where there is also a considerable amount of malnutrition. The natural poverty of those countries can be counted responsible to a large extent for the malnutrition there, but that is not so in South Africa. Our natural resources should be sufficient to ensure an adequate standard of living for all our people. There is plenty of evidence to show that wages and the existing purchasing power are inadequate to ensure the consumption of even current production. It is notorious that in this country, side by side with semi-starvation and even outright starvation at certain times and places, surpluses continue to accumulate of essential foodstuffs so desperately needed by the poor. It is common cause, too, that we are exporting many of the protective foods at a loss. It was reported three years ago that 370,000 gallons of so-called surplus skimmed milk were destroyed in 12 months on the Rand alone. Medical opinion is to the effect that half a pint of skimmed milk a day will suffice to maintain a child in health, and this would therefore be more than enough to wipe out the whole annual death toll of gastroenteritis in our cities and to put an end to kwashiorkor. At the end of April last year 17,000,000 lbs. of butter was stored, 4,700,000 lbs. of which was destined for export at a loss of 15 cents per lb. Stocks of factory cheese stood at 9,000,000 lbs., and that was to be disposed of at a loss of 10 cents per lb. Mutton, eggs and ground-nuts are also exported at a price below the domestic price, according to the figures given to us by the Minister of Agriculture. Not only is the public being called upon to bear the loss, but in addition we have to bear the cost of treating malnutrition and malnourished children in hospitals, children who should never have been ill had their parents’ income been sufficient to buy protective foods. Dr. Hansen of the Department of Child Health at the University of Cape Town estimated that the cost of hospitalization of a malnourished child is R10 a day, enough to supply adequate protein for that child for a whole year. I must give the hon. the Minister credit for one other thing. It is so seldom that I can do so that I do it with great pleasure when I can, and that is that possibly because he realized, having visited the Red Cross Hospital in Cape Town, the dreadful cases of malnutrition and kwashiorkor that are occurring in this town, he has recently started a pilot scheme whereby R20,000 a year has been set apart to supply powdered milk to children. I hope that this will be a permanent feature and very vastly extended, but it is something that this country has at least started pre-nursery school feeding for young children, and I hope it is a tendency which the Government will encourage in future.

Now, turning to my next proposition, the essential need for properly regulated minimum wages, the first point I must make is to point to the extreme mal distribution of the national income in South Africa. In other industrial countries the difference between skilled and unskilled wages is about 30 per cent, but in this country it varies between 400 per cent and 500 per cent. As long ago as 1925 the Economic and Wages Commission pointed out that one of the great drawbacks to South Africa’s development was this wide disparity between unskilled and skilled wage rates; and I want to point out that this disparity is increasing and not decreasing. Mr. Katzen of the University of Cape Town, in an article in the South African Journal of Economics in 1961, pointed out that after the war in the years between 1945 and 1959 African real wages, mostly unskilled of course, hardly rose at all in the manufacturing industry, despite a 74 per cent increase in the real national income of South Africa. White wages, on the other hand, which are mostly skilled, rose by 40 per cent. Professor Steenkamp, the Chairman of the Wage Board, in that same issue criticized some of Mr. Katzen’s findings, but did not in any way dissent from the general thesis that African real wages rose very little in the years in question and that the gap between skilled and unskilled wages tended to increase. I want to say at this juncture that although for 14 years, between 1945 and 1959, the wages of unskilled workers remained practically static, over the last three years some attempts have been made by the Wage Board to increase unskilled wages. In reply to a question I asked, I ascertained that something like 54 wage determinations in the unskilled trades have been made by the Wage Board and Industrial Council agreements. But this must not be construed in any way as implying that I am satisfied with the basic minimum wages which have now been laid down. In fact, thinking employers know perfectly well that an increase in the internal market will redound to their benefit. But I am very dissatisfied with the basic minimum wages laid down, even by these new Wage Board determinations, or by conciliation agreements. Indeed, it was the very knowledge of these more recent determinations that made me stress the need for a living wage, the knowledge that they were still so pitifully low, despite the changes made in the last three years. The Minister of Labour mentioned in his address in the Other Place that a R22,000,000 increase had been paid by employers to their African workers between 1959 and 1962, but I must point out that this amount still does not bring the minimum wage up to anything like a living wage, especially—and this is all-important— when we remember that the cost-of-living allowances were pegged in March 1953, when the retail price index stood at 188.9, and by September 1958 the retail index had risen by

36.4 points, or 19.27 per cent. Since that time we have been using a new yardstick, the Consumer Price Index, but there has been a further increase of 6 per cent, so that the cost of living has risen by about 25 per cent since 1953 and wages have certainly not kept pace with that. In fact, the latest determinations presented by the Wage Board show that these wages are still hopelessly short of the poverty-datum line. The weekly minimum wage of unskilled workers—I am taking a few examples at random— in heavy industries such as stone-crushing, ceramics and allied industries ranges from a miserable R5.50 per week to R7.90. Industrial Council agreements are not much better. For the textile manufacturing it is R6.88 a week, to the furniture industry where it is R7.50, and all these figures include cost of living. How a family can come out on these miserable wages, taking the whole R22,000,000 increase which the Minister of Labour boasted about the other day into account, is beyond me. It is true that Professor Steenkamp, in his article, referred to an annual increase of 2.4 per cent and calls this eminently satisfactory, but I disagree profoundly. Firstly, I want to point out that this does not even keep pace with the average annual increase in prices, and secondly I think that Professor Steenkamp might have had a case for calling this rise eminently satisfactory if the increase had been based on anything approximating a living wage originally, but when they started from so far below par, a

2.4 per cent raise is negligible, and indeed I want to point out that the disparity between wages and their buying power is continuing to increase. It certainly has not been sufficient to arrest the widening of the gap between skilled and unskilled wage rates. The point I am trying to make is that if in the categories of work where statutory wage regulations have been imposed the rise has been so low, can one imagine what it must be like in occupations where there have been no increases due to legislation and there are no determinations? It is extremely unlikely that in such occupations there have been rises anything like in keening with the general rise in the cost of living. This means that the real wages of workers have been falling and continue to fall, despite the big increase that took place in our real national income in the post-war years. I would say that Professor Steenkamp really supplies unwittingly one of the best arguments for the introduction of statutory minimum wages, because he points out that in the whole period between 1935 and 1961 such increases in real wages for unskilled workers as have taken place were due almost entirely to Government action, to wage determinations, cost-of-living regulations, etc. Surely this strengthens the argument for a minimum statutory wage.

At this juncture I want to deal with the rather silly argument which is often advanced by hon. members opposite when the question of low wages is discussed. A particularly vehement exponent of this argument is the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), who unfortunately is not here now. His cry, and that of other hon. members, is: Let the employers raise wages; what stops them? I will tell the hon. member what stops them. It shows very clearly that they do not have the slightest understanding of the basic mechanism of a competitive market. No single employer of labour is going to cost himself out of the market unless he knows that his competitors will raise their wages as well. In any case, economic history has proved over and over again that the profit-motive rather than philanthropy is the guiding principle in business. It is precisely for this reason that the State has taken action in other countries and that workers’ movements such as trade unions have developed there. I see the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) smiling, surely in approval, since he knows the history of labour movements in this country. I want to point out that the gold-mining industry is in a slightly different category. I am not excluding the low wages they pay, but they are in a different category, for the simple reason that that industry does not have to worry about competition in selling its end product. But the gold mining industry has other problems, largely due to State action taken by all Governments in South Africa since 1911. The gold-mining industry has to cope with the implementation of stringent job reservation on the mines, which makes flexibility in organizing its labour force very difficult. It also has to cope with a strong White trade union movement which has resisted any reclassification of jobs on the mines as long as possible. All these factors make for inflexibility in the wage and labour structure on the gold mines. I want to repeat, however, that I believe those wages are in any case too low, because they are based on the fallacy that the reserves are supporting the families and they are based on the living standards of countries beyond our borders where economic standards are even lower and which supply over 50 per cent of our labour, and they are also based on the monopsonistic practice of fixing the maximum average wage above which no mine will pay its workers. So I am not holding any brief for the payment of low wages on the mines, although they have additional problems over and above those of other industries.

I must now deal with what I conceive to be the main objection to my proposal, and that is of course the classical argument that wages are essentially determined by the supply of workers and the demand for their services; in other words, that there is ordinary market competition between employers and that the bargaining between them and the workers in the end fixes the wage which is roughly equal to the market value of labour, and that any attempt to fix a higher minimum wage will result either in unemployment or in an inflationary spiral, which would nullify the effect of any rise in wages. I must say at once that the argument about free competition automatically fixing the wage level has been used all over the world and nowhere has it prevailed. The general trend in an industrial society is to fix a minimum wage for different occupations either by statutory action or as the result of collective bargaining. This indicates that the old supply and demand theory of labour has largely been abandoned in practice. The validity of this argument depends on certain economic conditions, which in fact are nowhere to be found. This perfect competitive world does not exist. It depends on a labour market where there are large number of buyers (the employers of labour), and numbers of sellers (the workers or the sellers of labour), with a perfect knowledge on both sides of all the relevant economic opportunities, and it depends on the mobility of labour both geographically and occupationally, and none of this of course corresponds to conditions even in the real world, let alone South Africa, where of course conditions are completely hamstrung: by all sorts of restrictions. Here the non-White worker is discriminated against as compared with the White worker, both in the field of education and in the field of training. The African is in a particularly bad position. The effect of the laws applying to him is to destroy his bargaining power and to place him entirely at the mercy of his White employer. His mobility is impeded by pass laws and influx control, thus preventing him from selling his labour in the best market, which one would think is one of the most basic individual freedoms. And in industrial areas, even if the man has the right to be here, very often permission for him to remain in employment in the urban areas is made conditional on his remaining in the service of a particular employer, which places the employer in a position of absolute power over that man, who may not ask for higher wages and may not seek to sell his labour to an employer who would be prepared to pay him higher wages. We know that the African’s occupational mobility is impeded not only by these discriminations, but also by statutory prohibitions such as the Mines and Works Act and job reservation, where it is implemented in the secondary industrial field, and incidentally indirectly through the Industrial Conciliation Act itself, because of the reason that an African cannot join a trade union, very often closed shop agreements and lack of training mean that he cannot become a skilled worker. Thus his whole capacity to improve his wage earning status is inhibited, and this not only diminishes his value in this age of technological changes but results also in his actually being a drag on increased productivity. I could mention other restrictions such as the Urban Areas Act and the Group Areas Act, all of which make the African entirely dependent on the White man for his economic activities. Therefore it is not surprising, especially when such people are also denied all the normal benefits of collective bargaining, their earnings should tend to fall instead of rising.

I mentioned right at the outset that it is the policy of my party to remove all such restrictions, to strengthen as far as possible the collective bargaining power of the general body of workers and to extend education and technical training to Africans. All this would help enormously, but experience has shown that such measures would not in themselves be adequate to ensure social and economic justice or national prosperity. National minimum wages, I might point out, are imposed in the U.S.A., where there are no restrictions on mobility of labour or the productivity of labour.

Now I want to deal with the argument that an increase in money wages must inevitably be offset by increased costs or would result in unemployment. The whole basis of this argument rests on the assumption that the productivity of labour will remain constant and that the internal market will not expand. Neither local conditions nor experience elsewhere show that these assumptions are necessarily valid. Taking labour productivity first, I think it has been recognized ever since the days of Adam Smith that to pay labour less than is necessary to maintain just minimum standards of health and strength will adversely affect the worker’s productivity and efficiency. An increase in wages, therefore, just up to the poverty-datum line would necessarily result in higher productivity of labour generally. I want to quote two modern Adam Smiths. The first is Dr. W. J. de Villiers, the Consulting Engineer of the Anglo American Corporation, in an article in Optima in December 1962. He said—

Mr. Hugo, the General Manager of Railways, said in October 1962—

As is borne out by the experience of other industrial countries, furthermore, an increase in wages applies the necessary pressure to management—and this is very important in South Africa, where we use labour most wastefully—an increase in wages applies the necessary pressure to management to reorganize in the interests of efficiency, to eliminate waste and, in some occupations, to mechanize. It is high time that we discarded this cheap labour fallacy in South Africa. It results in a high labour turnover and the most wasteful use of our most valuable natural resources. And of course one must also remember the effect of competition. In a competitive market the tendency will be for employers to try to employ their labour far more efficiently, and as the result any increased cost should be offset by increased efficiency.

As to the home market, it is obvious that the initial effect of a general wage increase for the lower-paid workers must be to expand buying power and hence the demand for the products of industry and agriculture. The whole idea is to raise people to the standard where they can consume the goods produced and so create a higher internal market. President Kennedy said in an address only the other day, " Consumer spending is the key to boom conditions”, and I am quite sure that what applies to America applies equally in South Africa. The whole economy is being restricted to-day by the fact that we have such a small internal market due to the low consumer power of the great proportion of the inhabitants of this country. Last year the President of the South African Agricultural Union, Mr. de Villiers, said—

The same, of course, applies to the products of industry and commerce, as has been pointed out over and over again by people such as Mr. Graham of the Midlands Chamber of Commerce and by the Bantu Wages and Productivity Association. It is quite obvious too, I hope, that an expanding home market, which would reduce unit costs of production because the economies of large-scale production could be taken advantage of by our producers, would place our export industries in a very much better competitive position in the outside world. If the human and material resources of the community are all fully employed, then of course the economy will prove incapable of responding to the demand and prices will simply rise; in other words, inflation will occur, but if there is—and there certainly is in South Africa—surplus industrial and agricultural capacity, unemployed or under-employed labour and unused material resources—and I am sure that nobody would say that we have fully developed all the resources of this country or fully used all our labour or other resources—the effect will be an expansion of production and a lowering of costs in the ultimate, which must offset the increased money costs involved immediately in higher wages. I agree, of course, that the basic thing is to create more jobs; and to create more jobs we need further investment in this country. What we need is a political climate which would encourage greater investment in this country, and I would suggest that the sort of thing that the Government is doing in the labour field is discouraging further investments. I refer to the threat of job reservation hanging over the heads of industrialists; I refer to this ridiculous Eiselen line which is going to throw all the Africans out of the Western Province. Certainly these are not conducive to improving the investment climate in South Africa. I refer to all the racial policies which are at the moment acting as a deterrent on overseas investors from investing in this country. But, Sir, the resources are there; they are unused, they are untapped, and we are simply waiting for a favourable climate of investment to be able to expand and make use of all this productive capacity which is not being used at the present stage. I must emphasize once more that the economy has ample surplus capacity and unused resources to support a general wage increase, and here too the Government can play a part by taking up any slack, by adjusting its own credit policies and adjusting its tax relief and its public works programme accordingly. There is no reason why this should not be done by the Government. It may very well be proved—I will admit this at the outset—I think it is high time this was said in South Africa—it may very well be true that some uneconomic enterprises will go under. I personally see no value whatsoever in keeping alive uneconomic enterprises at the expense of the workers. It is far better to divert our productive resources into economic activities that can afford to pay adequate living wages to our workers. Far too long have we been going in for this policy of keeping marginal farmers on the land. Why should marginal farmers be kept on the land? They simply put up the cost of production throughout the country as a whole. Such people should be engaged in other activities. Why keep marginal or sub-marginal industries alive? Let those resources be diverted into proper economic activities in South Africa, and they should certainly not be kept alive at the expense of workers being paid inadequate wages which result in malnutrition and poverty and, of course, all the grievances which malnutrition and poverty bring in their wake. I say again that an essential remedy in the existing social and economic position in South Africa is the institution of a minimum living wage. That all this has to be accomplished obviously by changes in our labour policy and our economic policy generally, goes without saying, I think. It means that we must stop trying to keep millions of Africans locked up in uneconomic agricultural activity in the reserves; it means that we must stop keeping White marginal farmers or Black marginal farmers on the land; it means that we should remove al the restrictions on productivity that are at present imposed on non-White workers. Sir. the whole idea underlying job reservation and the industrial colour bar is based on the fallacy that if more Black men are employed in semi-skilled and skilled jobs it means that White workers must lose their jobs. The whole history of our industrial expansion and development in this country has moved quite the contrary. The more non-Whites are used in semi-skilled and better paid activities, the more White employment there will be at even higher levels in South Africa. The fallacious proposition only holds good in a static economy. South Africa, fortunately, does not have a static economy. It has a dynamic economy and therefore there is no reason for White workers to fear that they would lose their jobs or that their wages would be depressed—and nobody is suggesting that they should be depressed— if the wages of semi-skilled and unskilled workers are in fact raised.

Sir, I want to say finally that I believe that all the changes that I have mentioned are long overdue. They have been recommended over and over again by every impartial commission that has sat in this country, and it is high time they were adopted, so that all the inhabitants of South Africa can have a share in developing and enjoying all the great potentialities that have been bestowed on this country.

In seconding this motion I would like to say that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has covered the ground very extensively and in detail and I do not intend to quote statistics or to cover any of the arguments that she has used. I would like to confine myself mainly to this question as it affects the Coloured people whom I have the honour to represent in this House. I do say that these subjects mentioned in the motion are of such great importance to South Africa that I believe that they should be lifted out of party politics and should be approached not on party political lines but on sound common-sense and economic lines.

You should set the example.

I will set the example, and I will come to the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander), Sir, you cannot compare the position in South Africa with that in other parts of Africa.

Why not?

Because that immediately introduces the political approach to something which should be approached on a non-political basis.

[Inaudible.]

I would like to tell the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) that when I was a youngster I visited many little villages and I found many people like the hon. member for Cradock running around there. We used to call them the village idiots.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, but I want to tell the hon. member for Cradock that we are sick and tired of his interjections. We are approaching these matters in all seriousness and we are sick and tired of these inane interjections from a man who does not seem to take his job in this Parliament seriously. If he does not want to take it seriously he should make way for somebody who would take his job seriously.

I had occasion to discuss this question of minimum wages with an organization known as the Food and Canning Council. I would ask the hon. the Minister of Labour to go into this question and I am sure he will find that the minimum wage laid down is so low as to be scandalous in any civilized country. These people had a weapon to get increased wages.

What do you pay your non-White workers?

Mr. HUGHES: On a point of order, Sir, cannot you ask the hon. member for Cradock to keep quiet so that we can listen to the hon. member’s speech?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I repeat that the wages paid in this industry are scandalously low. These people cannot live on the minimum wage laid down. They had a weapon which they used once or twice, and that was to go on strike for better conditions, but then the Government passed a law declaring their work essential work, which prevents these people from striking for better wages. They are dependent therefore upon the farming community by whom they are engaged for the wages they receive. I say that if we approach the question of wages, particularly in this industry, which is a barometer, if we require one at all, in regard to the subject so ably introduced by the hon. member we will find, if we rid ourselves of this racial approach and racial prejudice in connection with these matters, that we will advance very much faster, to the betterment of the people for whom we are pleading now.

The hon. member for Houghton mentioned the position in America. I want to tell the House that a few days ago I attended a luncheon where an address was submitted by a professor from one of the universities of California, and whilst he did not refer directly to these particular questions, he did deal with the question of mass production in America, and one of the conclusions to which he came was that it is no use producing if the people who assist in the production are not able to purchase the goods produced, and I venture to suggest that the wages paid to the Coloured people particularly in the Cape Province, make it impossible for more than 90 per cent of them to purchase the very goods which they helped to produce. If they get a wage which will enable them to buy these goods it will stimulate our internal market and we would derive great benefit.

Sir, I want to deal with one or two questions only, and I want to refer to a conclusion which was come to by a commission, which did not deal directly with this question of wages but which dealt with family allowances. It did, however, make reference to the question of wages. I just want to quote paragraph 69 on page 22. It is headed, “Causes of inadequate care and upbringing ”—

In this report of the Commission on Family Allowances (1961) they dealt with the difficulty experienced by people because of the low wages received by them. On the question of malnutrition I think we should quote and re-quote—because it was quoted last year—paragraph 316—

It goes on to show that these people suffer from malnutrition because of the poor financial position of the parents who are unable to supply the children with their requirements. Sir, notice was given in this House a few days ago by the Minister of Housing of his intention to amend the Slums Act. I venture to suggest that if people in the past had been paid a wage commensurate with their needs and requirements, a decent minimum wage, there would be a minimum of slums not only in Cape Town but throughout South Africa because it is a fact that many poor people are dependent on the goodwill of certain people for their income; they have to be housed, not one family but probably three or four families in one house, so that they can make ends meet.

I have said that we should approach this matter on a non-party political basis; I have said the hon. member for Houghton has dealt so adequately on this question that I do not have to speak at length. I have great pleasure in seconding this motion.

Although we on this side of the House welcome the opportunity of discussing this question, it is a pity that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) used this opportunity to devote a large part of her speech to, and to place unnecessary emphasis upon, the problem of malnutrition amongst the non-Whites. The hon. member holds it against us that we say that this sort of speech harms the name of South Africa abroad. I am prepared to say that again to-day. I have no objection to her telling the world how much malnutrition there is amongst the non-Whites, but I do object when she makes that statement without emphasizing what the Government is doing for the non-White races in South Africa; without referring to the opportunities which are created for employment, for higher wages in new posts which the non-Whites did not occupy in South Africa before and the opportunities which are being created for better education. All these are items which contribute towards giving the non-White a higher standard of living. If the hon. member gives the world a fair picture of the position here, I have no objection at all but I do object to the unnecessary emphasis which is placed upon the question of malnutrition and to the fact that she does not want to admit that to a very large extent malnutrition amongst the non-Whites is in the first place the result of ignorance regarding food values and correct eating habits. I am sure that the hon. member has on many occasions passed some café or other and watched a non-White enter that café. Instead of buying himself a loaf of whole wheat bread, he buys a white loaf and a bottle of mineral water. I say that I am sorry that the hon. member emphasized the question of malnutrition. We agree with her that minimum wages in South Africa must be raised. The Government is sympathetic as far as this matter is concerned. We on this side do not say that we are opposed to an increase in minimum wages but we do differ from her regarding the way in which that increase should be brought about. We differ on the question as to whether it should be a minimum national wage or whether minimum wages should be determined on a regional basis, which I shall deal with in a moment. In reality the hon. member did not mention one authority in South Africa who agrees with her on this question of a national minimum wage. She did mention the name of Mr. Graham. The scheme proposed by Mr. Graham has already been analysed in various articles. The hon. member had the article in front of her because she quoted from it. In that article Professor Steenkamp has the following to say about Mr. Graham’s scheme—

The hon. member for Houghton went on to mention the Bantu Wages and Productivity Association. I shall tell her in a moment where even Mr. Silberbauer, the Director of that Association, expressed himself against a national minimum wage. I want to emphasize immediately that we are sympathetic as far as this question of increasing minimum wages is concerned. No decent and right-thinking South African will say that it is not in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of race relationships to increase minimum wages, and one is pleased that particularly over the last few years attention has been given to this matter. For example, attention has already been given this matter in the first place by employers. The Federated Chambers of Industry have had long discussions on this matter. The National Development Foundation has held a symposium on this question and the Economic Advisory Council has also discussed this matter on various occasions. There is one point on which we differ from the hon. member for Houghton. On many occasions in this House, the Opposition and the hon. member specifically, have accused us of imposing restrictions on the economic development of South Africa, and it is ironic that she now seeks to support us in our plea that the Government should introduce a minimum wage in South Africa, a minimum wage that will have a restrictive effect on our economy.

I spoke just now about the bodies which have already given attention to this matter, but there is not one of these bodies which has seen its way clear to recommend a national minimum wage or a minimum wage on a regional basis. The Federated Chambers of Industry not only declared themselves opposed to a national minimum wage, but they also decided that the wage determination machinery which exists under our wage legislation to-day was the most effective way of tackling the problem of minimum wages in South Africa except—so the Federated Chambers of Industry said—that it should take place more swiftly. In other words, the Federated Chambers of Industry did not see their way clear to recommend any particular method by means of which minimum wages can be laid down on a national or regional basis. This decision of the Federated Chambers of Industry was described by the Star of 16 March 1962, in a leading article as a “dismaying decision ”.

The hon. member for Houghton spoke about the Bantu Wages and Productivity Association. This is an association which was founded with the very object of encouraging an increase in the wages of non-Whites. It is an association which is very active in educating our people in respect of this problem and for that one must express one’s appreciation. Nevertheless, the director of that association, Mr. Silberbauer, as I said just now, declared himself opposed to a national minimum wage or a minimum wage on a regional basis. In Bulawayo on 3 April of last year he stated—

He said then that a system of minimum wages was clumsy and inflexible and that he would prefer to see recognition being given to individuals according to merit and requirements— that they should rather be remunerated on that basis. The report goes on further to say—

I shall say something in a moment about the scheme which the hon. member for Houghton suggested. Mr. Speaker, I regard this statement as being very important in the effort to have the wages of the Bantu increased. The director of an association, whose aim is to bring about higher wages in South Africa, says that he rejects this scheme of minimum wages! As I have said, the Economic Advisory Council has also given attention to this matter on various occasions, and in his statement of 26 April 1962 the Prime Minister—in pursuance of a meeting of the Economic Advisory Council—stated that all the members of the Advisory Council supported the principle of increased wages most strongly but that there was a difference of opinion regarding the way in which it should be started and its scope and the tempo at which it should take place. Even the Economic Advisory Council therefore struggled with this problem but unlike the hon. member they were not hasty in suggesting a system. I also want to say immediately that the Government is very sympathetic as far as this matter is concerned. The Minister of Labour issued a statement in 1960 in which he stated the policy of the Government very clearly. In his statement of 15 November 1960 he said—

The hon. the Minister stated on that occasion that it was desirable for the Wage Board to review its determinations periodically and that increases in the various spheres of industry should come into operation more swiftly. That is still the policy of the Government to-day. In terms of its policy I think that the Government has made a very important and positive contribution towards increasing minimum wages and I am sorry that the hon. member for Houghton does not want to give the Government credit for the great contribution which has been made by it over the past 15 years in respect of an increase in the wages of the non-Whites and the lower-paid workers in the country.

Fifteen years?

Yes, and particularly over the last five years. I shall deal with the 15-year period in a moment. The House will remember that the hon. the Minister of Labour amended the Wage Act about five or six years ago and divided the Wage Board into two sections. He has also tried in other ways to accelerate the proceedings of the Wage Board and the result has been spectacular. The result has been that the number of determinations made by the Wage Board over the past four years has increased threefold, and that is why the hon. the Minister of Labour was able to announce in the Other Place that it was hoped that the Wage Board would be able to overtake the backlog this year. This means that all wage determinations can now be reviewed every four or five years. The effect of this will be that the lowest wage levels can be reviewed and increased more swiftly than has been the case in the past. A few days ago in the Other Place the hon. the Minister told us what had been achieved. He pointed out—this was mentioned by the hon. member—that from 1959 to 1962 an additional amount of R22,000,000 was paid to Bantu workers in the form of wage increases. What the Government has actually achieved only becomes clear when one realizes that the average annual wage of a non-White factory worker increased by almost 100 per cent from 1948 to 1962. That is the average annual wage. Let me give the figures. In 1948, the average annual wage of a non-White factory worker was R226. In 1962 it had increased to R443. I agree with the hon. member that this is the average wage paid to non-Whites; it is not the average wage for the Bantu nor is that the increase in the minimum wage. The average wage of a non-White worker has therefore risen by 96 per cent since 1948 and this is far higher than the cost of living has risen since 1948. We often talk about a minimum wage of R30 or R45; some people talk about R60, but let us see how the average monthly wage has increased. In 1948 the average monthly wage was R19 per head. In 1962 it already stood at R37.

The hon. member spoke about the difference between skilled labourers’ wages and the wages of unskilled labourers. I want to point out immediately that Professor Steenkamp drew attention to the fact that unskilled wages had risen far more rapidly over the past five years than skilled wages, and that Bantu wages have risen far more rapidly than White wages. I just want to point out that according to a report in the Rand Daily Mail of 1 May 1962, Professor Steenkamp pointed out that in 1958-9 the growth in real Bantu wages had amounted to 2.1 per cent while in reality there had been a drop of 0.8 per cent in the net national income per head. In 1960-1 real Bantu wages rose by 4.9 per cent in comparison with an increase of 1.9 per cent in our net national income per head. In other words, the proportion of the increase in Bantu wages over the past five years has really been phenomenal.

That is what the Government has achieved and I think that the Government has been successful. That is borne out by the almost general absence of industrial unrest in the country. I do not want to deal with this matter, but to-day we hardly have strikes in this country. I think that we can congratulate the Government and the hon. the Minister on what they have achieved for the whole of South Africa and for that reason I would like to move this amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Houghton—

1. (1) expresses its thanks to the Government for its sympathetic attitude towards the problem of increasing the wages of the lower income groups and for its real contribution towards increasing these wages; and
2. (2) requests the Government to continue its policy of gradually increasing minimum wages on a selective basis in accordance with the progress in the economic sphere in South Africa”.

Before dealing with my objections to the motion of the hon. member for Houghton, I want to draw attention to a fundamental problem that we have in South Africa and that is the very high birth rate that we have amongst our non-Whites. The problem that we have to-day is to ensure that our economy develops at such a rate that we shall be able steadily to raise the standard of living of all our workers, the standard of living of the people. One of the greatest problems that we have in this regard is in fact this very high birth rate amongst the non-Whites in the country. This is the great problem which is occupying the minds of economists and responsible people— whether our economy will be able to grow to such an extent in the future that it will be able to keep pace with this very high birth rate.

The hon. member asked for a minimum wage. I thought that she was going to advocate a minimum wage on a regional basis but although she wanted to make provision for certain regional differences, she actually advocated a national minimum wage.

We already have a difference under wage determinations.

I want to say immediately that if one had to consider regional circumstances, one would really be creating difficulties because people would move from one region to another if we did not have a uniform national minimum wage. It would mean that people would move from a region where a lower wage is paid to a region where a higher wage is paid.

You have that under wage determinations.

Yes, Mr. Speaker; that is to say, they can go from one position to another but they need not go from one region to another. The hon. member is trying to put me off. All I am saying is that if we did this on a regional basis, then certain difficulties would arise. I want to point out immediately that to determine a national minimum wage would be one of the most difficult things in South Africa, far more difficult than would be the case in countries like America and Australia and England because there they have a homogeneous population. Not only do we have great differences in various regions—our standards of living differ from one region to another—but we also have race differences; we have people maintaining different standards of living according to the stage of development they have reached. That is why it is a very difficult task to make provision for a national minimum wage to cover everyone.

I also want to point out that all the undertakings in a particular region are not operated at the same level of profit. The hon. member says that she does not mind if certain undertakings close down. The fact remains that we cannot allow that to happen on a large scale without harming our economy. I want to point out another fact and that is that one finds that all businesses do not always fare equally well. One finds that at a given time there is a recession in certain branches of industry while there is no recession in other branches of industry. Think of the recession which has been experienced in the furniture industry and in the building industry over the past few years. In other words, if we had to lay down a national minimum wage, it would mean that those businesses would not be able to adjust themselves in a time of recession. They would have to pay that minimum wage and if the wage was increased they would be forced out. This would not happen because they are not good managers or because they are not good entrepreneurs, because they are not well organized or because they are not running at a profit but it would be as a result of a recession in the industry. I say that if we did not lay down wages on the basis of an industry, it would simply mean that those industries which experience a period of recession would suffer great hardship.

I want to point out that on various occasions over the past years the Wage Board has refrained from making recommendations for an increase in wage determinations precisely because there have been recessions in the particular industries which it has been investigating. A few years ago we had the recession in the basket-making industry and the Wage Board refused at that time to recommend a determination to the Minister in respect of that industry. If we had a national minimum wage we could not make that exception and if we did make it, it would mean that we would no longer have a national minimum wage. There is another difference that I also want to point out, a very important difference, and that is that in some industries a very large percentage of non-White labour is used while in other industries a very small percentage is used. A national minimum wage would affect most heavily those industries which use a large percentage of cheap labour and they would perhaps be the industries which can least afford it. One can quite understand, Sir, if we had a national minimum wage and one industry had five lower paid workers and another had 100, that it is going to affect that industry with the 100 lower paid workers far more severely than the one with five. In other words, it would be those entrepreneurs who make use of non-White labour on a large scale who would be most severely hit under a national minimum wage system in South Africa.

I also want to refer to the question of concentrations of workers if one does this on a regional basis. The fact is that we already have very large concentrations of workers to-day, for example on the Witwatersrand, and if one draws a distinction on a regional basis, it will then mean that one is going to create far greater problems than we have to-day in the concentrated areas.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member know that wage determinations are made on a regional basis to-day?

I agree with that, but the fact remains that if wages were laid down on a regional basis, the big cities would be a greater magnet than they are to-day in attracting labour.

I want to make a few general observations. I want to point out that the wage structure in any industry is built up on the lowest wage paid in that industry. The lowest wage forms the foundation of the wage structure. If the lowest wage is increased, it means that the entire wage structure is going to be affected; in other words, if we had a minimum wage throughout, the wages throughout the country in all industries would have to be adjusted to that minimum wage that is laid down. In other words, every time the minimum wage was increased, an increase would take place throughout the whole of the industrial world as an adjustment to that minimum wage. I want to point out that some people say that there should be an increase of at least R20 minimum wages. We have more than 1,000,000 unskilled industrial workers in South Africa. If we gave them an increase of R20 per month, it would mean an increase of R240 per person per annum. This would bring about an immediate expenditure to industry of R240,000,000 per annum. If what I say is correct, that the wage structure has to be adjusted to the lowest wage, the effect of this would be that a further R240.000.000 or more would perhaps have to be paid out in wages in that year because people higher up the scale would agitate for higher wages in order to be able to maintain the difference in the level of wages. I want to say immediately that the hon. member contends that higher wages will also result in higher production. I agree with her to some extent but we are not quite sure, as the Economic Advisory Council also stated, that that increased production would take place at such a rate that it would be able to cushion the effect of the increase in wages on our industry. If it did not cushion that effect, certain problems would arise. I accept that if industry paid higher wages it would soon try to increase the productivity of its workers by means of rationalization, automation and better methods of management. But the question is whether this would happen within a year or within two or three years. If it did not happen very soon, it would have a very detrimental effect on the economy of this country. Besides this one must accept the fact that it is not every business that has capable managers, people with the necessary talent for organizing and with management ability people who can immediately set that process in motion. Many of those businesses possibly do not have the means to bring this about. Even the Economic Advisory Council stated that it was not sure whether that increase in productivity would be able to take place so swiftly that it would be able to cushion the jolt which a wage increase of this nature would give to our economy. If that production did not take place very soon, it would have various effects on our economy. In the first place it would increase the cost of certain articles. If the cost of production rose in the primary sector, it would affect a large number of our exports because most of our exports are primary products. If production costs rose—and we already have very strong competition abroad to-day—we would experience a greater setback in this sphere than we realize.

It could also result in workers being forced out of their work. I want to mention this fact to the hon. member. An increased minimum wage would affect certain workers. I want to mention the case of domestic servants. Mr. Speaker, if one introduced an increased national minimum wage, certain groups of non-White workers whom one wants to assist would be affected; they would be pushed out of the labour market. The question arises whether if our economy received a setback it would be able to absorb those workers. That is why I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is idealistic to advocate a minimum wage. There are problems which we must face and try to overcome. We are living in a world where there is keen competition. We want to help these people but the question is how that wage increase is to be effected. That is why I come to the conclusion that the best way is the way and the policy followed by the National Party. We can only hope that the Government and the hon. the Minister specifically will continue with their efforts to increase minimum wages in South Africa along the lines that I have mentioned.

*Mr. VAN RENSBURG: I second the amendment. The picture which the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) painted for us this morning of the position of the unskilled workers in South Africa, together with the proposal she made here that a living wage should be guaranteed to all workers in South Africa, really created a wrong impression of the position here in South Africa. It is a fact after all that the standard of living of the Whites is one of the highest in the world. Some people think that this country probably ranks amongst the first five countries in the world in this regard. The standard of living of the non-Whites is higher than that of any other non-White group in Africa. Although the hon. member for Houghton does not like to be reminded of it—I do not know why—I think it is just as well that this is said. Mr. Clarence Randall, an American financier and adviser who visited this country recently, emphasized the fact that the Bantu in South Africa, let alone the Coloureds and the Indians, have the highest income of any Black group in the whole of Africa. The Bantu in South Africa have an average annual income of R270 and compare this figure, Sir, with the two best developed Black countries in Africa —Ghana with an average income of R90 and Nigeria with an average income of R72. The hon. member said that we must not draw comparisons between this country and undeveloped countries; we should draw comparisons between this country and modern industrial countries. What did Mr. Randall state further? He emphasized the fact that the Bantu in South Africa, as a group, owned 100,000 motorcars. Mr. Randall said that proportionately this compared far more favourably than in the case of the Russians in Russia.

What progress has the Bantu made in industry in South Africa? In 1930 there were 80,0 Bantu employed in our industries. Their total earnings amounted to R6,000,000. In 1957 we already had 367,000 Bantu workers with a total remuneration of R 114,000,000. That is to say, from 1930 to 1957 the income of the Bantu worker in industry had risen from R75 to R310 per annum, an increase of 313 per cent. This was over a period of 27 years. In 1960 their average income was R348 per annum, a further increase of 12 per cent, and since 1960, as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has shown, their wages have been considerably improved by more favourable industrial agreements and by better wage determinations by the Wage Board. Besides this, we must not lose sight of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that particularly cheap housing is provided for these Bantu workers in our industrial areas. Nor should we forget that even their transportation from their residential areas to their places of employment is subsidized. I think that it is necessary for these things to be mentioned in order to see the complete picture in South Africa. If the conditions described by the hon. member for Houghton really did exist, the unskilled Bantu worker would be dissatisfied, and if the workers were dissatisfied about their wages, or about their conditions of service or about the arrangements under which they work, this would manifest itself in the form of labour unrest, strikes or labour disputes which may arise.

The hon. member knows that it is unlawful for them to strike. They are put in gaol.

*Mr. VAN RENSBURG: In the discussion of a motion of this nature it is as well to consider everything. The hon. member says that I know that it is illegal for them to strike, but why do we still have strikes? Does she not know about them? What is the position of the Bantu workers in our labour field? In 1957 there were 112 strikes involving 4,800 Bantu workers. Since 1957 the position in respect of strikes has gradually improved every year until we only had 11 strikes involving 400 Bantu workers in 1962. Does this indicate labour unrest, Mr. Speaker? Does this indicate dissatisfaction? On the contrary, it speaks volumes as to the satisfaction and the wellbeing of the unskilled labourers of South Africa. In 1957 there were 243 disputes. If they do not have the right to strike, let there be disputes about their conditions of services or the wages they receive. There were 20,500 Bantu workers involved in those 243 disputes. These were disputes which did not lead ta strikes. The position has also improved in this respect. In 1961 there were 109 disputes in which only 6,100 Bantu workers were involved. In 1962 the number of disputes decreased and wc only had 88. Does this indicate dissatisfaction amongst the Bantu workers? On the contrary, it indicates the greatest satisfaction on their part in regard to conditions of labour in this country.

The hon. member for Houghton suggests in her proposal for a system of minimum wages that this should be done with a view to the expansion of our internal markets. Only higher wages can expand or stimulate our internal market. It is quite true that an increase in Bantu wages will help to develop our internal market. I agree with the hon. member for Houghton in that regard. But the Bantu will only—this is what the hon. member for Houghton forgets—have greater purchasing power if higher wages are accompanied by a proportionate increase in productivity. Otherwise the money will be taken from the employers and the entrepreneurs and placed in the hands of the unskilled workers. If an increase in Bantu wages is not accompanied by a positive effort towards higher productivity, we will have increased production costs and if we experience this we will have inflation which in its turn will completely neutralize the benefits of increased wages.

The hon. member did not hear a word that I said.

The point that I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is this that the Bantu will only have greater purchasing power in South Africa because of increased wages if this goes hand in hand with increased productivity and a increase in labour turnover. It is therefore all very well to contend summarily that increased wages will expand our internal market, but it must be remembered that certain conditions are required to bear out that argument.

On the other hand, it is just as true that drastic increases in Bantu wages, which is the aim of the hon. member for Houghton, can also be very detrimental to our economy and our country as a whole, as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) correctly indicated. Drastic wage increases can lead to the ruination of many undertakings which cannot afford those higher wages. After all, Mr. Speaker, it is and will always be uneconomic to pay more for poor or undrained labour than that labour deserves or justifies. Higher wages can also lead to large-scale unemployment amongst the Bantu. The hon. member for Houghton dealt with this point this morning and did not actually see any danger in it. We noticed recently that with the rationalization of their non-White labour forces in the service of the Johannesburg City Council, the City Council reduced their non-White labour force by 1,687 over the past two years. This was as a result of an increase in wages. Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, who is a member of the party of which the hon. member for Houghton is the only representative in this House, stated last year that the Anglo American Corporation had taken steps to reduce the number of Bantu in its employ in order to pay higher wages to the better skilled labourers. What will happen to those workers who are dismissed? This must lead to unemployment. I accept the fact, however, that the problem of unemployment can be combated to a large extent and overcome if this labour can be diverted to the factories to be established under the border development scheme, something of course which the hon. member for Houghton does not want. The motion of the hon. member for Houghton states further: “To institute a system of minimum wages with a view, inter alia, of combating malnutrition”. But should malnutrition really be ascribed to the low wages paid to Bantu employees? The hon. member quoted the Report of the Research Bureau of the University of South Africa, but is she aware of the fact that this Bureau recently also investigated the purchasing habits of the Bantu on the Witwatersrand and in Pretoria? And what did the Report of the Bureau reveal regarding the purchasing habits of the Bantu? It revealed the fact that the Bantu in South Africa were more inclined to spend their money on luxury articles than to make provision for the necessities of life. That was the finding of the Bureau—that the purchasing habits of the Bantu in those areas were a contributory cause of malnutrition in South Africa.

Minimum wages, regional wages, national minimum wages will do nothing to solve this problem. On the contrary, this will create a competition cycle amongst the Bantu. The higher his wages, the more will this create a competitive cycle amongst the Bantu to spend more and more money on luxury articles and les and less on food. The solution to the problem of malnutrition lies to my mind in another direction, and that is to give food to the employees as part of their remuneration. Dr. Steenkamp, Chairman of the Wage Board, had the following to say in 1960—

We have the example of the South African Railways, to which the hon. member for Houghton has also referred, which is to-day supplying a balanced ration to 30,000 of its employees in the compounds and on the various sections, and the Railways do so for the simple reason, as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) has correctly indicated, that it has been their experience that if these Bantu have to buy their own food, they merely go to a café during mealtimes and buy a bottle of mineral water and a piece of white bread and they try to do their work on that. That food is not nutritious and so we have disease as a result of underfeeding. This is an idea which should perhaps be considered more seriously and which should be carried out by more employers in South Africa, this idea of giving Bantu labourers a balanced ration as the Railways are already doing in the case of 30,000 of their Bantu employees. A few years ago the example was given in this House of one particularly large factory which provided their Bantu workers with food; and over the same period after they decided to supply their Bantu workers with food, they discovered that production had increased by as much as 40 per cent. I think that malnutrition can be more effectively combated in this way, and that that may perhaps be of greater assistance in combating the problem of agricultural surpluses than the idea of regional wages put forward by the hon. member for Houghton.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) expressed gratitude to the Government for what it has already done. Indeed. the Government has done a great deal, as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) has also pointed out. When industrial agreements are concluded, wages are determined by means of negotiation between employers and employees and the majority of Bantu wages is to-day controlled by industrial councils. As far as the Bantu are concerned, there is additional machinery available to protect their interests when agreements are concluded by industrial councils. The reason being, of course, that Bantu cannot be members of a trade union or be represented on an industrial council. It was this Government which, by means of legislation, passed in this House in 1953, ensured that an instrument to represent the unskilled Bantu worker be called into being, namely, the Central Native Labour Council which represents the unskilled Bantu at meetings of the industrial councils when wage agreements are concluded. When it acts there, it acts on behalf of those Bantu employees. Mainly as a result of the actions and the intercession of this Council, improvements amounting to millions of rand have been effected in the wages of thousands of Bantu workers under industrial council agreements. Thus during the period 1959 to 1962 wage increases totalling R22,385,000 were granted to 514,000 Bantu workers. When an industrial council agreement is concluded, it is submitted to the Minister, but it cannot be submitted to the Minister if it has not also been recommended by the Central Native Labour Council. In this way the Government has ensured that the Bantu who fall under industrial council agreements will receive their fair and rightful share of any wage improvements which are effected in terms of industrial council agreements. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) referred to the legislation which was introduced in 1957 to improve the operations of the Wage Board and which divided the Wage Board into two sections so that they could dispose of more work. To illustrate how swiftly the Wage Board operates to-day I may mention that between 1 January 1958 to 1 January 1961,38 branches of industry were investigated and 38 determinations were made affecting 110,000 Bantu workers. This was during the period immediately following upon the legislation of 1957, a period of three years, but from 1 January 1961 to date, that is to say, over the past two years, 22 determinations have been made affecting 93,000 Bantu workers. In other words, the Wage Board is operating much more swiftly. In the past two years it has speeded up its work even more than it did during the previous three years. Increases amounting to millions of rand have been granted in this way and 200,000 employees have been affected.

The hon. member for Houghton has again used the old excuse that it was difficult for employers to increase wages because under a system of free enterprise the employer had to consider all his competitors. In other words, the employer who increases his employees’ wages is placed in an unfair position and cannot compete with those employers who do not increase wages. That was her argument, but it is an argument which does not hold water. If an employer wants to increase wages and if together with that wage increase he wants to ensure increased productivity, it does not necessarily follow that his production costs will rise as a result. That was precisely what the Anglo American Corporation announced they intended to do—to dismiss some of their Bantu labour, to increase the wages of the others and thus maintain the same production at the same costs. There are other examples. There is a good example of a factory which over a period of five years dismissed 50 per cent of its Bantu labour, but over that same period increased the wages of those remaining in its service by 50 per cent. Its wage bill, therefore, remained the same. They discovered that by making use of more efficient labour they could increase their production by no less than 50 per cent. What happens now to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Houghton that employers are in this difficult position that because of free enterprise, they are placed in an unfair position in the industrial sphere as against their competitors when they decide of their own accord to increase wages. And what about the industrial council agreements? There are about 80 industrial council agreements in South Africa to-day involving no fewer than 20,000 employers and

300,0 Bantu workers. These 20,000 employers have a say in 80 wage agreements for various industries. If the wages prescribed in an agreement are lower than those which the employers are able and ought to pay, it is the employer himself who is responsible for this state of affairs. These agreements are revised from time to time—most of them are revised annually— and they can also be amended during the period of their validity. If the employers wish to pay higher wages, the employees will be only too willing to conduct negotiations in this regard under the agreement. No, the excuse advanced by the hon. member for Houghton in this House on behalf of employers was a weak excuse—the excuse that because of the danger of unfair competition with their competitors, they are not able to increase wages. The Wage Board has even found that wages laid down by industrial council agreements have often been lower than the wage determinations made by the Wage Board itself. Who is to blame for that? Nobody but the employer in our country, and the hon. member for Houghton is wasting her time pleading the case of these people. No, if the Government is urged to take steps to accelerate wage increases or to introduce minimum regional wages, which is what the hon. member for Houghton wants, so that wages will be increased, my question is this: Why should the Government do so? What prevents commerce and industry from doing so? That argument advanced by the hon. member of free enterprise simply does not hold water. Why is State action or legislation required to increase Bantu wages or to determine minimum regional wages? Do these people want to make the Government the scapegoat; do they want the Government to take the blame if the general public reaction is against it or if our economy is adversely affected?

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

I think the House welcomes this opportunity to discuss the motion moved by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), but before I discuss the motion as such, I should like to deal with one or two of the points made by speakers on the Government side. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) mentioned that we should not lose sight of the fact that Bantu wages in the Republic are higher than in any other area in Africa. I do not know that anyone denies that fact, because we are all familiar with the wage pattern throughout Africa, and we certainly do not deny that. What we do say is that that is not a reason for complacency as far as our own Bantu are concerned. I think the fact that we have got a lead is to the credit of the Republic, we should not rest on our laurels but we should get on with the job. That brings me to the next point made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East), namely that although the Government has every sympathy with a policy designed to increase the basic wages applicable to Bantu workers, I got the impression that both of the speakers on the Government side were giving every conceivable reason why a living wage should not be established. I did not hear them suggest one way in which this problem could be overcome, and I think I have got to say the same about the hon. member for Houghton. She did give, I think, a very broad and a very interesting resumé of the whole problem dealing with the Bantu wages, the whole structure of Bantu wages, but I do not think that the real crux of the matter, the core of the whole matter was mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton, or for that matter by the two members speaking on the Government side.

But it is not my intention to anticipate my own speech, and I think this question will crop up as I proceed with my contribution to this debate.

The proposal of the hon. member for Houghton that there should be a system of living wages applicable to all workers with due regard to regional differences in the cost of living and to the value of wages paid in kind, is a basic proposition that as far as the Progressive Party is concerned can be solved by the application of a system of minimum wages; as far as the Government members are concerned, they are satisfied that the policy of the Nationalist Party will solve this problem without any additional machinery being set up, such as a system of minimum wages. They feel that their policy is sufficient to overcome this problem without taking any further steps. I think that is a fair statement to make based on what was said by the two hon. members who have spoken so far. The hon. member-for Houghton has quoted all the recent authorities, experts and others that have dealt with this question, Mr. Katzen, Mr. Goldberg, chairman of the Bantu Wage and Productivity Council, I think the South African Congress of Trade Unions …

No, I did not mention them.

Well, they also advocated the same principle, and also the fact that it is the generally accepted policy of the Progressive Party that a minimum wage should be applied throughout the Republic. Against the proposition of the Progressive Party are Professor W. F. J. Steenkamp and Professor O. P. F. Horwood and also the South African Federated Chamber of Industries—I am only dealing with those that have recently written or expressed opinions about this question.

Now I think I must endeavour to state, as simply as I possibly can, what the problem is, and I think I can put it in a very few words. The basic problem that we have to face, as I see it, is that the Bantu is earning Black and is paying White. In other words, the goods which are bought by the Bantu, both consumable and durable goods, cost the Bantu exactly the same as they do the White worker. That is our basic problem. No matter what we do, unless we can reduce the gap between the earnings of the White workers and the earnings of the Bantu workers, we will be in trouble all along the line, and I suggest that that is the problem that we should be considering to-day: How to reduce this gap. And I would also suggest that if there were an increase in the minimum rates throughout the Republic of RX per month, there would automatically be an increase in the price of consumer and durable goods throughout the Republic. It is as simple as that. And the question would then arise: Are they any better off as a result of having received an increase in basic pay? In other words, for an increase to be of any value it has to be more than sufficient to meet an inevitable price increase in consumable goods. I think if we accept that as our basic proposition, we will then be able to see in what direction we have got to go to meet the problem that presents itself, to us. I must add in passing here that it is because of this factor that we know that the low wages paid in cash to domestic workers and farm workers have not the same impact upon them as in other industries where wages are paid and nothing paid in kind. In other words, domestic workers and farm workers invariably do receive food as part of their income, which means that the biggest single item in the budget of other workers is therefore not present as far as these two categories of workers are concerned, so that the problem is not so acute in the case of farm workers and domestic workers as upon other workers who receive straight cash payments for work done.

A very interesting article was quoted in part by the hon. member for Houghton, an article to be found in the June 1962 issue of the South African Journal of Economics written by Dr. W. F. J. Steenkamp on “Bantu Wages in South Africa ”. We must remember that Dr. Steenkamp is the chairman of the Wage Board, so that he should have a very good insight into the problems facing us, and on page 116 under the heading “A Target for the Future”, he says this—

Now, in that statement we have a problem which this Government has done nothing to assist in solving. I refer to the statement where it is said that unless the European wage and salary earners could be induced to accept a much smaller rise in real average income, it will not be much use. How would one go about persuading European workers to accept a lower increase in real wages so that the Bantu could have a higher increase in wages? Prior to the accession to power of the present Government, one could say that we had a united trade union movement in South Africa and it was possible to get discussions at top level as far as trade unions are concerned, but actions by this Government, by amendments to the Industrial Conciliation Act, have made that impossible, so that we will have to rely on the goodwill of the European trade unions to bring about what Dr. Steenkamp considers to be essential. In other words, if the European trade union movement were prepared to accept as a basic fact that their wages would have to be slightly increased while Bantu wages are considerably increased, unless they are prepared to accept that I do not think that any Government would be prepared to enforce it on them. Therefore the importance of maintaining good relations with the trade union movement is of considerable importance and a matter which we cannot overlook when we deal with this question of how to reduce the gap between wages paid to the Blacks and those paid to the Whites. The question then arises how to reduce the gap between Black and White wages without disrupting the economy of the country, and here we have possibly two ways open to us. There can be wage adjustments of the type I have mentioned and as suggested by Dr. Steenkamp, or there can be a system of food subsidies, the former method is included in the further amendment I am now moving and which reads as follows—

1. (a) to set an example to all employers of labour, whether covered by wage regulating machinery or not, by ensuring that all workers employed by the State are paid a living wage; and
2. (b) to improve and to utilize existing wage regulating machinery to ensure that workers covered by such regulating machinery are paid a living wage and thus, inter alia, increasing internal markets and combating malnutrition.”

The purpose in moving this amendment will become apparent. Before I go into detail, I think I should mention that the United Party stands by the machinery that was created during the time when it was in office—the Industrial Conciliation Act which has as its main principle collective bargaining—without of course the clauses dealing with job reservation and the splitting of the trade unions—the Wage Act for the workers not covered by the Industrial Conciliation Act, the Shop and Office Hours Act, which deals with the hours of work etc., and the one other Act which was introduced since 1948 and which has played an important part, namely the Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act, which was supported by this party, with the Central Native Labour Board as one of its main instruments. This machinery has resulted in the improvement which has already taken place as far as Bantu workers are concerned. When one considers the numbers that have been assisted by way of this machinery, one can see that it has played a considerable part in attempting to solve the problems presented because of the low wages paid to the Bantu and the relatively high wages paid to the Whites.

But the point I want to make here is that outside of this machinery, the Railways, the G.P.O. and the Public Service account for no fewer than 225,000 Bantu workers. That, together with the numbers that the annual report of the Department of Labour for 1962 reveals, shows that the Central Labour Board succeeded in getting wage increases for 151,0 Bantu workers, entailing a wage expenditure of approximately R7,750,000 per annum. That fact, together with the figures I have mentioned in respect of the Railways, the G.P.O. and the Public Service, shows that the Government has direct machinery for influencing the wages of no fewer than 377,347 Bantu workers, which is a considerable proportion of the Bantu workers employed in the Republic. I do not know whether the figure given to us by the hon. member who moved the amendment on the Government side is correct, but he suggested that there are just over 1,000,000 Bantu workers employed in the Republic and receiving wages. If we accept that figure as correct, we see that the Government has a direct say in the wages of over one-third of the Bantu workers employed in the Republic, and that is an important matter. In terms of our amendment, it will be seen that if the Government were to be satisfied that the wages paid to all of those that it is in a position to control is a satisfactory wage, is at least a living wage, the influence which that must have on the agreements arrived at by employers and employees in other than State controlled undertakings must be considerable. In other words, if we are going to accept that it is not only the responsibility of employers in outside industry to pay attention to this problem, but that it is and should be the direct responsibility of the Government, and that the initiative should be taken by the Government, we can see how much the Government can do in this direction; and there are one or two reasons why this should be so.

Firstly, the Government employs workers in every conceivable type of work from manual labour to highly skilled work. Secondly, it is in a position to establish and provide a living wage through on-the-spot investigations under all conditions. Here I must mention the proposal made by the mover of the motion that there should be a semi-judicial body set up to implement what the mover wishes to bring about. She admitted that that could only be done by such a judicial commission after considerable research and investigation which would necessarily take a long time. But, Mr. Speaker, is it necessary to set up an organization like that, when the Government itself has all the machinery within its own control and can establish within a very short while what a living wage is for every type of worker in the Republic?

They do not seem to have done so, though.

That is my complaint, and that is why my amendment is worded in the way it is. I suggest that because the Government is in this favourable position it has an obligation to set the ball rolling, to take the initiative and to bring about the first movement, which is to establish what should be a minimum living wage for every section of the community. I do not know whether we appreciate the extent to which the Government has a direct influence on thousands of workers and the wages they receive. We need only mention a few of the industries which are either Government controlled or where the Government has a direct say in the wages paid, like Iscor and Escom and other semi-State organizations, the great industry we have in the Forestry Department and the number of experimental farms run by the Government, which give the Government a first-hand opportunity of establishing what a minimum wage should be for all categories of workers, who are employed not only by the Government in these various departments but also in outside industries. So that the need for an independent investigation to establish these facts does not exist. The Government could at very short notice establish what these factors are.

I now come to the next point made in the same article I quoted earlier on, and here I think we come to the crux of the matter. It is on page 116, where Dr. Steenkamp went on to say this—

That means that this will be a continuous process. There would be an adjustment in terms of this proposition put forward by Dr. Steenkamp which would bring about a considerable change in a very short time. I do not know whether the significance of this paragraph is apparent to most hon. members, but what is suggested here is that when an industrial council agreement is signed by the Minister and it lays down for the lowest paid employees in that industry or undertaking that a wage rate should be paid to them which is higher than anything else laid down either in the Government service or outside, there should immediately be an adjustment upwards in all other industries or undertakings. Now one can see why it is considered important by Dr. Steenkamp that there should be agreement that where this type of increase takes place there will not be a corresponding demand for increases by other workers who enjoy a much higher rate of pay. That is the basis of his proposition, and it would appear to me that unless we are prepared to think along these lines we are not going to get to the crux of this problem merely by insisting upon a minimum wage rate throughout the Republic. It will be the same as what we experienced in regard to the cost-of-living allowances. They were always paid after there had been an increase in commodity prices, with the result that the increased C.O.L.A. merely compensated for the increased commodity prices and the workers were no better off. It merely enabled them to keep pace with the continued increase in the cost of living. So let us take this proposition a step further and see what happens in fact. We have an illustration in what happened last year when the Minister of Transport set a new wage rate for Bantu labourers employed by the S.A. Railways and according to the information I have been given that wage rate amounted to R36.40 a month for a 26-day month. That is higher than the average paid by outside industry, which I understand at present is R31 a month. This would mean that if the Government were in a position to, and did in fact increase the level of Bantu labourers’ wages to R36.40, that would become the new basic wage to be paid throughout industry. This has to be done without disruption, without forcing the cost of living up to the point where this increase would not be worth while. The proposition we have to face here is the one I mentioned earlier, that the gap between the earnings of the Whites and the Blacks has to be reduced. I am satisfied that the Government, by using the means at its disposal, can establish what is a living wage for all types of work under all conceivable conditions. I am sure that if this information is made available to the country it will in turn form the basis upon which the Minister of Labour can evaluate the wage proposals submitted to him for approval in terms of the wage-regulating instruments. We must remember that the Minister of Labour has to sign all the wage determinations, whether they come from the Industrial Council or the Wage Board. The Minister is then in a position to assess whether the wages agreed upon for the Bantu workers are in keeping with what the State establishes as reasonable for its own workers in similar employment throughout the country. I say that this problem can be met in that way if there is the incentive as far as the Government itself is concerned. It is no use the Government saying to outside employers that it is their responsibility, because we know what their position is, one employer in a particular industry may be prepared to increase Bantu wages, but another employer in the same industry may not be prepared to do so, with the result that nothing at all is done. The competitive factor compels the employers to see that if there is an adjustment in wages it takes place throughout the industry, otherwise the competitive factor cannot be overcome.

I did mention that the Government has another method, the paying of State subsidies. Earlier on we had a quotation from the Committee of Inquiry into Family Allowances. This Committee investigated this whole problem of family allowances and on pages 79 to 81 they came to certain conclusions, and in paragraph 317 they say this—

That presents the other choice the Government has. If it is not prepared to take the initiative in regard to Bantu wages in one way or another, then this gap can also be narrowed by subsidizing staple foods to the lower income groups. The Government is facing the problem of large surpluses in the very commodities referred to in this Committee’s report, the protective foods, it would appear that the Government should also investigate whether the subsidizing of staple foods would solve the problem. I put it to the Government that it has the choice. It can do nothing. It can institute a system of food subsidies, or it can accept the proposition set out in our amendment. I think the Minister should give us some indication of what he intends doing about this problem and what the Government’s policy is, because the more I listen to debates on this question the more convinced I am that we only get a lot of views put forward. We get to know what other people think, and we get propositions from the Government side, but what is missing is positive action. And the Opposition is not in a position to take the positive action that should be taken; that can only be done by the Government in power. It would appear to me that the suggestion which has been made by Dr. Steenkamp is one which should be examined very closely, not only by the Government but by trade unions as well, because I say that it would be a very brave Government which would take the initiative in saying to the White workers that an improvement in Bantu wages can only be brought about by a sacrifice on their part. I am quite sure that the workers would retaliate and say; Rather than do that to us, we suggest that you go ahead with a system of food subsidization paid for by all taxpayers and not by the White workers alone. I think that is a factor we have to consider. The Minister has to face up to this responsibility and I hope he will come into this debate and give us some idea of what the Government will do.

I second the amendment and I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) on what I think is a very well-reasoned and responsible speech. It is the type of speech which we so rarely have the opportunity of hearing in this House. I want to take this matter a little further than my colleague, and from a slightly different angle. Let me say at once that we on this side of the House, as hon. members will have gathered from what my colleagues had to say, are not opposed to the principle of paying a minimum living wage. On the contrary, as merely a humanitarian measure, apart from anything else, we believe that the country can afford to pay a living wage to all its workers. It is true that there are different conditions under which they are employed but basically the country is able to afford a living wage for all workers, and it is therefore a matter of organization and administration and possibly just of good government on the administrative side, to enable that desirable aim to be brought about. But, as I say, there are so many aspects of this question that it is not a simple matter. It is not a matter which we could sit down and study in the library and then come to Parliament and make speeches about. This is a matter with many involved aspects, and one of the difficulties I want to deal with arises from the approach I wish to make, which is not from the angle of industry but from the angle of people in the country districts, under different conditions from those which obtain in the urban centres.

One of the difficulties with which we are faced is this, that while it is true that we would wish to see a living wage paid, this impinges immediately upon another matter which stands right alongside it. and that is the question of unemployment. Here we are up against the position of the man who is unemployed and who is willing to work for a lesser wage than the other man would work for. We have in some parts of the country to-day a shortage of labour of certain types, and I would say a great shortage in some areas. I hear tales of farmers who are taking their lorries and travelling 150 miles and more to find labour to help them reap their crops, and who are willing to pay high wages. There is no fixed wage for them. There is no figure fixed by legislation and to which they must adhere as a living wage. They go out to find labour which they need to reap their crops and they are willing to pay for it, and if they have to travel 100 miles to get the labour, they do it. Academic considerations of what is a living wage leave them stone cold. They want labour. That is economics; it is reality. On the other hand, you have the case of the unemployed, and in certain areas to-day it is becoming a grievous problem. If one assumes that the labourers I have referred to are in the main Bantu, it can also be said that the unemployed are in the main also Bantu, people who because of pressure from urban areas have hitherto been excluded and sent back again to the reserves or to the areas from which they have come—not necessarily " reserves” in the legal sense—but there they are; they have not gone back to employment. There is no employment there for them. What do they do? It is not a question of a living wage with them; it is a case of whether they can get employment and the wages that they take will be the wages offered to them because they will do anything to get money, to get something, to be able to live. So you have these two things running together at the same time, and in dealing with a question of this kind one cannot look upon it as though it is just a simple issue of laying down, as the hon. member for Houghton suggested a living wage and then make allowances for the cost of living here and the cost of living there. What allowance do you make for the cost of living of a person who has not got a job? You see, here is a pressure building up from two sides, from totally opposed angles—a shortage of labour and a surplus of labour all at the same time, but not in the same area. But I want to go further and say that there is a growing body of employers to-day who are not Whites. I will leave out for the moment the Indians in my own province and possibly elsewhere and even the Coloured man. I do not know the position as far as the Coloured man is concerned but I refer now to the type of employer who is himself a mantu and who employs other Bantu people to work for him. You have bus companies which are Native-owned. That is not agriculture; it is a recognized portion of our economy, of our way of life, of our industry. Sir, bus companies run all over the country to-day. There are Native-owned bus companies who employ Bantu to run their companies. You have Bantu storekeepers who employ Bantu people to work for them. What is the position of these employers vis-à-vis their employees? What is the position of the competitor under those circumstances? Sir, these are realities. You have people of various racial groups running competitive services, whether they be bus companies or stores or other services, and the whole trend to-day is for a greater and greater number of non-Whites to come into all these avenues, not as employees but as employers. They are taking part to-day in the industrial and commercial life of the country, and that must surely be so, otherwise what do we visualize for the future? Surely we must visualize that that movement will gain ground and that there will be an increasing number of Bantu employers in various callings and walks of life which they have never yet entered as employers. Where they have been employees they will now be employers employing their own people, and so you get another cross current running, because where that kind of development takes place you can expect competition of a kind that is not going to be met by any rule of thumb solution, by saying, “we are going to insist on a minimum wage being paid ”. Having said that I want to come to the Indian in Natal. Let hon. members go to the Department of Labour and ask them what kind of difficulties they have had with those folk in enforcing wage determinations. Precisely the same difficulty is going to arise in other cases. It does not only arise amongst the Indians. It has arisen also amongst certain White groups. When we come to the motion of the hon. member for Houghton, she seeks to give the impression that if only the Government takes into account the cost of living in the various regions and the value of wages paid in kind, then we have a cure for all evils, a panacea for all our troubles; that having taken those into account we will have solved all our problems. Then we would increase the internal market and we would combat malnutrition. Sir, I admit that if you inject into the economy of the country extra wages whether it be for the Bantu people or any other section, that tends to create a better internal market; there is more money to spend internally on the products of our commerce and industry and so forth. But when I first read what the hon. member had to say in her motion about malnutrition, my mind went back to the history of our own country, particularly in my own province. What wages did the Zulu people get in Zululand in, say, 1820, and how much malnutrition was there? There was no malnutrition but they did not have a living wage.

But they had plenty of land to farm.

The point I want to make is this: The hon. member now says that the Zulus then had plenty of land to farm. Let us just leave that alone because that is a statement which cannot be substantiated. The point is that her motion does not say “a living wage and plenty of land to farm”, and it does not say “a living wage or plenty of land to farm ”. A living wage, with the qualification that she laid down, was the panacea for all our troubles, but that was not the position in those days. Those people, probably one of the finest races on earth, physically, did not have a living wage. They did not have any wage at all. My point is in dealing with this question of malnutrition that they did not have a living wage and that they did not have malnutrition. A living wage is not the thing that makes malnutrition extinct. Malnutrition does not disappear because you have a living wage. I do not subscribe to the view that the hon. member expressed that various people have said in defence of the present system that it is the social custom of the Bantu not to have milk, this, that or the other thing. I do not agree that anybody who professes to be an expert as far as the Bantu are concerned has ever said that. Of course the Bantu has always had milk and green stuff and meat; they had a well-balanced diet. The point is that to-day your industrial worker, particularly in the urban areas is a bad buyer of protective foodstuffs. It is not so much a living wage or the failure to have a living wage, but what does he do with his money even though he has a living wage and when he has that extra money to spend? It has been said that he has not been educated to spend his money on the right foodstuffs. Well, whether it is education or not, that does not matter for the moment, but the fact remains that he does not spend it wisely on protective foodstuffs. If it is a question of education, who educated the Zulu in 1820? Who told him what protective foodstuffs to have? He did not need any education in 1820 to tell him what the protective foodstuffs were. It was his way of life. Through hundreds of years he had come forward and had reached almost the peak of perfection as far as human beings are concerned. This question cannot be tied on merely to a living wage. This thing is an intricate problem, it is a social problem. It is in all aspects a human problem but it is a social problem—employment and housing and the condition under which people live—and in the rural areas where to-day the Bantu are living free of this malnutrition that we hear about I have never seen a case of kwashiorkor on any of our farms. I am in touch with district surgeons and doctors throughout the length and breadth of my province and I cannot recall one of them ever telling me that he had come across a case of kwashiorkor on a farm.

Have you looked at the C.S.I.R. Report which relates to rural as well as urban areas? There you will see that kwashiorkor is prevalant in that area.

I do not know whether the report says that it is prevalent in those areas and I do not know to which areas it refers, if indeed there is such a statement in the report. Does it refer to the rural areas in my own province? Because I am not talking about the position of Coloured people elsewhere or anything of that sort. I am talking about the Bantu on our farms. I want to go further and say this, and here is something that money cannot buy and you are never going to pin it down with a living wage: I refer to the care given by the farmer and his wife to those little piccanins and children of all kinds of Bantu people who form part of the whole build-up that forms a farm in the rural areas. How do you account for that in terms of money? How can you say: “The living wage shall be R29 per month and then you must make allowances for the cost of living in the area and for wages received in kind?” When it comes to the personal interest taken in these people and all the free medicine, the free health services and all the various things which are given by the farmer and his wife to these people, how do you put that down in terms of money? It cannot be done; it is absolutely impossible. I say therefore that this thing is not as simple as the hon. member for Houghton would have us believe. It is by no means a simple thing. May I say also that in my opinion one of our troubles, one of the side-issues but having a very direct bearing upon this question, is the matter of the ability of the Native to sell his labour in the best market. I know all the difficulties and all the trouble in that regard, but when you are dealing with this question of a living wage and you are faced with the difficulties that we are experiencing in this country because of the gap between the White man’s wage and the Black man’s wage, it is a warning. But when at the same time you find that gap between the Bantu in one area, in very short supply, being paid very high wages, and the Bantu in another area, with an abundance of labour and no jobs available, willing to work for the barest minimum that will keep body and soul together, when you find at the same time in the same country, in the same economy of the Black man with his wage, the White man with his much higher wage, and then this tremendous discrepancy between Black and Black, that is one of the things which to my mind is showing a red light for the future, a thing that we should be investigating to see whether we cannot overcome it, and allow the Bantu to sell their labour in the area where they are going to get the best returns for their labour. If we want the Bantu to be contented and to settle down happily, then one of the things that they must get is contentment in their place of work. Sir, every farmer will tell you that the dissatisfied, the unhappy, the grousing, grizzling, grumbling labourer is no good to him. We all get rid of him as soon as we can. We do not want him. But nor does anybody else want to work in a place where he is not happy. Look how happy we all are here; we stay here year after year—at a living wage, may I say.

There is a lot of unskilled work too.

The hon. member over there is surely the best judge of her own capacity. Who am I to say that she is wrong in judging her own capacity? Sir, I do not want to deal with this matter any further. I have tried to point out that from a certain angle this matter is a difficult one and it cannot be solved by simply having a minimum wage fixed, with certain rigid ideas applied to it so as to make it applicable here or there. But I do want to come back for a moment or two to this question of the Bantu selling their labour in the best market. In the farming areas at the present time those of us who live on border forms particularly, are coming up against this problem and it is going to affect us probably to a very much greater extent than it does at the present time. Sir, let me give you an example of the kind of thing that I personally experienced the other day. I am a border farmer. A Native came round from the adjacent area. My Native told me that he called himself a trade unionist. They had no idea what a trade unionist was, but they said that he called himself a trade unionist; that is not the way they pronounced it. He came along and told them that they were entitled to a higher wage. He had a lot of figures there and he was able to tell them what was written in the papers and he told them that they were entitled to much higher wages. In due course the induna came along and said, “look here, we want these higher wages that we are entitled to get ”. I said to him, “look, my business will permit of so much being paid in wages. You sit here every week with me when I pay or when my son pays when 1 am down in Cape Town. You see how many pounds and pounds and pounds are paid out. I am not going to pay out more than that. I am going to leave it to you now. I am willing to continue paying that amount of money. If you are satisfied that I should pay a fewer number of you, I will sack some of you; I will take the same amount of money and I will pay to those of you who remain, so those who stay on will have higher wages. I will sack one-third and the two-thirds who stay on will get exactly that amount of money but you will have to work harder to earn it. I am paying that money for work done and you will now do the extra work and get the extra pay, but you must work it out for yourselves now ”. Sir, I employ quite a lot of Native labour. They took two or three days to bunga about it, and then the indunas concerned came to me and said, “no, sir, we would sooner stay on and work as we are. We do not want you to sack anybody. We will work for the wages ”. They had no complaint against the wages as such. They had been told that they were entitled to higher wages so they wanted the higher wages because somebody had told them that they were entitled to it, but when I made this offer to them that I would pay those who stayed on higher wages provided they worked harder, the answer was that they did not want to go. They all wanted to stay on at the same wage. This is what happened when it was left to them to decide for themselves. They decided for themselves that the extra inducement as far as they were concerned was not going to be rewarded by extra labour on their part. They were not going to work any harder so as to get extra money. They were satisfied to stay as they were. Sir, where we on border farms are concerned we have to realize that these unemployed who are now coming back to the Native areas are going to start the pressure against us on our border farms; I am seeing it already. I have seen Natives come along and offer to work for half of what I am paying my labour, and when it comes to tractor drivers and people like that, I am getting Natives who are coming to work for a quarter of what I pay my tractor driver. This is the kind of thing that is happening, and I repeat that the gap between White and Black wages in this country that my hon. friend here refers to, the gap between Black and Black wages all in the same economy, is the red light. We will at our peril let that develop and get wider and wider apart, and a bare minimum wage or a living wage or whatever it may be called is no answer to the problem. Far more drastic action than that has to be taken. I agree with my hon. friend that in his amendment he has suggested ways and means of battling with that problem.

The MINISTER OF LABOUR: I thought I should intervene in the debate at this stage.

I have been asked by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) to reply to certain suggestions that have been made in the course of the debate. Sir, I agree with the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) whom, by the way, I must congratulate on a very down-to-earth speech which I think puts the whole question in the right perspective. I agree with him when he says that the hon. member for Hougton (Mrs. Suzman) simply moved her motion and then proceeded to make quite an academic speech which she culled from various authorities which she probably got in the library. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) traversed the speech of the hon. member for Houghton in a practical way and showed in the course of their remarks how it was quite impracticable to introduce any system such as was suggested by the hon. member. Sir, I dealt with this question of a national minimum wage very fully last year in the Other Place. I have not got the time now to deal with it as fully as I did last year. If any hon. members are interested they can read it in the Senate Hansard of last year. The motion of the hon. member for Houghton. I think hon. members will agree, is simply a variation of the old theme of a national minimum wage. The impracticability of a national minimum wage is, I think, fairly accepted and appreciated by thinking people. The hon. member has tried to give her proposal an air of reasonableness by throwing in a few phrases such as “due regard to regional differences in the cost of living and to the value of wages paid in kind ”. I am afraid that she has not succeeded in making the proposal anymore acceptable to those of us who are charged with the responsibility of striking a balance between a practicable and fanciful solution of the problem of raising our standard of living in South Africa. I think that in essence her proposals suffer from the disadvantages which rendered previous proposals that we have had for a national minimum wage quite impracticable. A great portion of her speech was devoted to the subject of malnutrition. Of course, those remarks should be addressed to my colleague the Minister of Health, and the hon. member will have an opportunity of doing that when his Vote comes before the House. I do not propose therefore to deal with that except that I want to emphasize what the hon. member for South Coast has said, and that is that there is no connection really between a living wage and the question of malnutrition.

Oh really! It is like saying there is no connection between tuberculosis and the bacillus.

The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Sir, I did not interject when the hon. member was speaking and I suggest that she extends the same courtesy to me. Mr. Speaker let me say at once that I find no fault with the hon. member’s desire, as expressed in the motion, to ensure that all workers are paid a living wage in order to increase the internal market and to combat malnutrition. This is possible. All these of course are very excellent objectives but the minimum wage system proposed by the hon. member in my opinion is not the way to achieve this object. I was under the impression that this subject had in the past been sufficiently aired in this House to make it clear beyond a doubt that it is impracticable to prescribe a minimum wage for all the workers in South Africa. I refer to the fact that this matter has been raised in this House during the past four years, and it seems that in view of the motion it might not be inappropriate to mention some of the difficulties which will militate against this system of a national minimum wage for all workers. In the first place let me pose the question to the hon. member for Houghton: What do we mean by a minimum wage, even if it does vary from area to area? Do we mean a fixed minimum cash wage payable by all employers to all employees including farm labourers and domestic servants and, if so, how do we calculate that wage; how do we ensure that the wage so fixed is in fact suitable both for farm labourers and factory workers in any given area? If we fix a wage which can be paid by a farmer to his labourers or by a householder to his domestic servants, what significance is it likely to have throughout industry? If, for instance, we exclude agricultural and domestic servants, which seems the only sensible thing to do, as I think hon. members will agree, then we exclude half the working population of South Africa. I think that is quite a fair statement. It has always been Government policy to bring about increases in wages for the lower paid worker with due regard to practical consideration. This policy, I find, was re-affirmed when the matter was debated in Parliament on previous occasions, and again in a statement which was issued by my predecessor in November 1960. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) dealt very fully with that aspect of the statement by my predecessor and I do not propose to repeat it. But I would say this that according to that statement it was considered some years ago and later on steps were taken to accelerate these wage determinations. Up to that time one of the difficulties had been that these wage determinations were too few and far between, and steps were then taken to accelerate wage determinations. The result has been that the Wage Board’s rate of activity has increased threefold. Substantial increases in the prescribed minimum wages of the unskilled workers have resulted. Sir, appreciable wage improvements were also effected through the machinery of the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Native Labour Disputes Act, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana quite rightly pointed out. That Act was supported by the United Party and hon. members will know that it has done very good work; I need not refer to it now. Hon members have referred to it and it has resulted in an appreciable rise in the wages of unskilled workers. I refer, of course, to the Bantu. The Government is convinced that in the circumstances prevailing in our country planned wage increases will in themselves help to bring about an increase in labour productivity. It is not only because they increase the work potential of the worker, but also because they encourage the employer to utilize his working force more effectively. The hon. member for South Coast gave a very practical example of that statement which I have just made. Systematic increases at shorter intervals, as I have said, as in the past will be aspired to in future by the Government. The Government is far from convinced that the introduction of a general minimum wage on an area basis, is the best method of obtaining an improvement in the standard of living of the lower paid income groups. Of course while such an increase in wages will indeed increase the demand for consumer goods and perhaps, according to certain quarters, bring about increased labour productivity it will at one fell swoop raise the whole cost structure of the country which will lead either to inflation or to widespread unemployment. Should this happen, I think hon. members will agree with me, the country’s export trade, not only of manufactured goods but also of the products of agriculture and mining, will inevitably suffer. In addition it could also affect the profitability of our undertakings and it would restrict internal growth and expenditure in those industries. Export trade and capital growth are, of course, of such vital importance in the country’s future economic development that the Government cannot in any circumstances afford to jeopardize it. This would not be in the interests of anyone, least of all in the interests of persons in the lower paid categories.

In view of the divergent labour conditions encountered in our country and the fact that our national economy, although highly developed in certain industrial spheres, is in some spheres still virtually undeveloped, the Government deems it more advisable that the improvement in the standard of living which we all aim at, should be achieved by means of gradual and selective wage increases. In this way commerce and industry generally will be in a position better to adapt itself to any wage increases. In particular the danger will be averted of trade sectors, which are now experiencing great difficulty due to a temporary set-back or to incomplete development, suffering irreparable loss or even in some cases being ruined. If we are forced to make allowances for all relevant factors, such as the varying cost of living, then of course any wage eventually fixed will have so many variations that it will no longer be a national minimum wage. Indeed fixed minimum wages, even on an area basis—which was suggested by the hon. member—are a physical impossibility. Such a minimum wage would be either so low as to be quite meaningless or so high as to place an impossible burden on some employers in our country. The present complementary system which we have of collective bargaining and statutory wage determination represent, I think the only practical way to fix wages in South Africa.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), in his amendment, suggested that additional machinery should be set up to the existing machinery. I think that idea was also propounded by the hon. member for Houghton. I think she talked about some judicial body being set up. Whether that body is to be over and above the Wage Board or whether the Wage Board is to be done away with I do not know, but the hon. member for Umhlatuzana suggested that there might be an improvement in the present machinery. All I can say is this, that in the short experience which I have had in this portfolio, I have found that our industrial legislation is as good as any in the world. I had the experience of travelling overseas last year as hon. members know and in addition to meeting ministers of immigration I also met ministers of labour. When I told them that we had had industrial peace in South Africa for many years they expressed the opinion that it was incredible; it could not happen. Some of the countries which I visited had six or seven strikes on their hands. They could not believe that in a country like South Africa which has a fairly hostile Press overseas, we have had industrial peace for so many years. That is why I say that our existing industrial machinery is effective; it has resulted in peace, it has resulted in satisfaction to particularly the lower income groups; we have had no strikes; we have had disputes which have been settled by the machinery which has been provided. This present wage fixing machinery to which I have referred and which is in operation is, as hon. members know, raising wages at a reasonable pace and without causing any dislocation or unemployment. The wage increases which have been effected by our Industrial Council agreements, by wage determinations and the efforts of the Central Native Labour Board during the past few years have added substantially to the pay-packets of the lower income groups. Through the efforts of the aforementioned instruments my Department has been instrumental in raising Bantu wages particularly in private industry by 5.9 per cent during 1959-60 and by 6.2 per cent in 1960-1 and by the same percentage in 1962. There have been new determinations, as hon. members know, under the Wage Act and they have often raised current unskilled wages by between 15 percent and 30 per cent. The revision of the older determinations has now been completed while Industrial Council agreements are automatically reviewed at frequent periods. Almost every week hon. members will notice the Government Gazette contains a new wage regulating measure which raises unskilled wage rates with the consequence that the unskilled wage bill has risen by between R30,000,000 and R40,000,000 per annum in the last few years. This has been achieved without disturbing our orderly economic progress.

I think I should state that the economic interests of the Republic necessitate a balanced approach to this whole question of wage regulation. Our experience has shown us that the present wage regulating system offers the safest and the most effective way to bring about a steady increase in minimum wages, on a selective basis, at a tempo which will not jeopardize what must be our primary consideration and that is to ensure sufficient industrial expansion in order to offer reasonable prospects of absorbing all our available labour now and in the foreseeable future.

I have no time left to go into any other questions. I simply want to reiterate that, as my hon. friend who moved the amendment on this side of the House stated as well as his seconder, we have found that our present system is a fair system. It is working well, wage increases are taking place at a progressive rate each year. The Wage Board has got its work practically up to date; it is reviewing agreements from time to time and wages. I feel that this debate has probably achieved quite a great deal. It has ventilated this question of our lower paid wage-earner. But at the same time I cannot accept any suggestion whatsoever that there should be a subsidization of wages. It is quite unnecessary and it is quite impracticable. The Government could never accept any suggestion that wages in South Africa should be subsidized.

Mr. FIELD: During the few minutes left I would like to put forward two or three points which I think are of importance for consideration, points which have not as yet been raised in this debate. I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) because I consider it sets up a method best calculated to achieve the desirable objects which were put up by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). The original motion put forward by the hon. member for Houghton, to my mind, is an over-simplification of the problem and will not achieve the highly desirable objects which she has put forward, but on the contrary is more likely to have the opposite effect. A basic minimum wage could no doubt be arranged to ensure a living wage for those workers who are in employment. But at the same time it will have the effect that those work seekers who are not in employment will starve. The fact is that a basic minimum wage is a two-edged sword. It not only tells the employer that he may not employ anyone below a certain wage but it also tells the work-seeker that he may not accept employment below that wage. If he cannot find employment below that wage what must he do? He must starve unless there is a dole. That is the main point I want to raise. In comparing South Africa with countries like Great Britain you find that in Britain they have a dole. Anyone who is not in employment does not starve, he goes on the dole. Here in South Africa we have no dole. Therefore if a basic minimum wage were laid down for the whole country it must be accompanied by a dole to be feasible. The point is: Is a dole feasible in South Africa? I feel sure all hon. members in this House, even the hon. member for Houghton, will agree that a dole is not at the present time feasible in South Africa.

What about unemployment insurance?

Mr. FIELD: Unemployment insurance assists up to a point those who have work and who become unemployed but the unemployment insurance system is breaking up in South Africa even to-day. There are so many people to-day who are not getting anything under it. What about those who have not worked for some time? They do not fall under it. The idea of the hon. member for Houghton definitely falls away. If we have a basic minimum wage we must have a dole and with the vast numbers in the reserves, squatters on farms, etc., who are still on a subsistence basis, how can we bridge the gap between that and a living minimum wage? That is the problem in South Africa. Unless we can bridge that gap in some way—which will have to be by a dole; there is no other way—there will have to be an extensive system of subsidies as my hon. friend suggested but which the hon. the Minister has turned down. Unless we can have a dole the whole idea of a minimum wage must be discarded.

I know of numerous instances of Bantu in the border area where one member of the family has been unable to work and has succeeded in getting help from the Government with the result that the whole family squatted and did no work at all. If it were possible to bring in a dole in South Africa on such a low basis for the Bantu that people overseas would simply laugh at it, it would do more harm than good. It would be better to have no dole than to have a dole on such a low basis which would ensure that a large number of Bantu would never work at all. Therefore I feel that point in itself is sufficient to rule out the idea of a basic minimum wage in South Africa. There are many casual jobs around the cities and on the farms which can provide those who are seeking work with something to do, something to keep the wolf from the door. With those wages they can keep alive until they can get a better job. If there is a basic minimum wage and they are unable to get employment at all it will force them to criminal methods. That is a point to be borne in mind. When you have large numbers of people who cannot get work and who are forced to starve because they may not accept a low wage, the only thing left to them is to resort to criminal methods and an increase in the crime rate in the country will tend to frighten away capital which is the one thing that we really need in order to bring about a living wage for all concerned.

I just want to refer to the position in Australia which I have studied. There the Government has been trying for many years to absorb the aborigines into the economy of the country with very little success because of the high basic minimum wage. People will not pay that high basic minimum wage to the raw aborigine who is incapable of earning it. They find that the high basic minimum wage prevents them from bridging the gap between savagery and civilization, it prevents them from bringing those people into the economy of the country. We in South Africa at the present time are fortunate in that we have not got a basic minimum wage; we have an easy adjustment in scales by which the unskilled worker coming from the Native areas with no knowledge of anything can find something to do; he is gradually being brought into the economy of the country. A basic minimum wage will hamper our bringing the unskilled worker into the economy of this country. The only sound approach to a living wage for employees in South Africa is, as I have said, that we must build up the economy of the country. It will not necessarily build up the economy of the country to simply pay out high wages all over. The method as set forth by the hon. the Minister, to my mind, is the only practical way. We must gradually raise wages on a selective basis; in as many industries as possible we must pay a living wage to the unskilled worker. We will find that we will actually improve the output by paying higher wages in as many selected industries as possible. We will get a better output because if the workers in those industries do not give their best they will lose their jobs and they will have to fall back on lower wages. But a basic minimum wage throughout the whole country will tend to reduce output because it will tend to have this effect that a man who has a job will try to do less work in order that his pal may also get a job beside him. Whereas if you have a selective wage and not a basic minimum wage you encourage increased productivity and on that basis alone can you build up a substantial and increasing economy in the country which will then provide more work and better wages for a greater number of people. It is an economic fallacy to imagine that by simply paying out higher wages all around you will improve the economy of the country. A country cannot lift itself up by its own boot strings. That is what a basic minimum wage in South Africa at the present time will be endeavouring to do.

The principle of a minimum wage is in keeping with United Party policy of the rate for the job, but practical considerations of the varying stages of development of the workers in South Africa make it essential in the interests of the workers that there should be freedom at the very lowest level. We should leave the door open at the very lowest level for the workers to sell their labour as they are able to do according to their knowledge and their physical and mental ability and to bridge the gap between savagery and civilization. A basic minimum wage would do more harm than good, to my mind, to the workers under conditions prevailing in South Africa.

In the few minutes at my disposal I just want to refer to one point in the speech which I have prepared and that is that it has been suggested here that malnutrition is simply a question of inadequate wages. I want to say that that is an oversimplification of a very complex problem. I also want to add that the non-Whites themselves can make an important contribution towards combating malnutrition and poverty. This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to a problem which we must face sooner or later, a tragedy which one actually hesitates to discuss. I can assure you that when I do so to-day I do so with the greatest sense of responsibility. I refer to the large-scale, unplanned, irresponsible, reckless, illegitimate procreation of children amongst the Bantu.

When the debate was adjourned I was about to rise and to speak on a subject on which I have on previous occasions touched on lightly in this House, a subject which is of vital importance to all our farmers in South Africa. It deals with this particular feature of a farmer’s livelihood and farming development that everything he produces by way of grain and everything he takes off his farm has got to be clothed. Such is the position in South Africa that I will not even at this stage attempt to guess at the number of bags which are actually required for this use. This I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I look upon this particular subject as of very vital importance to our producers and to our country and I am very sorry indeed that the Minister who, I feel, is responsible for the subject on which I am talking is not with us at the moment. I hope, however, that his colleagues will pass on to him any point which I might raise.

I come back to the position of those of our producers who require these large quantities of bags ….

On a point of order! I do not think there is a quorum. Not one of the Ministers of Agriculture is present when such a serious subject is under discussion. [Quorum.]

I was dealing with the question of packing for farmers’ produce. I had dealt with the position in so far as I had said that I had no conception of how many bags we required for the vast number of products that we are so happily able to produce in this country. As regards the question of wool packs—with that I am of course fairly at home—I happen to know that that is in the vicinity of some 1,000,000 packs. Before I can develop my argument, I think 1 should refer to the position that unfortunately developed some years ago when sanctions were imposed against this country, as a result of which we had tremendous difficulties in obtaining for the farmers of this country bags and woolpacks. The development which flowed from that ultimately was that two or three manufacturers were encouraged to get themselves established in South Africa in order to make this country self-sufficient in respect of its requirements for packing. Along with the fact that these manufacturers established themselves in South Africa at tremendous cost, one would have expected that the development in regard to raw fibre, which would be so necessary for the manufacture of packing, would have been brought forward over these years, and that we might have attained a position where we could say that we were very nearly in a position to meet the demands of these mills. Unfortunately, that position has not arisen. In discussing this matter in the House last year, the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services gave us a brief report on the position and indicated that research had taken place over the last few years and that during 1960 and 1961 the Government had expended some R75,000, and, Sir, quite recently, as late as the 19th of this month, in reply to a question that 1 put, the hon. the Minister indicated that research was still continuing. I know that the hon. the Minister has a tremendously difficult task in trying to bring about what to all of us must be the obvious ultimate end, that is to be able to produce in South Africa sufficient fibre to be able to manufacture all the grain bags and woolpacks we need. But what could the Minister tell us? He told us that the production at this stage from local-grown fibre was only sufficient to manufacture some 4 per cent of the goods required. Some 4 per cent! It is a very small percentage. The position simply is that we are faced with a very serious problem. It is not only serious for the producer but also for the manufacturer.

These big institutions have been encouraged to establish themselves and I feel the Government is in duty bound to do something for them. But the point is that we maintain these factories which are producing possibly half of our needs both in grain bags and in wool-packs, at a tremendous cost to the producer. I know that it is a difficult task, and I want to say more: By way of a question on the Order Paper I asked the hon. the Minister whether he could give us some indication of forward planning. It does seem that the Minister has a gigantic task in planning to be able to produce sufficient raw fibres to be able to meet the needs of this country. We have a double problem. Our labour costs in this country are so much higher than those for instance in India or Pakistan and when we, as we are doing now, in order to keep our factories going, allow them to import raw jute and manufacture the articles here, then you find that the farmer has got to pay in some instances very nearly double the price. This is not a matter that we can deal with lightly. It has received attention for many years 1 was associated with it myself for a very long time, and I know that it is difficult. I hoped that as the years went on it might probably work itself out, but it looks to me that at this stage we have to bring this very forcibly to the notice of the House. Something must be done. We have constantly been told that farmers must produce more economically. Now let us look at the position with regard to grain bags. I think the chairman of the Mealie Board is with us, and I know he would admit that this is the position. 1 am not going to burden the House with a lot of detail. I think that the hon. the Minister feels his responsibility and so do farmer members, and they must realize that this is a very serious matter. In 1961 quite a substantial quantity of grain bags were imported, millions of bags, and the price was 21.20 cents. In 1961, locally manufactured bags cost 46.36 cents. How can we go on like this? Can we keep this under blanket longer? I think difficult as the task is, something must be done. The question I would like to ask is, who subsidizes who? Who is carrying this burden all the time? Who is talking about overproduction and all the rest of it? Look at this position! Can’t we arrive at the position where the Government will say: We know our commitments vis-à-vis these manufacturers. But who is carrying this burden to-day? Do the wool-farmers know that in 1961 it cost them R370.000 extra! That is the extra cost on the

1,0,000 packs. In other words, half were imported from overseas, half were manufactured here, and for the half that was manufactured here, he paid R370,000 more. This is a very far-reaching matter, and it is one we have to apply our mind to. It is not a political issue. It is probably due to a lack of forward planning. But then it might be said and it can be said that had we tackled the Orange River scheme years ago, this could have been tied up. But the problem I pose is: How long can we expect the farmers to carry the burden? This thing is running parallel. You have a position here where you say: We must keep these factories going in case … In case of what? In case Pakistani raises sanctions against us? But if she does, where is your jute to process through these factories? Then we have lost both ends. As I said, I do not want to burden the House with a lot of statistics, but I think that really the position is very serious. I have not worked this out on any specific price and quantity, but I do know that in 1961 for instance, our woolpacks cost us imported R1.37 per pack and our local pack cost us R2.23. I raised this matter on previous occasions, but I am sad to say that in not one instance have I had any support from hon. members opposite. What I do ask is that the Minister concerned will give us all the information he can with regard to plans. If he can encourage us, we do not want to do any harm to these factories which have been established, and we can be assured of some real forward planning, then I myself would feel very much happier about it. But it is taking such a long time. The Minister the other day gave us some encouraging news, but looking through various reports I have received, we somehow have been bungling around with machines that were not properly made. We have not set about this as one would as businessmen. We have not imported the very best in order to be able to get on with the job. That is how it seems to me.

The very best-known machines were imported.

I am very glad to hear that, but I know the hon. Minister’s report last year was not so very good in that respect, but I have been recently told that there was one implement which was used in connection with pineapples which someone thought came out of the Ark. It certainly was not suitable for the experiment. But to bring home the seriousness of the position to hon. members opposite, I will give them some of the figures in respect of the 1959-63 woolpacks. The locally manufactured 8 lbs. woolpack cost 15s. 9d„ but the standard which we had to eventually use of 10-f lbs. cost 17s. 4d. The farmer did not pay those prices, but those were first costs. Now the imported packs of 10¼ lbs. cost 7s. 2d., 7s. 6d. and 7s. lid. at the restrictive ports. In 1960-1, the local manufacturers’ price was 17s. 4d. and the imported pack 9s. I am sure the hon. the Minister knows all about that.

And nothing is being done.

I would not say that. In fairness I must say that since I raised the matter he has been able to give me something, but the position is so serious that it seems to me that the hon. the Minister only has had this thing in mind during the last three or four years whereas the problem has been with us ten or 12 years. We have been paying these very high prices for locally manufactured woolpacks and grain bags for a very long time.

We paid 6s. for imported bags at one time.

I do not know what the hon. member is referring to, but I do know that in 1961-2, locally manufactured woolpacks cost 22s. lid. and your imported bag was 15s. 9d. Unfortunately the information supplied by the Department to me in regard to grain bags was not complete, but 1 hope in due course that information will be brought to the attention of members so that they can fully realize that the problem that I have been discussing is one of vital importance to the country. It does not only affect the producer but it is wide spread. If the cost of your packing is excessive, it affects the consumer and everybody. The sooner we tackle this proposition and the sooner we clear it up, the better for all. As I said earlier, as I see the matter as a layman, I am asking myself at this stage: Who subsidizes who in this jumble of price fixtures that we have here to-day?

I too listened to what I shall call the “help each other” speech and I came to the conclusion that the hon. member had stated the factual position and that the hon. member for Drakensberg with her accompanying comments had made the political part of the speech. In any case it was interesting and I readily agree that the hon. member has raised a matter of very great importance. At the present moment one of the greatest problems which faces agriculture is the question of bags but I want to state clearly that years ago the cry went up right throughout the country: Why do we not produce our own bags in South Africa? That is the question. Hon. members opposite obviously now want to blame the Government for having displayed the necessary courage in connection with this matter which we knew would be accompanied by growing pains. The hon. member said himself that he realized that there were great difficulties connected with the establishment of such an industry. That was exactly what happened. We are busy to-day and as we know South Africa you can be sure of it beforehand that things will not always work out the way you have drafted your blueprint in an office. You will encounter difficulties. That has happened. The fibre which we thought would be a great success was not successful in South Africa and new fibre had to be found and imported. That takes time. If you fail, a year has gone by and you have to start all over again. The Government has, however, tackled the matter and I want to assure you, Sir, that none other than also myself already raised the question of the price of grain bags for the agricultural industry last year, and I asked the Government to do everything it could to assist the farmers in that regard. And the Government did so, it has already assisted as far as it has been possible for it to do. But we must at least be fair and a businessman like the hon. member knows that if you have to establish such an industry from scratch and you have to import fibre and test it to see whether it is suitable or not you must be prepared to do that for a number of years and to struggle. I am convinced of it and I think the country is convinced of it, that within a few years’ time we shall be able to meet all our needs at a much lower price than is the case to-day. I want to remind the hon. member of this that when the Government was forced by the public to assist this industry and to support it we paid 7s. for bags overseas and not 21 d. like we do to-day. That is the test. Should we have continued paying up to 7s. overseas for a grain bag? If we pay 4s. to-day for a bag which we manufacture locally and 2s. for an imported one, we are still in a much better position than we were when we started. So progress has already been made in this regard.

I just want to say this briefly in connection with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) who is not here at the moment. I think it is unfair to say that the Government has done nothing for the farming community during this critical period. On the contrary I think the Government has done what it could. I do not think the Ministers personally are responsible for what we have had to contend with during the past few years. I think of the unusual drought conditions which have prevailed throughout South Africa. Moreover whereas you were faced with the severest drought conditions in one part of the country, such as South West Africa and the northern part of the Cape Province, and in Northern Transvaal, other parts of the country produced the biggest surpluses we have ever had in the country. Whereas in the past we have only had to deal with about

30.0. 000 bags of maize, the production has been increased this year to 60,000,000 bags, and that production may perhaps be increased further. I wish to state that the position is this that what we are contending with in South Africa to-day is a world phenomenon namely the terrific development of technique, of the implements and tools which are used by the agricultural industry to-day in the world. We know that in certain European countries which never previously thought about supplying their own needs as far as grain was concerned, surpluses are being produced to-day. We think of a country like France and a country like Austria who were previously big importers of maize products and who have grain surpluses to-day. It is the age of the machine and the machine has made the development possible in South Africa with the result that whereas we previously produced 25.000,000 bags we produced

60.0. 000 bags last year. South Africa is not the only country which faces that problem, but it is a problem which also faces countries like America and practically every other country in the world. The problem is how to deal with the additional production potential which has become possible because of science and the techniques of the times in which we are living. I wish to point out that we are being strangled in this cost price spring trap. The problem which confronts the agriculturist in South Africa to-day is this: Whereas on the one hand his costs are continually rising he has succeeded in increasing his production; he is placed in the difficult position that his prices are declining while his costs are rising. That is a world phenomenon. I recently had the opportunity of witnessing in America how they were struggling with that problem and how the American Government was injecting millions of dollars into its agricultural industry to enable it to combat the same evil and problem with which we in South Africa are struggling. There is simply no magic wand to solve that problem. I merely want to plead, and I know I am not pleading in vain, that the Government should not leave the farmer of South Africa to stand alone in this critical period but that it should continue to recognize the problems of the farmer in the great national set-up and that it should realize that a poor farming community can be fatal to South Africa. No depression will impoverish a country more than an impoverished farming community. We know that the agricultural industry remains the backbone, remains the strongest foundation on which the economy of our country is based, in spite of all our gold and all our wealth. That is why I can confidently plead this afternoon that we should not panic and look for scapegoats or blame the Government which is not at all responsible for the position in which we find ourselves. I also want to plead with the Minister not to view the position in which we find ourselves in a desperate light but that he should regard it as a temporary world phenomenon and that we should assist our agricultural industry over this crisis in such a way that we will reach the other side as a strong and sound agricultural community which can keep pace with the other developments and the progress of South Africa. I know how a small set-back can send out waves which affect agriculture as a whole. Last year, for example, we were compelled to lower the price of milk and when you lower such a small thing as the price of milk the results may be such that you cannot imagine where it will end, because if that farmer to whom you granted a loan yesterday or the day before to buy milk cows, now receives a reduced price for his milk and he has to sell those cows. He can no longer sell those cows at the price which he has paid for them, he may have to sell them at half the price which he has paid for them and that means that financially he is immediately ruined. And that is not all, the industry may shortly find itself in a position where there is a shortage in the same sphere. I want to plead, therefore, that we should keep on the right track in these critical times which we are experiencing to-day and that we should support our agricultural industry in such a way that it will always remain the backbone and mainstay of our economy in South Africa. That is why I am convinced that a motion such as the one introduced by the Opposition to-day, a motion which is nothing but criticism, cannot be conducive to progress. Nor must we make the mistake of regarding the surpluses which we have in South Africa to-day as an evil, nor must we regard them as an insoluble problem. In a country where there are surpluses there is prosperity, there is food and we should be grateful for that. But we must use the surpluses which we have, we must use them to the advantage of the entire community, we have the maize surplus and we must not only think of the problem of exporting it. We must exercise our minds to try to find a way in which we can thereby benefit other sections of the farming community. If the sheep farmer can use the necessary maize to maintain the growth and condition of his sheep throughout the year, just think what his wool cheque will be at the end of the year.

Sir, just think how much greater his lamb crop will be at the end of the year. When I think of the droughts which are continually striking our country and I think of how the stock of the farmers deteriorate and how the animals, almost skeletons, wander around the barren veld, I ask myself the question whether sufficient maize cannot be fed to those animals to keep them in a proper condition. Just think how that will increase the prosperity of the farming community. No, I do not think we should ever be dissatisfied when there is a big maize crop, but we should be grateful for it that we in South Africa can produce one of the best concentrated feeds in the world and that we can produce better than most countries in the world. When the American farmer has a big crop he does not think how many bags he can sell but how many oxen he can feed. In America they have what they call the “beef-hog economy” and the farmer’s wealth lies in that, not in the sale of so many bags of maize in the form of bags of maize. He feeds his beautiful young oxen and his pigs and he takes them to the market. If we could do that in South Africa instead of exporting so many million bags of maize, and we use that maize to feed slaughter cattle which we can export, just think how many fewer trucks will be required, how many fewer bags will be required, and how much higher the prices for the end product will be. These are merely suggestions which I am putting forward to show that we should not panic; when we have had a good crop in this country we must not carry on as though a catastrophe has befallen the country. We should be grateful and try to use that crop to the best advantage for the greatest possible section of the nation.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) on his speech. There is still room for him in the United Party if he continues propagating United Party policy in this way. But it does not give me the same pleasure to see the interest displayed by the Government party in this motion which is of so much importance to the farmers.

Where are your farmers? Where are your mover and seconder?

It is a pity that the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) is not able to be here to-day, because of circumstances beyond his control, and he has asked me to listen to what is said here on his behalf so that he may reply to it. But I wonder where the two Ministers of Agriculture are? We on this side were very glad, because we thought that they had taken the hint and had resigned. I see the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services is here now, but the Minister to whom we really want to address our remarks is not here. Will the Minister of Information make a statement to the Press to say that the Minister of Agricultural Economics has already resigned?

This motion of the hon. member for Gardens reads that the House expresses its deep dissatisfaction at the obvious lack of planning and guidance in respect of the serious problems threatening the agricultural industry and requests the two Cabinet Ministers responsible for it to resign immediately. Now I can well understand that the Government supporters are perhaps not very anxious to support the last part of it, that the Ministers should resign, but are there actually farming members in this House who are not seriously concerned about the position of agriculture in South Africa? If there are such members, let them have the courage to get up and say; I am not concerned. No, now they are dead quiet. [Interjections.] We have reached the position to-day where some members who represent the farmers here do not care a sixpence for the fate of the farmers, as long as they can sit here safely and exploit the colour prejudices of the public in order to retain their seats. They do not care that the farmers are going under in the way they are doing. I challenge any hon. member opposite to tell me that agriculture in South Africa is still a payable part of our economy to-day and that the farmers are satisfied with the prices they receive for their products, taking into consideration the high production costs. [Interjection.] There sits the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais), who does not know the difference between poultry and dairy farming, and he attacks a practical farmer who is trying to produce in order also to contribute towards paying his salary, when I discuss a matter affecting my living. This Parliament is his living, not mine.

Order! The hon. member should not be personal.

No, I will not, but then the hon. member should not poke his nose into matters which do not concern him, because I am pleading for the farmers. The only admirable thing about the National Party, in my opinion, is the strict discipline in their party, and I admire them for it. There sits the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. He makes a statement that there is no room in South Africa for the small, uneconomic farmer, and a week later the Prime Minister sells his farm.

Order! I have asked the hon. member not to become personal. If he does so again, he will have to resume his seat.

I say I do not know whether it is the policy of the Government completely to squeeze out the small farmer, because they say every day that the farmers must produce more economically. The Minister of Agricultural Technical Services should rather tell us how we can produce more economically, because as far as I know the farmers of South Africa I do not know one who deliberately tries to produce uneconomically. When the Minister of Agricultural Economics says that the farmers should be prepared in times of surpluses to compete with the outside world then I ask this Government to do the same, and let it compete with Governments overseas. I shall point out in a moment how this Government discriminates against the farmer. Although we made the statement that this House expresses its deep dissatisfaction at the obvious lack of agricultural planning, the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) moves an amendment, and what does he move? The usual thing, that the Government should be thanked for the steps taken to promote agricultural production and to make agriculture more efficient and stable. I do not know what this Government has done to promote agricultural production. Surely the hon. members who moved the amendment should be able to give reasons and say: This is what the Government did to promote production and to make agriculture more efficient and more stable. Secondly, they thank the Government for the orderly and stable marketing system. Where is this orderly and stable marketing? Just talk to the wheat farmers and the mealie farmers and the producers of meat and hear what they say. Last year the Minister of Agricultural Economics said that it was not the Government’s duty to come to light with a marketing scheme for meat; he is only there to decide whether the schemes submitted to him are good or bad. And what happened? All control and all planning in regard to meat was abolished and it is now a case of letting things take their own course. There is no planning in regard to meat any more and the housewife is being exploited to-day in times of scarcity, whilst the farmer is being destroyed in times of surpluses.

That is a soap-box speech.

Yes, it may be a soap-box speech, but the hon. member should talk, to his own farmers and to the housewives in the urban areas. There is no longer any control. We are left to the mercy of the middle man, whom this Government has so often said that they would restrict. But the problem has become too involved for these two Ministers. The two of them together do not do even one man’s work and they have given up. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Christiana says we must thank the Government for its planning, but I want him to get up and tell us where that planning is, because I know of none.

Then they say the second reason why they thank the Government is for the assistance given to the farmers who were in trouble. When is a farmer in trouble? Farmers find themselves in trouble during a drought, and then it is the duty of the Government to assist them. They land in trouble in times of floods, and then the Government must help them. But the greatest trouble which the farmers are in at the moment is that they cannot make a profit as the result of rising costs of production and falling produce prices, and when they are in that trouble and the Government grants loans it is not assisting the farmer; it is just aggravating the trouble because the farmers have to repay those loans. Let me say that the farmers’ record for repaying loans is a good one. The farmer does not want charity; he only wants an opportunity to make a success of the operations.

What is the fourth reason why hon. members opposite thank the Government? They say the Government has ensured the independence and the freedom of the farmers. I can speak only about the area which I know best, the Western Province, and not for many years have the farmers in the Western Province found themselves in the trouble in which they are to-day, and the Minister knows it. He knows that the farmers in the Western Province find themselves in a difficult position to-day, due to a large extent to the lack of planning on the part of these two Ministers who do nothing or very little to assist them. Let us take a few instances. Let me first come to the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. Years ago the S.A. Agricultural Union asked him to ensure closer co-operation between the research services, the field services and the extension services, and the S.A. Agricultural Union went as far as to say—

These are serious allegations emanating from the farmers themselves. Another thing they say is this—

I think the Minister will agree that that is true, and now I ask the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, as he is here and the other Minister is not: What has he done to meet these needs? If he will rise and tell us he has done this or that, I will thank him, but we appoint one commission after another and simply nothing is done. What place is there in the Western Province for the training of young farmers and farm workers as far as the mechanical section of farming is concerned? The Minister just laughs. As far as I know, there is no actual place where this training is given to-day. except at Ficksburg in the Free State. But has the Minister ever made an attempt to give any training to farmers here in the Western Province, where we have the greatest concentration of agricultural machinery? The Minister now seems to prefer to talk to the Minister of Information. Perhaps he is seeking information, but he can just as well go to the S.A. Agricultural Union. I honestly hope that the farmers will now get Ministers who will not just tell them how much they care for them but who by their actions will show them how much they care about them.

What about Virginia?

You see, Sir. that is the sympathy the farmer gets—just politics, just the colour question over and over, and the impoverishment of the farmer; and the poorer he gets the easier it is for him to become a Nationalist and the more easily he becomes afraid of the Native. First impoverish him and destroy him so that he loses his self-respect and then you can frighten him with the Native. But an independent farmer is not afraid of the Minister of Information, nor is he afraid of the Native problem, because he is quite able to hold his own.

I say this Government has done nothing new for the farmer. I shall be pleased to hear what they have done for the farmers. But they have even taken away what the former Government did for the farmers. Let us take one instance. One of the basic essentials on a farm as far as certain aspects of farming such as dairy farming or pig farming or poultry farming are concerned is fodder, and the biggest expense is providing fodder for your stock, and a great deal of the fodder is composed of the proteins obtained from fish meal. This Government saw fit to increase the fixed price of fish meal from about £27 to £37 per ton. But when the farmers asked that wheat prices be increased a little, the Minister of Economic Affairs said no, the wheat farmers were making enough, because you must take the farm as a whole, the wheat, the cattle and the sheep together, and when you take them all into account then the farmer makes enough. But when it came to the fish industry and we pointed out that the fish industry paid huge dividends and was building up big reserves, the answer was yes, but each sub-division of that industry must show a profit, including the fish meal section. Let us take fertilizer. We get a subsidy of R2 per ton, and the quality of that fertilizer unfortunately makes no difference. The Government is so apt to tell the mealie farmer he must remember there is a surplus and he must compete with world prices. But when is the Government going to tell the fertilizer companies that the farmer in South Africa is having a hard time and that they must compete with world prices for fertilizer? What is happening at present? The farmer is being forced to pay Sasol and Foscor a subsidy, because as a result of an agreement which the Government apparently has with the fertilizer companies, they are compelled to buy a certain quantity of their requirements from those two organizations at £3 more per ton, as in the case of phosphate and nitrogen, and then the farmer gets a subsidy of £1. Now who pays that subsidy? The farmer. I have no objection, but I say that if Sasol and Foscor are two national industries requiring help, then it is the duty of South Africa as a whole to subsidize them and not just the farmers. Let the Minister tell me how I am to produce mealies and wheat on poorer soil than that of most of the countries abroad where the same crops are produced. Compare the production figure for wheat in South Africa with that in Western Europe and it will be seen that their yield per acre is four or five times as much as it is here, but they get their fertilizer cheaper than we do. even though they have more fertile soil. It is difficult for a farmer to produce under those circumstances. [Interjections.]

Order!

We are to-day in this position. The Government appoints a commission. It is not supposed to be economic to invest your money in an undertaking unless you get 10 per cent to 12 per cent on your investment. The Viljoen Commission said that. I now ask the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, who ought to know: What type of farming gives you 8 per cent on your investment? And if what I say is true, that there is practically no branch of farming in South Africa that gives you even 5 per cent, then there must be something wrong with farming under this Government. [Interjections.]. There may be some farmers who are not good farmers, but I say, generally speaking, the farmer does not show 5 per cent profit on his investment. I ask the Minister to stand up and tell me that my figures are wrong. I say there is no profession which pays less than farming in South Africa to-day. We farmers would also very much like to pay our workers the wages paid by the factories. I would very much like to do that. I would like to see them decently clad and living under better conditions, but I ask the Minister again: Is it possible for me, out of the income I get to-day from sowing corn, or from a cow’s milk, to pay better wages? Why do they not make it possible for us? I do not want to talk too much to this hon. Minister, because I must say that his officials try very hard, if only he will allow them, to give us services, and the real culprit is not here to-day. But I want to ask the Minister what they are doing to increase milk consumption in South Africa? Has an investigation ever been made to discover why even the White people in South Africa use dairy products to a much lesser extent than in most European countries?

I would very much like to go into this matter a little further and I hope that on a later occasion the Minister of Agricultural Economics will be here so that we can speak to him, and in the circumstances I now move—

I second.