Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour?

In our view, labour is one of the major problems we have to contend with in South Africa. As a matter of fact, it holds the key to our future to a large extent. Not only does it directly affect the broad field of our relations with politics, but it is also directly concerned with our economic destinies. If labour peace prevails, we will flourish economically, which in turn determines our preparedness and our ability to be able to defend our country. In this respect we regard our labour as of particular importance. I just want to mention here that we are experiencing a transformation even within the economic cadre. Previously we had an economy which was labour-intensive and in which lower productivity as well as lower wages were acceptable. This is changing. We now have a capital intensive economy demanding higher wages and which will also require higher productivity. This creates a different dimension altogether. Under these circumstances our labour arrangements become all the more difficult. It is for these reasons that we raised the labour issue during the censure debate. We did so again in the Budget debate as well as under the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister. Up to this stage, however, we have not had the slightest response from the hon. the Minister in charge of this portfolio. We have not heard one single word from him up to now. As I have indicated before, he has in fact expressed some views on this matter outside this House. In the first place, he threatened the businessmen that he would prevent them from negotiating with Black trade unions. The first question we want to put to the hon. the Minister is the following: In terms of which regulation is he going to prevent them, and how is he going to do it? We are of the opinion that it is quite within the scope of the existing Act, as it reads at present, to negotiate with whom one pleases. I think the hon. the Minister owes it to this hon. House to tell us precisely how he is going to prevent these business enterprises from negotiating with any workers’ organization in this way. What surprises us—I have already referred to this matter on previous occasions—is that in addressing the Natal Congress of his party the hon. the Minister said that if Black trade unions were established, it would lead to strikes similar to those we had in 1922. We find it regrettable that the hon. the Minister should have adopted such a verkrampte attitude. Something we cannot understand, is that when the so-called leftist groups in this country are guilty of incitement, the Government takes steps immediately. However, when reactionary elements in Government ranks are guilty of incitement—and here we have a typical example of this— nothing is done about it. Apparently, if one incites the Blacks to do something, it is wrong, but if one incites Whites to take steps, it is not regarded as incitement. The hon. the Minister should remember that he is a director of Perskor. As it is, the National Press Union is formulating a new so-called code of conduct at this stage. If one is guilty of incitement as far as race relations are concerned, one would be guilty of a misdemeanour in terms of this code and could be fined R10 000. I would say that, as a director of Perskor, the hon. the Minister now cannot place himself above regulations applying to his own newspapers. We are dealing with a difficult situation. When one refers to the 1922 strikes, they are associated with bloodshed. This is an emotional matter; this is an emotive matter. It surprises us that the hon. the Minister makes this kind of verkrampte statements. After all, we are living in the era after Loskop Dam and hon. members of the Cabinet need no longer be guilty of this kind of conduct.

You are just being scatter-brained (“loskop”).

Mr. Chairman, you see the difficulty with this hon. Minister is that he has the attitude of a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde, because he deals with two portfolios. The one day he is in charge of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications and is like a wolf in sheep’s clothing; he then makes all kinds of adjustments and does all the things which business enterprises do that want to keep their businesses going. But the following day he finds himself back in his old position as Minister of Labour and then the sheep’s clothing disappears; the reaction we get from him then is quite different; he then invites the workers to do some spying on their bosses, to come and tell him whether their bosses contravene the job reservation regulations. I have wondered what would happen if the workers in the Post Office would act as spies and were to tell him as the Minister of Labour what he as the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is doing. Sir, had this not been such a tragic matter it would have been quite comical. But, Sir, in the meantime we know only too well what is going to happen. The hon. the Minister has not uttered one single word up to now; all he did was to sit back and keep his arguments ready. Today he will let fly here and accuse us of all kinds of silly things; he will repeat all the old traditional arguments; we shall have to listen to all the dogmatic, stereotyped arguments again, but we will be no further than we were before; we will not have proceeded one little step forward. Sir, this is what happens every time and while this is going on, the labour situation in this country is deteriorating day by day. Let me just quote a few examples. We find that the labour policy of the Government is crumbling in the face of changing circumstances.

You are talking nonsense.

That hon. member will have ample opportunity to gainsay what I am stating here. Sir, we have a Government here which said it was going to make us independent of Black labour and despite this we find that we are becoming more and more dependent every day on Black labour.

Where did the Minister say that?

I can quote hundreds of examples. It is this Government, Sir, which says it is going to reduce the wage gap. We see no indication of the wage gap being reduced. As a matter of fact, in real terms the gap is becoming even wider. Stir, here we have a Government which says the training of Blacks for advanced positions must not be undertaken here, but in the homelands, and here the hon. the Minister of Finance comes along in his Budget and not only announces tax benefits, but even encourages businessmen to train Blacks here in White South Africa. What has become of that policy now? Sir, the Government is doing these things because it has no option. Sir, what is the position as far as job reservation is concerned? We still have job reservation on the Statute Book and in the meantime we have to pay the costs of this policy of job reservation.

What costs?

Sir, that hon. member really does not know what is going on. Job reservation is one of the causes of inflation in South Africa.

Why?

I shall tell the hon. member why. Everyone of us owns a motor car. Throughout the world—this is a universal norm—one finds one mechanic for approximately 50 vehicles, but what is the proportion here in South Africa under the policy of this Government which prohibits the training of Black mechanics. We have one mechanic for every 200 motor vehicles on our roads. A motor mechanic has become an expensive and sought-after article, and when taking our motor oars to a garage, we have to pay twice as much as we really ought to pay. This is how it causes inflation.

Sir, it is also because of the policy of this Government that we are beginning to have more and more strikes. On a previous occasion the hon. the Prime Minister said he had learned a lesson from the strikes we have had in Natal. We ask this hon. Minister what lesson he has learned, because up to now we have not been able to see any indication that he has learned any lesson. Sir, these strikes are becoming more and more serious, and apparently the Minister has no control over this situation. The Police now have to take steps to help to bring strikes under control. Recently I read the following in The Star of 2 August 1974: “Brigadier is strike mediator”; and then the reporter proceeded to tell us about a brigadier in Johannesburg, the district commandant, who had to be called in every time there was a strike in Johannesburg. The report reads further—

This newspaper states that whenever strikes occur in Johannesburg, all the employers send for this Police brigadier. Sir, I think this is a splendid contribution he makes towards labour peace, but this is not work for the Police; this is not the work of a Police brigadier. Surely, this is the work of this hon. the Minister. Sir, we have reached the stage where we can no longer continue in this way; a change will have to be made in the interests of South Africa. We have done everything possible to make the Minister change his views. The hon. member for Turffontein suggested that his salary be reduced; we have begged and pleaded, but the hon. the Minister does not want to respond. On a previous occasion we asked that a commission be appointed. We asked that the entire labour issue be removed from the political arena as far as possible. Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Minister: As long as we are making a political football of the labour issue, that side could gain a little ground or this side could gain a little ground, but South Africa is going to lose the match. We have asked on previous occasions already that a commission be appointed to go into this entire issue from beginning to end, but the hon. the Minister refused our request on every occasion; he siad he had all the answers. Sir, we repeat that request today. In the interests of South Africa we ask that such a commission be appointed. We have better grounds for making this request today, because people outside are also beginning to ask for a commission of this kind. For example, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer recently asked for such a commission. Hon. members on that side of the House may refer to Mr. Harry Oppenheimer as the leftist money magnate in this country, but, Sir, he was not the only one to have made this request; this request was also made by Mr. Dolf Schumann, the chairman of the Chamber of Mines. He represents the Afrikaner entrepreneurs in this country. But, Sir, it is not only the employers who are asking for this, but also a person such as Mr. Wally Grobler, the secretary of the Labour Confederation in South Africa; he asked for a commission of inquiry of this nature. Sir, if the hon. the Minister appoints such a commission, it should not only be a departmental committee. We have the highest regard for departmental officials, but they have to keep within the ideological structure of the Government. After all, we know what happens if they do not; after all, we know what has happened to Prof. Tomlinson. Sir, a commission such as this has to be outside the Department of Labour, and it has to be a multi-racial commission. If the hon. the Minister does not like the word “multi-racial” he may call it a “multi-national” commission, as long as it is a commission comprising all the groups. After all, Sir, we have had a precedent for a multi-racial commission; we have the precedent of the Theron Commission. Why can the hon. the Minister not do the same? If he appoints a commission such as this to inquire into all the aspects of the labour sphere and if he appoints the right kind of (people to serve on the commission, we promise that we shall be prepared to go a long way in accepting their recommendations, because we know their recommendations will, for the most part, correspond with our own way of thinking.

†Mr. Chairman, if we had a commission of this kind, which we sincerely advocate, then we would be very happy to put evidence before the members of the commission. Hon. members have asked me, “What are your views; where do you stand?”. I will tell them what our views are, because this is the sort of evidence that we would place before a commission of this kind. We would set for South Africa as far as the labour field is concerned six fundamental aims that we think should be taken into account in solving our labour problem. In the first place we would make it a priority aim to have sustained economic growth, not only to improve and to raise the living standard of all our people, but also to be in a position to defend our country. Our second fundamental tenet is that we are implacably opposed to the Verwoerdian dogma of “poor but White”. We want South Africa rich and secure. In the third instance, Sir, we accept fully the interdependence of all the race groups of South Africa in the economic advancement of our country. We believe that there is a kind of economic partnership between White and non-White in this country, and if you were to disturb this partnership, South Africa would be bankrupt within a month’s time. In the fourth instance, we would aim at providing a well trained labour force for South Africa, and we would seek to work as rapidly as possible towards equal emloyment opportunities and equal training facilities for all our workers. In the fifth instance, we would do everything we can to stabilize our work force and to reduce our reliance upon a migratory system.

Sir, this much must be clearly understood: South Africa is vulnerable as far as migratory labour is concerned. We have had ample evidence of this recently. We have seen what happened when Malawi cut off our labour supply to the mines; we have seen what is happening in Mozambique and elsewhere at the present moment. Sir, this is a position with which we dare not continue. This Government not only calls foreign workers migratory workers; they have now taken the incredible step of calling our own citizens migratory workers.

Can you imagine the situation which will arise once the Bantustans are independent? Then South Africa will sit with 80% of its work force consisting of foreign citizens; so we must stabilize this work force and reduce our reliance on this migratory system, or else South Africa is vulnerable because there are political risks involved in the present system with which we dare not persist.

Lastly, we must recognize the need for a long-term plan in order to make optimum use of the available men, materials and money—the basic ingredients of economic growth. Those are the fundamental labour aims which we set for ourselves and which we are prepared to put before any commission of inquiry which the hon. the Minister might wish to appoint. But those are just the aims. In addition, there are, within this framework, a number of immediate policy objectives that ought to be taken and that we would take. With your permission, Sir, I would like to refer to some of these.

The very first policy objective that we would set for ourselves is that we would say that the labour needs and the requirements of South Africa must be studied and co-ordinated on a national scale, and to achieve this we would establish a national manpower planning and advisory council. I cannot understand the hon. the Minister’s reluctance to introduce an agency of this kind, a piece of machinery which could be of such inestimable value to us. How could you conceive of a plan for the future, how would you determine your requirements, how could you ensure flexibility, how could you endeavour to undertake the relocation of labour, and all the other things that go with it, unless you have a central manpower planning agency?

The second policy objective we would take is to accept the fact that Black workers constitute a permanent part of the industrial labour force of South Africa and we would ensure that the conditions of service are arranged in such a way that full cognizance is taken of this incontrovertible fact. We cannot dilly-dally on this issue any longer, Sir. We must accept that the Black workers are here permanently and that they are fully integrated in our work force. Let us forget about all this nonsense of calling them “permanent temporary” and “temporary permanent” workers and all these other stupidities we get from that side of the House.

I see recently that the hon. the Deputy Minister, Mr. Raubenheimer, had a new expression. He refers to the Black people as “guest” workers. Well, that sounds very good. He is now obviously soothing his conscience, but do you know, Sir, I would not use a term like that, because if you refer to people as “guests” then certain obligations go with it. Many of the procedures which are applied to these workers at the moment are of such a shabby kind that I certainly would not be prepared to use the term “guest workers” as far as the Blacks are concerned.

In the third place, we are opposed to reservation of work on the basis of colour. All statutory discriminatory measures, and particularly clause 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, would be repealed by us. This is an old quarrel between us and that side of the House. Every time we talk about job reservation, what reaction do we get from the Government? The Minister says, and the hon. the Prime Minister says when he talks on television to the outside world, that job reservation applies to less than 3% of the work force. Sir, let us analyse this statement. If this were the case, and if it applied to less than 3%, why persevere with it? Then the measure is of no consequence in any case. So, this is hardly an argument. But I want to tell you, Sir, that it applies to much more than 3% of the work force, because it applies to the top. You must envisage the work force as a pyramid, and what you are in fact doing here is to put a ceiling, an absolute ceiling, upon the top people; so it means that they cannot break through that barrier and hence it means that you are restricting the advancement not only of the 3% but of all the Black workers. That is in fact its effect.

It is not merely this provision which blocks the Black worker. The Minister has 101 other measures; the Physical Planning Act prevents them from coming to places where the work opportunities are. Take apprenticeship training. There is nothing in any regulation which says that Black people cannot be trained as apprentices, but this hon. Minister by ministerial decree has decided that no Black apprentices will be trained in the so-called White areas. If you add all these measures together—and the effects are cumulative—you will find that job reservation and the associated procedures that go with it, affect thousands and thousands of the Black workers of this country. But what is worse, this job reservation gives the White worker a false sense of security, and it is one of the main causative factors of the strikes that we now have in South Africa. If the Minister does not remove this pernicious procedure, then we must warn him that it will trigger off industrial upheaval in this country.

The fourth policy initiative we would take would be to ensure that there is better vocational training, and indeed that apprenticeship training is extended to all races in this country. We must accept this now. Do you know, Sir, the latest estimates indicate that by 1980 South Africa will require additionally 100 000 people trained in the trades. Where are they going to come from? He is not going to get them from the Whites. The number of White apprentices in the Witwatersrand area has from 1971 to 1973, dropped by 3 500, by almost 25%. We know right at the moment that the total number of Black apprentices—because the hon. the Minister gave us this figure recently—amounts to 3 800 in the whole of South Africa. This represents 0,1% of the Black people who are economically active. This is not only an unheard of situation; it is an extremely dangerous one. Sir, if you want to do what is necessary in South Africa, then Black people have to be trained as apprentices in all the trades and we shall have to start with this immediately.

Mr. Chairman, my time is running out rapidly and I want to say that in the fifth instance we will make possible a realistic application of the principle of equal pay for equal work.

In the sixth instance, we will provide statutorally for collective bargaining rights for all workers. I need not motivate this again, but as both I and my leader have indicated previously, this means that we will change the definition of an “employee” in the Industrial Conciliation Act so that it includes Black workers. It is not difficult to motivate this, but in doing so let me say this: We are not opposed to works committees or liaison committees. We are aware that they are fulfilling a useful role, particularly in regard to migratory workers. These could be complementary to a trade union system, but they could never be seen as a substitute. The question which is before us in this House, the choice before the hon. the Minister, is not one of whether we will have Black unions or not. They are there. The choice before him is whether they will operate inside or outside the law. The choice before South Africa in this issue is: Will we have consultation or will we have confrontation? We on this side say quite clearly that we want consultation.

The seventh policy initiative is that we will have an industrial court of appeal, because if you make these adjustments that we have in mind then there are going to be teething troubles. There will be people who will be unhappy; there will be others who will feel that they are being discriminated against unnecessarily. If you have a court of appeal, then all those who feel that they have been unfairly discriminated against or that their interests have been harmed will be able to approach it and seek redress of their wrongs.

In the eighth instance we will have a dynamic programme of retraining, because when you put into effect these policy initiatives we have indicated, then it is conceivable that certain White workers will find that they will be replaced by non-Whites. This is something that our society must accept. But you can make provision for that and deal with that in many other ways, but you cannot do it in the way in which it is being done at the moment. You cannot hold back the many for the sake of the few. You cannot, because of the laziness of some, penalize the many others. You can do this in 101 different ways, but above all else those Whites who have got the capacity could be retrained so that they could qualify themselves for even better-placed jobs where they would earn more.

In the ninth instance we will ensure in terms of our policy framework that all workers enjoy full social security benefits, irrespective of race. The only difference will be that their conditions of service and their benefits will be set commensurate with their employment categories. Workers do not demand much, Sir. Workers want job security, they want income security and they want social security. All of them want this, irrespective of the colour of their skin.

In the last instance, the tenth point is that we will implement labour policies demanded by the human and the economic needs of South Africa and its people and not by ideological considerations. Every time I mention the word “ideology” Government speakers get up one after the other and say: “Ideology means ideals, and what you want to say to us is that we must have ideals; we must not have idealism”. I have said it before. There is a vast difference between ideology and idealism. Ideology means an obsession with an idea, and every obsession is bad. Nazism was an ideology, Communism is an ideology and apartheid is also an ideology, and this is what we must get away from. I cannot impress upon the Government sufficiently the urgency of this task. The Government is all set now to create independent Black States. When they do, as I indicated earlier on, 80% of the work force in South Africa will become foreigners. There will therefore be divided control of the work force and the absence of a single loyalty towards South Africa. Sir, the whole labour situation is becoming more and more difficult by the day. It has become an issue, as I have said, which should as far as possible be taken out of the party political arena. We are prepared to do so and that is why we have given this hon. Minister an opportunity to do what ought to be done in this particular case.

Mr. Chairman, again today we have had the privilege of listening to this hon. member, an hon. member who is capable of speaking for half an hour without saying anything new. In the course of my speech I shall refer to him again. I am very pleased that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is present because it was in the course of this session that we were informed for the first time by the United Party that they were in favour of mixed trade unions. In this session, for the first time since the establishment of the United Party, we have now heard this from the mouth of their Leader. They maintain that the National Party is not prepared to listen to their pleas. During the discussion of his Vote, the Prime Minister, too, supposedly did not pay enough attention to their pleas. What a fatuous argument. After all, the National Farty has a very clear labour policy. We are not like the United Party which suffers from a political pregnancy and announces a ntw labour policy every new moon. The National Party has a very clear policy.

But you are unable to apply it.

On four separate occasions since 1972 the United Party has come up with a new policy in respect of trade unions in South Africa.

What is your policy in respect of the strikes?

We shall come to that. I want to put a very strong emphasis on this matter here because every worker in South Africa wants to know where he stands. The workers must know that the National Party is not prepared to change the Industrial Conciliation Act by a single jot or tittle. Nor are we prepared to change the definition of “an employee”. Every worker, whether he be a White, a Coloured or an Asiatic, must realize that under the present legislation he will enjoy trade union rights and that those rights will be protected for him. That is very clear; there need be no speculation or doubt on that score. In the second place, the National Party is prepared to content itself with the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act. If amendments should be necessary at a later stage, they will be effected. That Act has been in operation for barely a year. In point of fact, it has been in force less than 12 months. We feel that in terms of that Act, adequate bargaining machinery has been established in terms of which the Bantu can make his own arrangements in regard to labour by means of works committees, liaison committees and co-ordinating committees. Sir, the worker must know that we shall maintain the status quo in the Republic of South Africa; they must have that very clear in their minds.

Let us come back to the United Party and its policy about-face. Between 1972 and now they have come up with four different policies. If one had spoken to the majority of them about Bantu trade unions up to and including 1972, the majority of them wanted nothing to do with it. But the voice calling in the wilderness was that of Cathy Taylor and Eric Winchester. But as pressure in the United Party increased in 1972, as the leadership changed, as the Schwarz influence grew in the United Party, so did the idea of Black trade unions grow. Yes, Sir, that is very clear. In 1972 we heard about “affiliated trade union membership”. That was the first time we heard about it. But when one questioned them on that policy, like the donkey they only shook their heads—one could not get a peep out of them. On 20 February 1973 the hon. member for Houghton came to this House with a private motion and asked that the Government recognize separate Black trade unions. What did the hon. member who spoke before I did, do? Sir, they opposed it; they wanted nothing to do with it. But ten days earlier, the leader in the Transvaal, Mr. Harry Schwarz, had already pleaded for Black trade unions in Pretoria at the platteland council of the United Party. As the pressure grew, they fell silent. On 24 April 1973, exactly a year before the election, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came up with his so-called “three tier system”. Then he came along with “full membership” of the so-called “highly educated and highly skilled Bantu”, “affiliated trade membership for the not-so-highly skilled” and “works committees for the tribal Bantu and labourers”. That was precisely a year before the election. But that policy held for only one year because they thought that they could catch the vote of the White voter in South Africa if they did not give open recognition to all Bantu trade unions. But what did the voters of South Africa do? They rejected the U.P. The United Party no longer represents a single working constituency. Sir, do you know why? It is because the White voters do not trust them, because the White voters know that they cannot take them at their word, and because they break faith time and again. That is why they have no support in this country today. Now they have to bid against the Progs for votes. And now they have come forward in their true colours, because now they are suddenly saying that works committees do not work, that they are insulting and that adequate bargaining machinery has not been created. No, Sir, that system will work properly, and that will be dealt with thoroughly in the course of this debate. Proof of this will be furnished. In 1972 we had only 24 works committees, but over the past 13 months, from 1 August 1973 to 30 August 1974, 182 works committees were established, with 1 134 liaison committees and three co-ordinating committees, which promoted the interests of 450 000 Bantu workers in South Africa. But, Sir, in the trade union movement it is, after all, not obligatory to be a member of a trade union. Nor is it obligatory for a Bantu to be a member of a works committee. That is why I say, Sir, that we have made tremendous progress as far as this is concerned. In the course of this debate the success of that legislation implemented last year will be proved. It will also be proved that where strikes have taken place in this country at places where works committees were functioning properly, the strikes took place for other reasons. The hon. member for Hillbrow kicked up a fuss here and asked how 100 000 works committees could operate. What an absurd argument! Sir, in a staff association such as S.A.A.M.E. which deals with 700 city councils, can 700 different local Committees negotiate with their various city councils? Then it is nothing; then numbers do not count! But if we speak of 100 000 works committees, it is a fatuous argument! Can one expect such a silly argument from an intelligent man? But who are their allies? Their allies are the leftist TUCSA and the British Trade Union Council. I have their report dated 10 December 1973 in my possession. What do they say on page 2 of this report? Having travelled around South Africa for a few months, they found that these liaison committees and works committees did not work very well; precisely the same argument, therefore, as that advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. members on the other side of the House say that this does not work. That British Trade Union Council recommended that Bantu trade unions be established and organized in South Africa and recommended that £100 000 be found abroad to finance the establishment of Bantu trade unions. They are the people who advocate that “funds must be provided for strike pay”. These are the allies of the hon. members on the other side of the House—the United Party and the Progressive Party. However, the Confederation of Labour, which represents 200 000 White workers, rejected that report in toto. No attention should be paid to that Confederation, however; according to those hon. members they should be given a slap in the face.

That is simply a scare-mongering argument.

Our standpoint is very clear and we know where we want to go.

Where is that?

If we were to agree to the policy of the hon. members on the other side of the House, we should open the door to the biggest agitators in South Africa; we should open the door to people who want to use the Black man for their own benefit and not for the benefit of their own conditions of service. We should create labour unrest if we were to allow that. Surely hon. members can think for themselves that with the greater numbers of Bantu in our labour force, the White worker will be crowded out of jobs in his own fatherland. It will happen. Mr. Arthur Grobbelaar, the leader of the Tucsa, said a while ago that the man who had the Black trade union behind him, had the greatest power behind him. Is that how they want to force the National Party to its knees, because they are unable to force it to its knees at the ballot-box? This Government has never denied that we shall make use of sufficient non-White labour, but we have also put it very clearly that this should take place in a controlled fashion; it should take place within the framework of the Government’s social pattern. It is in accordance with that that we must develop our labour. Here lies the cardinal difference between the two parties. We shall not return to the days when the communists reigned supreme in South African trade unions and the worker had no protection. We shall not return to the days when the White worker was crowded out of jobs by the non-White. We shall not return to the days when there was a mixing of the races in the factories. At that time this National Party had to place an Act on the Statute Book to protect the White worker, in the face of opposition from that party.

It is very clear that this Government will see to two things and they are, to uphold and perpetuate the identity and the right of existence of the Whites. This Government will also ensure that the other ethnic groups will be given their legitimate share and that their legitimate rights will be protected. This National Party will ensure that that peace and quiet which we have had in the past, we shall have in the future too.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

That hon. member is the man who says that when the migrant labour comes to the White area, he should be given citizenship and the franchise here. I want to put the simple question to that hon. member whether, if they were to give the Bantu the franchise, they would also be prepared to grant membership of the United Party to the Bantu? Answer that question!

On your horses, men!

This National Party believes in the policy of separate development, that the Whites primarily have the right in the White area and that the Bantu have their rights in the Bantu areas. For that reason we believe that the Bantu should be able to exercise his trade union rights in his own country, and as far as we are concerned that is sufficient. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the speech by the hon. member for Hillbrow did not really surprise me. If I remember correctly, this is the third time in this session that a front-bencher on that side of the House has stood up and made a plea that the Government should co-operate with the United Party on a committee basis, on a basis of consultation or on a basis of investigation. When a party has been sitting in the Opposition for 26 years, one can understand that by now it really feels the need for it, too, to achieve something for once, and now it wants the Government to give it that opportunity.

To begin with I should like to make the statement that through the criticism they level at the National Party’s labour policy, too many members of both parties on that side are engaged in encouraging people who think as Nusas does in their wrongdoing, and are playing into the hands of our enemies. There are many examples we could quote, but ten minutes is too short a time in which to do so. [Interjections.] The entire chapter 17 of the report of the Schlebusch Commission deals with the role played by Nusas, or at any rate by its leaders, to group the mass of Black workers together under the term “proletariat” or “Black power” and in that way the Nusas leaders tried to cause strikes. [Interjections.] Those people who want to interject now, co-operated on the Schlebusch Commission and helped to write the report, after all. If they, then, are prepared to offer us something and if they mean it honestly, we ask them this afternoon: Stop playing into the hands of people who think as Nusas does and into the hands of our enemies. I could quote a number of examples of this, but since the hon, member for Edenvale is present now, I want to come back to the speech he made here the other day, a speech which correspondend with the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow this afternoon. The hon. member for Edenvale came here the other day and told us that there were people in the outside world who threw in their lot with Marxists. He related how people were becoming socialists to an ever greater extent owing to pressure and how they were then becoming our enemies. Then he mentioned the same series of eight or nine points which the hon. member for Hillbrow has just mentioned here. He said that that was the reason why the outside world was against South Africa. I want to tell you that that is not true. It is these people of the Opposition who tell the outside world: “You should attack the White Government or the National Government from this angle.” At this point I could just quote an example from last Friday’s Financial Mail. Under the heading “Slave Labour” we are told of the strike which took place in Alabama when the workers there did not want to off-load South African coal owing to the conditions in South Africa. In that regard the Financial Mail tells us about certain fines which are exacted if a Black worker does certain things. The Financial Mail goes on—

In other words, they do not know precisely what the scope of it is.

What is the date of that article?

It is the Financial Mail of 13 September. The writer of this article does not know what the effect of that legislation is but he nevertheless comes here and tries to frighten people under the heading of “Slave labour”. Mention has been made here of strikes. Is the hon. member not aware that they put questions here? Does the hon. member not want to make use of the replies with which the Progressive Party was furnished? The Progressive Party wanted to know how many strikes took place among Bantu during 1973. The hon. Minister’s reply was 246.

One every day.

They also asked how many strikes had taken place in the first half of 1974 and the reply was 54. After the legislation had been effectively implemented, the number of strikes dropped immediately. They are talking here, for the whole world to hear as though 246 strikes were still taking place in a short period of time. This is simply not true. Therefore my appeal this afternoon to the hon. member for Hillbrow is this: If you want to help us, help us by stating the truth; help us by giving the facts to the world. In that case, contrary to what the hon. member for Edenvale told us, the outside world will have no quarrel with us. You know that out of that number of 300 strikes, a large number were inspired—hon. members on that side who served on the Schlebusch Commission, will acknowledge that this transpired in a number of instances in the evidence before the commission—by incitement on the part of Nusas; they were the result of incitements by the leaders of Nusas.

What made it necessary for them to incite these people?

After those things had become hard fact, after the employers had realized that there was something else behind these strikes, the number of strikes dropped considerably. Of those 300 strikes there were only 164 which lasted a day or less. To what does that testify? Surely it does not testify to a struggle against separate development, as hon. members apposite want to give out. They say it is an ideology which we are trying to force upon South Africa. But that after all, is not true. What would the position be if, under those same circumstances, Black and White were to sit together in a trade union. Even if trade unions were to be given to these people, we should still not have the guarantee that no strikes would take place. The hon. member for Pinetown put a question to the hon. the Minister on what happened in respect of certain strikes which took place at Consolidated Textile Mills. He asked whether there had been intervention. The hon. the Minister replied to that, but the hon. member for Hillbrow apparently took no notice although the question came from his own ranks. The hon. the Minister’s reply was that negotiations did take place with these Black people in terms of appropriate legislation, and so on. He also said, however, that that group of people simply refused to negotiate with either the labour official from the department or with their employers. Is that not an indication to us of what will eventually occur? We must be very honest with these people. The fact that in their policies the United Party and the Progressive Party do discriminate against the Black man at the political level, those policies will never satisfy the Black man in the field of labour, however many points the hon. member for Hillbrow in his vision of the future may add to the nine already mentioned by him. If we consider the ideal of the people of Nusas in connection with the Black man, then I want to ask the United Party, and the Progressive Party, too, whether they would not prefer to turn around and help us. These leaders of Nusas told their people that the ballot-box was no answer. They also told these people that a revolutionary climate had to be created in South Africa. That is what they told the Black workers. These leaders of Nusas said that expectations had to be created among the Bantu workers, and if they were not satisfied, then the path was open for stirring up a will to revolt. I ask the hon. member for Hillbrow and other members opposite to tell us, as this debate develops, if those nine points of theirs were not to be translated into fact, whether there was no danger of their holding out to these people prospects which could not become realities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think it must be very rare in these modern times that one has to listen to such emotional speeches as those that we have just heard from the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and the hon. member for Westdene. Listening to them, I wonder whether they ever read even the newspapers which support the Government, because over the weekend Mr. Wimpie de Klerk, the editor of Die Transvaler, in a very interesting article in Rapport, commented on this emotional anachronistic approach of hon. members on the Government side. He referred to their habit of always meeting trouble halfway—“om die bobbejaan agter die bult te gaan haal”. He concluded by saying to his own people, “The picnic is over”. Of course it is over. Sir, we have been warning hon. members on that side of the House of the dangers that will be facing us unless they change their policy, and now they have had the same warning from one of their own newspapers. The hon. member for Vanderjbijlpark has accused us of having changed our policy over the last three or four years, Sir, it would be highly irresponsible, in the light of the events which have taken place over the last five or six months, not to be prepared to reconsider your labour policy in the interests of South Africa. We have repeatedly urged the Government to amend the Industrial Conciliation Act to enable Blacks to form their own trade unions; we have urged the Government to recognize Black trade unions. That is a policy which is not only propounded by us but by most thinking people in South Africa. The only people who do not support this policy are the back-benchers on that side of the House and possibly even the hon. the Minister himself. Sir, the Natal Employers’ Association recently came out in favour of the recognition of trade unions for Blacks. Smith & Nephew Ltd., one of the biggest companies in this country, recently, concluded a wage agreement with a Black trade union to the satisfaction of all concerned. Sir, reference has already been made here to what Mr. Harry Oppenheimer said with regard to the setting up of a commission to enquire into the whole labour question; Mr. Wally Grobler too has urged that a commission be established to investigate this matter. I know that Mr. Niewoudt of the Confederation of Labour is very much against it, but he represents some of the people who are represented in this House by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. But with the exception of these people, the whole country today realizes the necessity of a new approach to the whole of our labour problem. The South African Electrical Workers’ Association, for instance, just recently made a very important statement on this matter.

Why did they quit Tucsa?

The South African Electrical Workers’ Association is part of the gold mining industry of this country, and this report says—

This report goes on to say—

Sir, these are practical people; these are people who deal with these problems day in and day out; they realize what is happening in the Republic of South Africa. According to the census figures of 1970, out of approximately 8 million economically active people in this country, 5 600 000 are Blacks. Sir, look at the way in which the Blacks outnumber the rest of the population in the various industries. In the farming, forestry and fishing industries in 1970 there were 20 Black workers to one White worker. In mining production there were four Black to one White, and in mining and quarrying there were 10 Blacks to one White. They completely outnumber the rest of the population of this country in the economically active field, and it is, therefore, a protection to the people of this country to organize these people into proper organizations so that they can themselves become disciplined as time goes on. We must remember that we are no longer dealing with the 1920s; we are now dealing with 1974, with an urbanized Black population, a very much more sophisticated Black population, with a Black population that has some education, that has had training in the industries of our country, that has taken part in the productive wealth of this country and that has learnt how to play their part in a disciplined manner in the industrial life of South Africa. Therefore they must get this opportunity. Furthermore, there is nothing in the law that prohibits African trade unions, of which a considerable number are registered, one of the strongest being the African Clothing Union. When the hon. member for Westdene warns us about what Nusas had said and about “die vyande van Suid-Afrika”, why did he not for a moment hesitate and give some thought to some word of praise to the general secretary of the African Clothing Workers’ Union, Mrs. Lucy Mvubelo who defended South Africa at the ILO when we ourselves were not given the opportunity to have a representative of one of our own White trade unions there to represent South Africa? Here is an indication of a responsible attitude adopted by people who are given the opportunity to play their part in industry where they are heavily and deeply involved at the moment. Sir, other people have made statements of a similar nature. It all depends, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Hillbrow, on this important issue, viz. that the Black worker is a permanent part of the economic life of South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has repeated it on more than one occasion and, what is more, you have men like Prof. Cilliers who talks about the importance of having trade unions. And you have statements by Prof. Joubert Botes of Wits University who said—

These are the facts on which is based the change of direction which we find is so important and so pertinent to the day. Now, Sir, let us talk about the necessity for this, despite the legislation of the hon. the Minister. The Minister brought in legislation to provide works committees in greater numbers, to encourage it, and to expand the whole system. Why? Because he was well aware of the necessity to provide some form of proper disciplined communication between employer and employee. He was afraid to take the full step and to enable them to be organized in trade unions. He was afraid to take the full step and encourage the present White trade unions to consider the situation and to bring their thinking to bear on the best practical manner in which the Black worker could be absorbed into the trade union life of the country. So he came with a halfway measure and the result was that we had greater labour unrest in this country than we have had in nearly half a century. In fact, the extraordinary thing is this, that a year ago the professor of the Graduate School of Business of Cape Town University actually foretold that labour unrest would be inevitable. [Interjections.] The professor of the Graduate School of Business of the University of Cape Town foretold in 1973 that there was going to be labour unrest, that it was inevitable because of the problems that were facing us. The question of wages is another example of the necessity for organizations that can negotiate in a satisfactory, orderly and proper manner. When the hon. the Minister decided last year to introduce the Bill whereby he permitted Black workers to strike, he made the final concession. There was no fear of that sort of thing provided there was discipline, and here we have the Industrial Conciliation Act which we all regard as one of the finest pieces of legislation in the world, which can contain and hold together and satisfactorily provide the necessary cooling off period and the disciplinary manner in which the various steps of negotiation should be taken before a strike can finally take place. That is legislation which has worked satisfactorily in this country for more than half a century, legislation on which we pride ourselves as having given rise to no labour unrest in the country, and yet we are afraid to enable that legislation to be used by the Black workers, who outnumber us by nearly five to one in the industrial life of this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I come back to the hon. member for Jeppe, permit me to begin by referring to another matter. I came across, the following in the latest annual report of the Commissioner of Police. With reference to the strikes which took place last year in Natal, the following is stated—

Sir, I think I am speaking on behalf of both sides of the House when, in this specific debate, I pay tribute and convey our thanks to the Police today and particularly to those officers who handled this extremely difficult situation so outstandingly at the time. I think we are all agreed in conveying our thanks to them. But while I say this in respect of the Police, that does not alter the fact that the officials of the Department, together with the hon. the Minister, also played a very important role at the time. To them, too, we want to express our sincere thanks today.

Now, coming back to the hon. member for Jeppe, the hon. member made a few interesting statements. The first statement he made was that they changed their policy because circumstances had changed. Sir, I think it is elementary to accept that a party which has such a rotten policy, is, in the nature of things, obliged to change its policy from time to time as circumstances exert pressure on it. That is the basic difference between the position of that side of the House in respect of labour and that of this side of the House. The fundamental principles of the National Party’s policy are so sound that it does not need to change its policy in order to deal with the situation in South Africa. I think the whole people, the whole nation, should take cognizance of that. It is really a feather in the cap of the National Party to have such a policy which does not have to be changed from day to day and from moment to moment. In addition, the White worker in this country rests assured that in the hands of the National Party his interests, too, are secure.

But. Sir, the hon. member made another statement too. He made a big fuss about all the people who are supposedly in favour of the so-called Black trade unions. We on this side could also produce a whole series of quotations to prove that for each of those who say that Black trade unions should be allowed, there is a whole series of other people who oppose them. I do not have the time today to go into the matter, but I have before me a quotation from the Star of 4 March this year, in which Mr. Bloemink said the following—

I have before me a whole series of other quotations which I could use to indicate that it would get us nowhere merely to say, “The one says this and the other says that”. One needs to ask oneself: What is sound; what is important? That is what should then apply. Earlier this afternoon my friend from Vanderbijlpark indicated here the origin of this change of policy on the part of the United Party. In February of this year, the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal announced this new policy of Black trade unions which had been accepted by the United Party. I just want to say that I also went and did a little research. In this election I came across only one person who, during the election, was prepared to hold the viewpoint that Black trade unions should be established, viz. the candidate for Boksburg, who today is actually sitting in the Other Place on behalf of another party. She alone had the courage of her convictions. Nowhere else was the United Party prepared to tell the White workers of the country during the election that they were going to change their policy, or that they had changed their policy and were going to acknowledge Black trade unions.

Since we are now dealing with Black trade unions, there are a few questions one has to ask oneself. In the first place one has to ask oneself why the Black worker should be allowed to belong to trade unions. What are the functions, the usefulness and the purpose of the trade union? I specifically want to quote Mr. Ray Altman because he is an authority in this field. This is the way he summarized it (translation)—

Those, then, are the reasons for trade unions. However, this Government has always been far-sighted. After all, the Government has already met this need through the establishment of works committees and liaison committees. I am going to read out a quotation, this time from the constitution of one of these works committees, in order to indicate that what is given out as being reasons for having trade unions, is already provided for in these works committees. I have before me the constitution of a works committee which describes the general functions as follows—

That is the place where they work—

And thirdly—

That is what is envisaged by the works committee. Then we come to the specific tasks of the committee, in other words, the works committee. I find that there are no fewer than 18 specific tasks to be performed by the works committee. This constitutes further proof that there is no need for trade unions for the purposes for which, we are so ready to maintain, trade unions should be established. If the works committees meet that particular need, one should ask oneself for what reason the United Party, in company with the Progressive Party, should now be aiming for the establishing of trade unions. There is only one reply, and that is that there are political motives behind it. I want to quote to you what was said by Mr. W. B. Loocke, chairman of the British-South African Trade Association. He said that although he believed that the Trade Union Congress was a responsible organization, a section of the trade union movement in Britain and in many other countries had taken up an irresponsible attitude towards democratic governments over the past ten years. This very weekend we experienced the phenomenon of the Progressive Party having Black speakers at its congress, which it held over the weekend. Here we have one example of what is happening —“Black workers know strength”. The person who spoke at the Progressive Party congress, indicated how these Black workers are to an increasing extent becoming aware of the power they wield. The United Party and the Progressive Party are fully aware of that. They want to use it to bring the National Party to its knees. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the replies to this debate so far has been very, very disappointing, in fact, more disappointing than usual. I would just like to underline one matter right at the beginning. If only those who have replied, had bothered to consult, not with the United Party or the Progressive Party, but with management and labour in South Africa, they would have realized that it is not a political understanding which is underlying this new demand for Black trade unions, but simply the fact that management themselves, that labour representatives themselves, realize that they cannot go on as they are. This is a hard, real fact in South Africa. [Interjections.] I shall tell hon. members in a moment. Sir, unfortunately, one is limited to ten minutes at this stage, but let me try to say as quickly as I can that there is a new dimension in South Africa today, and anyone with eyes to see, must be aware of that. I refer to the fact that, when I put a question to the hon. the Minister a week ago as to how many Black workers had gone on strike during the last 18 months, the reply was over 75 000. That is the harsh reality, not whether we are trying to get the Nationalist Party to its knees. It is an attempt to maintain the growth, stability and industrial peace which South Africa so desperately requires in our time. This new element is there, and we have to realize that the present policy is not working.

Why not?

I shall give hon. members my reasons in a moment. The legislation that forbids strikes is quite clearly ineffective, because the strikes are taking place despite the legislation. That is point number one. Secondly, the legislation …

Strikes are not forbidden. You are talking nonsense.

Yes, but they are not observing the normal procedures, so the hon. member is the one who is talking nonsense. Let the hon. member read the Act himself and he will see. The other point is that, not only is the legislation unable to prevent the strikes, but it is unable to enforce or control the ending of them. Who ends the strikes? It is not the legislation. It is either the policemen, as we have heard, or homeland authorities, or a group of people, or the unregistered Black trade unions …

Or the member for Pinetown.

… or the member of Parliament for Pinetown, who has done his job. He should never have been there. It is not his job. It is a question between management and labour, with adequate legislation given to us by the Government, in consultation with management and with labour. That is the problem. The newly amended Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act sets up a complex procedure of dealing with disputes involving Black labour. But by and large, that machinery is inoperative. For example— I have been asked to give specific examples —the Act makes provision for the reporting of disputes by factory workers and liaison committees to regional Bantu labour committees. Since the Act was promulgated in July of last year, not a single such dispute has been reported, although many, many have taken place. It is abundantly clear that the works and liaison committees set up by Government policy are inadequate in a number of respects. We have been told that they are there for communication, representation and negotiation. But let us have a look at it as a vehicle of communication of the mood of the workers. The very people who do not know that the strike is going to take place, are the liaison committees, the very people who should be there to try to report the mood, the aspirations, the hopes and the grievances of the workers. They are the last ones to know, and that is why they are failing in representing the wishes of the worker.

Where do you get that information from?

By talking to the workers and to management all over the country. When a strike has started, have the liaison committees or the works committees assisted in the ending of a particular labour/managment conflict? No! Right throughout the land, again and again, we find that these committees are ineffectual and inoperative at the very crucial time when strikes have taken place. Arising from the pattern of strikes, confrontation between White management and Black labour—here I hope that the Government will hear—is becoming a dangerous possibility, and industry is rapidly becoming a battleground between Government and management on the one hand and Black workers and their formal or informal organizations on the other hand. This trend presents us with a very ugly picture indeed. South Africa stands in tremendous need of greater growth and increased productivity. This is common cause, but if one considers the poverty which is so rampant in our land, and when one realizes that the legislation is simply resulting in a stalemate by an unending series of confrontations between workers and management, this calls for new and positive initiative. When these new suggestions are offered all we get is scoff and bluster without any real understanding of what is happening at the factory level and in the management council chambers themselves. The noise of the feet of the Black workers—they are voting with their feet in strikes on the streets—is causing deperate concern amongst management and amongst labour representation. The only ones who are still fast asleep are the people on the other side. Prof. S. P. Cilliers in a notable speech at a recent conference made the valid point that we must either begin to share the institutions of our economy with Black and Brown South Africans or we must stand back and see these cherished institutions destroyed by Black rage born out of frustration. It is well known that the Progressive Party has for a very long time advocated Black trade unions. Obviously, a change must be made to the Industrial Conciliation Act by just deleting the reference which says that Bantu are not employees. God knows what they are If they are not employees! Nevertheless they are regarded as not being employees. If we could only do that it would be a very, very good start to a new deal in South African labour relations. So far the Government and the hon. the Minister of Labour have stubbornly refused to allow this amendment. If the Government persists in this shortsighted and dangerous policy, I would appeal to the Government and to the hon. the Minister to consider at least two things. The one has already been referred to and that is that a commission should be appointed to look at labour representation. Of course you cannot look at all the aspects—and much is being done— but if we could only come together with management, labour and Government, fully representative, and look at the alternatives which are facing us in labour representation, it would be a tremendous advantage for all South Africans and for the future. Then there is a second thing we can do. If the hon. the Minister refuses to accede to this request, I would say that we should at least amend the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act and scrap the liaison committee idea altogether. Let us then focus our attention on works committees and make them compulsory. Then at least the works committees have a better chance of representing to management the hopes and the aspirations as well as the grievances of the Black workers. I think this would at least be a positive step.

My time is almost up and therefore I must abandon the other things I had hoped to say. Let me close by saying that I believe that the hon. the Minister himself— he will perhaps deny this—knows that if you are going to have trade unions for White and Coloured workers, you cannot ultimately deny them to Black workers. He himself believes that in an evolutionary process, trade unionism or collective bargaining will be the right for all. I would just like to plead with him that he should bring that forward and that he should realize that the time is not running out, but that it has run out. The Government should start talking with Black trade union leaders, not Nusas, not student groups, but with these leaders of the trade union groups which are in existence now. They say if the Government does not act soon, there will be no choice of having united trade unions or affiliated trade unions, but separate Black trade unions which will only lead to confrontation rather than co-operation.

What the hon. member for Pinelands has just told us, is nothing new to us. We already know what the standpoint of the Progressive Party is. As the hon. member for Houghton indicated in a private motion last year, we know that the Progressive Party supports the principle of Black trade unions. I should, however, like to come to the United Party and in particular to the hon. member for Hillbrow.

This afternoon the hon. member for Hillbrow referred to the hon. the Minister as a Jekyll and Hyde figure. He said that when the Minister was acting in his capacity as Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, he adopted a certain standpoint, and when he was acting in his capacity as Minister of Labour, he adopted another standpoint. The problem is, however, that we saw United Party speakers acting in a totally new shape this afternoon. There is a world of a difference between what the United Party said last year during the discussion of this vote and what we heard from them today during the discussion of the same vote. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has already pointed out that the United Party changes its labour policy virtually every year and that the labour policy of the United Party has been changed three or four times during the past three or four years. However, I do not want to go back that far but simply want to point out to what extent the United Party has changed its labour policy during the past year or so and I can do no better than to quote the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself. To begin with I should like to read out what he said on 22 April 1973 (Hansard, Vol. 43, col. 4890)—

In other words, the sophisticated Bantu may belong to trade unions, while those who are not so sophisticated, may have affiliated membership, while the rest of them may participate in works committees. That was the standpoint of the United Party last year. The hon. member for Houghton also introduced a private member’s motion last year in which she pointedly asked for the recognition of Bantu trade unions. At that stage this was still the standpoint of the United Party. With this standpoint the United Party intered the recent election on 24 April 1974. At that stage the United Party told the workers of South Africa that this was their standpoint. Now I have a problem with the United Party. This election is hardly a thing of the past, is not even cold as yet— the United Party is still licking its wounds —and what do we find? In the censure debate which took place a month or so ago, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following, and I gladly give him the floor once more—

The hon. the Prime Minister then asked by way of interjection, “Does that mean trade unions?”, to which the hon. the Leader replied as follows—

A year ago their standpoint was this so-called three-tier system. After the United Party had tried to throw dust into the eyes of the electorate of South Africa, they came forward with the standpoint a few months subsequent to the election of being in favour of the principle and the recognition of Black trade unions in South Africa. Now the question very clearly arises as to why the United Party has moved to the left so rapidly and so suddenly. I should now like to congratulate the hon. member for Houghton on the fact that the United Party is moving over rapidly to the Progressive Party. I differ greatly from the Progressive Party, but the fact remains that the United Party realizes that each constituency it represents in this House of Assembly is within striking distance of the Progressive Party. This is the reason for the United Party’s sudden movement to the left. Therefore, I want to nut on record and tell the workers of South Africa this afternoon that in respect of this matter there is no difference whatsoever between the United Party and the Progressive Party. The hon. member for Houghton is shaking her head, but I know she agrees with me. [Interjections.] This is something peculiar to the official Opposition—one hardly knows from day to day what their standpoint is in respect of matters of vital importance to South Africa. One would be pleased if they would give the workers of South Africa a clear statement at some stage or other on their standpoint in respect of labour matters. That is why it is so pleasant to be able to be a Nationalist. That is why it is such a pleasure for me to be able to stand on this side of the House because the National Party has a labour policy which it has followed throughout the years. In the first instance the workers of South Africa know that the National Party is not in favour of the principle of Black trade unions in South Africa. This is our standpoint because we believe it to be in the best interests of our White workers as well as in the best interests of our Black workers in South Africa.

In saying this, I also want to say that the National Party does not stand alone in respect of this extremely important matter. There are a few quotations in this respect that I should like to read out. The first quotation is from the Rand Daily Mail of 30 May 1973. The relevant report reads as follows—

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, Sir, my time is unfortunately very limited. The second quotation I want to read out comes from the Sunday Times of 5 May 1968. This report reads—

They broke away from Tusca, the leftist trade union organization. I may also tell you, Sir, that the IAE broke away from them. The Motor Industry Council also broke away from them as a result of the fact that Tucsa stands for the principle of Black trade unions.

My time is virtually up and I want to conclude. I intend the following for the Opposition: Black trade unions are not simply an illusion but will most certainly represent the most dangerous and most irresponsible line of action taken by any Government in South Africa. This Government certainly does not intend experimenting with South Africa’s stability in a, for some people, popular yet basically reckless way. The employers of South Africa who are in earnest about maintaining good labour relations in their various industries, factories and works, should utilize to the fullest extent this only practically acceptable communications machinery, namely that of works committees. I am convinced the machinery that was set up, the Act that was passed by Parliament last year, creates the best opportunities for our workers as far as this matter is concerned. As a result of those opportunities that were created, we find in South Africa today, in spite of what the hon. member for Pinelands said, that there is peace and quiet on the labour front in South Africa. This, I believe, should be ascribed to the fact that this Government has a purposive, honest and sincere labour policy. I should ascribe it to the fact that we have an extremely competent Minister.

Sir, the hon. member for Welkom is the fourth hon. member opposite who has now been harping on the question why the Untied Party effected an adjustment in its labour policy. The answer is very clear. The United Party has always placed the interests of the country before those of the party. When we see that a situation has developed in South Africa which makes it absolutely necessary for us to effect policy changes, we are prepared to make the necessary adjustments in our policy and to bear these attacks on us, for we know that we are acting in the interests of the country. That is the reply to the hon. member’s question. Sir, we are continually being accused of adopting a negative attitude; of making no positive contribution towards the solution of the problems in South Africa. It is clear to me, Sir, that the attitude of hon. members on that side is that one is making a positive contribution when, in the first place, one thanks the Minister. The second requirement, according to their definition of “positive”, is that one should do as the hon. member for Welkom did, and that is to sing a song of praise about how well things are going in South Africa under the administration of the department under discussion at that particular moment. When one speaks about labour, one should turn a blind eye and say that there is peace and calm in the country; then one is being positive. The third requirement for being positive in this House is this: When suggestions are put forward on the part of the United Party that policy adjustments should be made in one’s labour policy, one should become emotional and accuse the United Party of wanting to open the flood-gates …

“Black peril”.

And then, finally, they conclude with the following slogan, which just goes to prove how negative hon. members on that side are: “Labourers of South Africa, unite; draw in the chains; stand behind the National Party and bury your heads, like the proverbial ostrich, deep in the sand.” Sir, this is the negative attitude on that side which we have already detected in this debate at this early stage. When we on this side of the House came along here in the past suggesting that a programme for the more rapid training of workers in South Africa be introduced, it was sneeringly referred to as “the crash training programme of the United Party”. Even when they speak Afrikaans, they refer to it as “the crash training programme”, as if it were a swearword which sounds better in English.

Sir, had those hon. members only listened to us at that time, had they only tried to be a little more positive then, the position in South Africa today in the labour sphere would have been much better. Sir, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I believe that South Africa can indeed begin to see daylight, but then in the first place, the Government should, get rid of this negative attitude, and, in the second place, we should approach the question of labour from an economic and not only from a political point of view. I believe that a responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Minister of Labour to rouse South Africa out of this sweet “Rip van Winkle slumber”. I think the time has arrived for the hon. the Minister and his department to adopt a firmer attitude—I should have liked to say a “militant attitude”—towards other State departments and towards some of his colleagues in the Cabinet. You see, Sir, certain aspects of the labour problems we have to contend with in South Africa do not have their origin with the hon. the Minister. Of course, we know that the policy of separate development is the major stumbling-block, but let us forget that for a moment. I say that certain aspects of the labour problem do not have their origin with the Minister; the hon. the Minister and his department inherited them from others. In certain respects the hon. the Minister is saddled with the bungling of other state departments. Let us look, for example, at manpower training. In this respect it is definitely necessary that joint responsibility be accepted by the various departments. This is a matter in which the Department of Education, for instance, is concerned; it is a matter in which the Department of Planning is concerned. In this sphere co-ordination is essential. The Minister and his department are expected to make the best use of the available labour material, but the available labour material is in many instances useless today in a country which has to industrialize, a country which is entering a technological era. As far as the non-Whites are concerned, we find a state of affairs which can be ascribed chiefly to the lack of basic education and training and, as far as the Whites are concerned, a state of affairs which is undesirable as a result of wrong and faulty educational practices. In the various departments and in the Department of Labour there should be an awareness of the various problems they have to contend with. There should be machinery for giving proper attention to this matter. The hon. member for Hillbrow has already mentioned a commission of inquiry or a permanent committee, but I also want to suggest to the hon. The Minister that consideration may be given to more effective inter-departmental action, and I am going to illustrate this by the following example. Up to and including 1973 there was a committee in South Africa which was known as the Permanent Inter-departmental Committee for the Co-ordination of Educational Services for All Races. This committee was known as PICCER, and what is very important is that this committee was concerned with the co-ordination of education in the light of the supply of trained manpower—in other words, something which is of permanent interest to the Minister and his department. However, this committee was abolished last year, and it is particularly significant to see that the authorities admitted at the time that there was no necessity for the continued existence of PICCER as a permanent institution. I want to repeat that it was concerned with the co-ordination of the education services of the various races and the training of manpower. Now, I am not pleading here for the re-establishment of that committee, for it was in any event limited in its terms of reference, but the fact remains that this is something that could be done at any time—then there would at least be better co-operation and it would be possible to determine what the problem is, what the deficiency is which exists now and was aggravated as a result of the disappearance of this committee. That positive steps should be taken in this regard, is something no one can doubt; it is a matter about which the Minister of Labour must do something for he is in fact on the losing side in this regard. After all, he is saddled with the end results of other departments, and the responsibility of taking the lead does in effect rest with him. A start has to be made somewhere to determine the scope and nature of the problem. Something has to be done about it on all levels. I might just mention to the hon. the Minister that there are, for example, certain adjustments which need to be effected to the system of apprenticeship in South Africa. Changes must be made, but it would be so much better if the education departments concerned with technical training, and other state departments, were aware of what the hon. the Minister intends doing. Certain adjustments could be made if the various education departments were only aware of the problems. For example, the hon. the Minister realizes very well, from his experience as Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, that South Africa has a shortage of trained technicians. We have a state of affairs here in the country where reasonable provision for the technical training of Whites does exist, while it does not exist at all for non-Whites, for the Bantu in particular. On the tertiary level, for example, there are colleges for advanced technical education, but for the Bantu there is nothing of this nature. It may be possible that, with a view to the training of available manpower, such a committee will, in spite of the policy of apartheid, suggest for instance that these colleges for advanced technical education train certain categories of non-Whites in order to meet shortages in essential spheres of labour [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the course of the few remarks I intend making this afternoon, I shall have something to say about the interesting contribution of the hon. member for Durban Central. But, to begin with, I want to make a few remarks of a general nature arising from the new policy of the United Party. You will realize, Mr. Chairman, that I listened this afternoon with great interest to the contribution of my friend, the hon. member for Hillbrow, for the role he filled this afternoon was filled by me for more than 20 years on the opposite side of this House. What I find disconcerting is that I, while listening to the hon. member could not, and still cannot, understand why they have so diligently, so recklessly, so hurriedly and with so much—what shall I call it—deceit towards the people, suddenly accepted the policy of the Progressive Party and betrayed their own. One cannot help wondering what sort of advice they have received to make this change possible, and from whom they have received such advice. Could it be that the spirit of Solly Sacks has now gained acceptance in the ranks of the United Party through the person of an hon. Senatrix? Could this be the answer, or could it be plain ignorance? When one compares the speech made by the hon. member this afternoon with the speech he made on 30 August, one cannot believe that this is the same person. He accuses me of having changed, but here we have a change within 17 days. On 30 August he made a speech in this House, and do you know what he tried to make the House believe? He tried to make the House believe the following (Hansard, column 1902)—

Surely this is nonsense. By way of interjection I then said, “They can.” And do you know what he said then, Sir? He said, “Illegal trade unions that have no standing.” When he had been driven into a corner, he said that. He told this House the untruth that they could not become members of trade unions. When he had been driven into a corner, they suddenly became illegal trade unions. I then asked the hon. member, “Why do you keep on telling these untruths?” His reply was, “Will the Government legalize these trade unions? Will they be permitted to become members of legal trade unions?” But they are members of legal trade unions.

I was speaking of registered trade unions.

No, wait a moment. The hon. member should not get excited now. I am making a very clear accusation here that he made a speech on 30 August about labour matters and trade unions for Black people, and that he did not know what he was speaking about. Then the hon. member came along this afternoon, after I had had to set him right and teach him, and said all the Minister had to do was to allow the existing, legal trade unions to operate in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. He has learnt. But, Sir, I am no longer in the caucus of the United Party. If their chief adviser on labour matters in their caucus should speak such nonsense, who would set him right? Apparently they took a decision on this extremely important policy change in the light of the information furnished to them by the hon. member for Hillbrow, and that information is incorrect. That information in no way takes account of reality and the truth in South Africa. It is a matter of deep concern that people come along to this House and discuss one of the most difficult and most complicated problems in South Africa, the problem of labour relations, without having done their homework. This also applies to my hon. friend for Pinelands.

I have done my homework.

When I was at school, there were children who had done their homework but failed all the same. This afternoon the hon. member made the statement that the Bantu did not have the right to strike in South Africa. When I set him right, he said they did not have the full right, not the same right as the Whites.

That is so.

He is repeating it. Now I invite the hon. member for Pinelands to go and do his homework. Subsequently he must come back and tell me in which respect the restrictions on Bantu in South Africa as regards the right to strike differ from the restriction on the White man’s right to strike in South Africa. He does not know now; he merely repeated his erroneous statement. He receives a high salary from a powerful organization to be an adviser on White labour and then he comes along here in Parliament and displays such glaring ignorance that it shows him up as being unfit to express an opinion on this matter. [Interjections.] No, we are concerned with more important matters. There is no more important matter for the future of all of us in South Africa than labour and industrial relations. Yet we get such a spectacle from the hon. member for Hillbrow and such an exhibition from the hon. member for Pinelands! I can only hope that the hon. members will do their homework in the future and that they will make sure that they use the correct textbooks. If my hon. friend, the member for Pinelands, wants to do his homework on the right to strike, he should consult the legislation on Bantu labour relations which was introduced last year. He should also consult the Industrial Conciliation Act. If he compares the two, he will see that the right to strike is the same for Bantu and White. In that case he will not come along to the Parliament of South Africa with such a show of ignorance.

They were striking illegally—75 000 of them; that is a fact.

What is a fact?

May I reply to the question?

The hon. member should state the facts when he speaks and should not, after I had pointed out that he has his facts wrong, try to use my time to correct the facts.

*One wonders what has changed since a little more than a year ago that my friends of the United Party have now found this total volte-face possible. I recall that we pointed out in this House a little more than a year ago that to grant the Bantu the right to strike at this stage could be an ill-considered deed in general. We pointed that out, and they all agreed— they were unanimous in their support of this standpoint—that one could not grant the right to strike to the unskilled tribal Native in South Africa because he was still totally unsophisticated and because he was not exclusively dependent for his livelihood and existence on the industry in which he worked. We pointed out that one could, in older countries, confidently grant the right to strike to the workers, for they knew that if they acted in such a way as to destroy the industries and the economy of which they formed part, they would also destroy themselves. The United Party were at one with us that this did not apply to the tribal Native since he could, perhaps at a much lower level, take refuge in his tribal background in the reserves. He could survive even if he were to destroy the industry which employed him. Now the hon. members of the United Party, who have made this complete volte-face …

You talk about a volte-face!

What has changed? I am speaking of a volte-face. Yes, I made a volte-face because this side of the House had convinced me that their standpoint was the correct one. But those hon. members make that volte-face because they fear that the Progressive Party will take their seats. That is the difference. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was with a certain measure of trepidation that I thought of speaking after the hon. member for Turffontein, but it seems to me that his sophistry is transparent and that we are wasting our time in listening to the kind of argument that this hon. member presents in this House.

However, I would like to spend a little more time on the dust that was kicked up by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, because he seems to enjoy this raising of dust. First of all, let us get one or two mistakes out of his mind. In the United Party we do not tell trade unions what to do. If they want to have mixed or Black trade unions, let them have them; as long as they are operating under the Industrial Conciliation Act, and they operate responsibly and sensibly. The Biblical expression is that out of the mouths of babes and sucklings we often hear the truth. What did the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark tell us? He said that the Nationalist Party wanted to retain the status quo. That is exactly our problem. They are still living in the shadow of Verwoerd. They are leading us into a cul-de-sac. They are keeping this country in the status quo when everything else is changing. That is what we pointed out to them in the first debate in this House.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark now says to us that the United Party wants to go back to the days when the communists were in control of the trade unions. I want to tell him that his policy and his Minister’s policy are producing exactly that situation. Do hon. members think that a strike situation, such as we have had in Natal or anywhere else, is not like a honey bottle to flies for communists? They love it. It fits in perfectly with their ideology. As soon as there is labour unrest the communists are there. Do hon. members of this House think that the South African Congress of Trade Unions are not also active in Natal? That is why this Minister and hon. members opposite are being so irresponsible. They will not extend the protection of the Industrial Conciliation Act to Blacks, and what is happening? There is a vacuum, and the communists can work as they like in that situation. Nobody knows what the Black unions are doing. We do not know what their accounts are like. We have no idea where their money is going. But the Minister is happy to say nothing about it. We have heard a deathly silence from the members opposite. I venture to suggest that it will in fact be a deathly silence.

And then, Sir, the hon. member for Westdene comes with one of the great arguments of members opposite. He tells us that we are creating expectations in the lives of these people which are going to result in a most terrible situation. If I go into a hotel with my wife, who happens to be Afrikaans-speaking, and I tell her that she must insist on being served in Afrikaans, and this creates an incident in the hotel, I suppose I will be regarded as an agitator, because I have been creating in her expectations. But it is her right to be served in her own language in any hotel in South Africa, and I will create those expectations in her. But now I suppose I am an agitator, as far as the hotel manager is concerned, because I am encouraging her to use Afrikaans. What happened in Natal, in Durban? There was the well-known incident with the dock-workers a few months ago. There is a wage determination board in Natal, and under the Wage Act, people who are interested may present representations to the Wage Board. Black dock-workers are entitled to go to that Wage Board. What happened? Students went around and distributed pamphlets to the dock-workers, saying that they could come to the Wage Board to present their claims. That was the dock-workers’ right. The people in the Department of Labour were very upset about this, but what was the result of that? Hundreds of dock-workers came to that meeting and they were tremendously impressed by the fact that they had the right to be represented. What did they do in the end? They thanked the chairman of the Wage Board to his astonishment, for being so co-operative and helpful. Those students did a good thing when they made those workers conscious of what their rights were. We shall support people who act in that kind of way.

I have a problem in talking this afternoon, because I want to deal more specifically with certain aspects of migratory labour. How is it covered? It is covered by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. What a reflection on our Government when many matters which affect labour intensely are dealt with not by the Minister of Labour, but in fact by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I imagine that all hon. members in this House know that the migratory labour system was perpetuated in our labour legislation in the Cape Colony by Rhodes through the Glen Grey Act. The migratory labour system has been a feature of our lives in this country ever since then. However, this Government, particularly under the ideology of Dr. Verwoerd, has perpetuated, entrenched and extended the whole system of migratory labour. Many of my friends are missionaries, missionaries in reserves and doctors on mission stations. You can talk to any of them, whether they be Dutch Reformed, Baptist, Anglican or Presbyterian and every single one of them will tell you that migratory labour is the most vicious thing in the whole social life of the Black people in this country. Yet the Government persists with this migratory labour system; it strengthens, entrenches and encourages migratory labour.

Give us your solution.

Let us look at one example of migratory labour in my constituency, in Pinetown. We have 1,6 million people working under the migratory labour system in South Africa. In Pinetown, as the result of the strikes, the Government has just built a big hostel called Kranskloof, for migratory labourers. They built one section for women, but the women did not want to move in. Why not? Because most of them have children and may not take their children in. Why do they have children? Because for the last five or six years they have been living in the most terrible conditions, in pondoks, where many of them, in order to get a bed had to buy it by giving their bodies to a man. That is the reason why they have children.

Order! I want to suggest to the hon. member that he should rather make that speech under the Bantu Administration Vote.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I shall hold it until then, but I have some more ammunition in my speech. Let us look at the situation in Natal where we see that the communists are moving in. I am telling hon. members and I want to warn them that the communists and others are active. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act places an intolerable burden on his divisional inspector and on his Bantu labour officers. There are now going to be appointed six Bantu labour officers in the Natal area whereas there have been only two until recently. We have heard from the hon. the Minister’s own lips that there have been 222 strikes in Natal during the last two years which involved 80 000 workers. They have had two Bantu labour officers to deal with this whole situation up to now. With respect to the hon. the Minister, I do not believe that six Bantu labour officers can deal with the position in Natal efficiently. I think it is unreasonable of him to expect them to do that. It is not only unreasonable of him to expect them to do it, but it is also unreasonable of him to enforce this legislation. Let me hasten to add that any form of industrial representation has our support. If the works committees will work and can give meaningful industrial peace to South Africa, we will support them, but we also support trade unions.

You do not want to give them a chance.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark says that we do not want to give it a chance and he tells us that he wants to keep the status quo.

Why is the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act on the Book? Because he and his friends got such a fright that they introduced it immediately after the strikes. That is why it was introduced. This situation is creating a vacuum. With respect to the officials of the department, I do not believe that the Minister can expect them to be able to deal with the situation in Natal. By not recognizing trade unions he is denying the right to responsible trade unions to assist Black workers to learn the laws and to organize, What he is doing is that he is giving the opportunity to the underground organizations, the people who love to work in the dark, namely the communists, to carry on happily. They are organizing those trade unions, not because of any interest in the worker, but as a means to an end, namely to create a labour revolution in this country and the hon. the Minister is assisting them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I reply to the Opposition’s criticism, I should like to refer to two departmental matters. The first is that the Department of Labour celebrated its 50th anniversary last month. Consequently I think it is fitting that a word of appreciation should be conveyed in this House to the department, which has in the half century of its existence made great contributions towards the labour peace which we have in this country. It has made great contributions towards introducing labour arrangements which have been nothing but beneficial to us. It has done a great deal to promote the development of our country, and therefore I should like on behalf of this side to convey my congratulations to the department on its 50th anniversary.

The second matter in regard to which I should like to convey a word of congratulation concerns the Secretary of the department. This is the first Budget of the department in regard to which Mr. Lindeque is acting as the Secretary. I want to welcome him very cordially in his new capacity as successor to Mr. Geyser, and express the hope that he will have a very fruitful time in the department in future. He is a person who has already made a lasting impression on the department, which is of course why he has risen to this important position. I wish him everything of the best for the future.

In this debate we have had attacks by the United Party on various fronts. To these I am now going to reply. The first front was—and this I expected—that they tried to discredit the system of liaison and works committees. In this respect the United Party and the Progressive Party are in fact standing shoulder to shoulder in their attempt to have this committee system discredited. With what intention they are doing this, I shall come to in a moment. The entire object of these attacks is of course to try to twist the Government’s arm in order to make us abandon this legislation and adopt their course. Because the United Party has now taken over the labour policy of the Progressive Party, they expect the Government, in its turn, to take over the policy of both those parties. What is the actual position at the moment in regard to liaison and works committees? I am not referring now to the political aspects which motivate the opposite side of the House in this regard. The actual position at the moment is that we have approximately 1 200 liaison committees and approximately 200 works committees in operation in the country. In general these committees are working well. I am going to refer in a moment to the way in which they are working and what further steps could be taken to improve the way they are working. These liaison and works committees at present cover approximately a half million Black workers. In other words, many more Black workers today have the opportunity of negotiating more directly with their employers than they would have through any trade union organization. Black workers today enjoy negotiating opportunities which even White trade unions envy them. There are White trade unions that have recently told me that they wished that they could rather convert themselves into a works committee so that they could have the same direct contact with their employers as Black workers have through the works committees.

There is nothing which prohibits them from doing so.

They are at present members of a trade union, and as such they have built it up with all the benefits which go with it, pension benefits for example, and this is not something which one rejects lightly. What is important is that the liaison committees as well as the works committees have the right, by law, to negotiate with their employers on better wages and conditions of service.

Individual companies?

Yes, individual companies, at the places where they are employed. There it is the object of the works committee and the liaison committee to negotiate with the employers on their conditions of service, wages, etc. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition discussed this matter earlier this year in another debate, he mentioned that there was a communications vacuum because the Black workers did not have this contact with their employers. This is of course not in accordance with the facts or with reality. As a result of the actions of these 1400 liaison and works committees, Black workers have, in the last few months, obtained wage increases of as much as 93%. During the past year the actions of our Bantu Labour Board have certainly contributed as much to bringing about an exceptionally good wage increase for the Black workers of our country. One need only consider that during the past year, 1973, wage increases, to the amount of R60 million were granted to 400 000 Black workers through the medium of the Bantu Labour Board. This in itself most certainly indicates the exceptional value which this board has for them. Of course this machinery, i.e. the committee system, the liaison and works committees, will gradually be expanded and improved. Therefore I want to say something right at the outset now, in regard to the plea made here and elsewhere for a commission of inquiry. General pleas have been made to the effect that a commission of inquiry should be appointed to investigate the entire matter of labour. Let me say at once that I am not opposed to a commission of inquiry, provided the inquiry could be done on a purposeful basis. For the purpose of instituting an inquiry into the functioning of our present workers’ communications system, it is necessary that this system be given a little more time to demonstrate how it is functioning, and to enable employers and Black workers to gain experience of how the system works. It is of no avail simply to appoint commissions to satisfy the Opposition and a few agitators and people outside. What do we achieve by doing that? [Interjections.] It will be of no avail to us simply to appoint a commission to satisfy such persons. When the State appoints a commission one should at least have reason to expect that such an inquiry could lead to something useful. I think that we will, in due course, be able to form an opinion in this regard, when the liaison and works committees are sufficiently in operation. I will then be prepared, at a suitable juncture, to recommend to the Government that such an inquiry may be made, not only by all interested parties and people who have knowledge of this matter, but also by people who have gained experience of the system. It is of no avail our theorizing about this matter. In this country we cannot waste time on theorizing. At that juncture I shall certainly make this recommendation to the Government. It will deal with the effectiveness of this form of communication, how it may be further improved, and how it may be expanded further. In the meantime there is a great deal of work which has to be done to cause this same committee system, these 1 400 committees, to function properly. In the first place I think it is very necessary for our employers in this country to have the right attitude in respect of and towards these committees. The hon. member for Pinelands referred to a new dimension which had come about in South Africa. This is a word which has become popular these days. It will probably have to cover any situation.

Almost like a symposium.

Almost like a symposium, as my hon. colleague says. That dimension which, according to the hon. member for Pinelands had allegedly come about, I would also like to apply to the employers. I think this is a very important matter, which I want to dwell on for a while. The attitude of the employers is the key to the success or failure of this entire committee system. The irony of it all is still that there are certain employers who sometimes appear on platforms, which have been specially arranged for them for this purpose, and advocate the establishment of Black trade unions, but when one examines the various concerns of those same employers, one finds that they themselves have not yet begun to establish the most elementary form of communication in their own business enterprises or factories; one finds that they have not even begun to conduct a dialogue with their Black workers.

Who are you referring to now?

I have a very clear, specific example in mind; I am prepared to mention it in private to the hon. member; I think he would find it interesting. Sir, between January of last year and June of this year, 300 strikes occurred. It appeared from an analysis that in 281 of the 300 places where strikes occurred, there were no committees whatsoever. The hon. member for Pinelands specifically asked me how many works committees there were. There were five works committees, but there were 14 liaison committees. In 281 of these places where strikes occurred, there were no committees of any nature; no opportunity had been created by the employer to conduct a dialogue with these Black workers. No wonder voices were raised in the F.C.I. and also in Seifsa, with whom we are constantly holding talks, for the establishment of liaison and works committees to be made compulsory. My own feeling is that one should not proceed immediately to make the establishment of such committees compulsory; I feel that it should take place on a voluntary basis.

This is also a matter in regard to which we could perhaps, at a subsequent stage, appoint a committee or a commission to go into the practical functioning of this system. Such a committee or commission could then recommend whether it should or should not be made compulsory. In the meantime, I do not want to express an opinion on this matter. I think our main task at the moment is to persuade our employers to use these committees properly. Sir, when Black leaders discuss works and liaison committees with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and I, they have a very serious complaint, and I think I should mention it here today so that it can come to the attention of our employers in this country. Their complaint is that many employers are very indifferent in their treatment of these liaison and works committees, and I really think it would be in the interests of those employees if they would adopt a different attitude to these committees of Black workers. What Black workers desire from their employers, as they have specifically put it to me, is not that the employers should nominate a junior member of their staff to represent the company on the committees—a junior who, after the negotiations, simply reports back to the top management.

The Black leaders, as one of them put it to me the other day, do not want to negotiate with third parties. When I asked him what he meant by “third parties”, his reply was, “Our elected Black workers have to discuss matters with a junior representative of the company; that junior is not in a position to give any decisions on any matter; after the negotiations he has to return to the top man like a messenger; the top man considers our proposals and then sends the junior back to us with counterproposals.”

Sir, it is in the interests of the employers themselves to nominate, instead of a junior, a member of their top management to serve on these committees. This would be an action which would also enhance the prestige of the committees, and this will also, when all is said and done, help the employers to achieve greater labour peace in their industry; it will also help to build up and develop a proper image of the necessity for this committee system. Sir, the fact that there are already 1400 of these committees, most of which are functioning very well, is of course a bitter pill for the Opposition to swallow. In fact, there would by now have been more than 1 400 committees in this country if it had not been for the destructive propaganda campaign which the Opposition, sitting here before me, wages against this system day after day. There would have been many more committees if they had not waged such a destructive propaganda campaign against it and tried to create the impression that the Government would have to abandon it under pressure and would be forced to take over their system. But now, Sir, I do want to say this to the Opposition: Fortunately most employers in this country have at least come to realize that it is not the Opposition that is governing in South Africa. Most of them have at least come to realize that the Government is governing the country and that its policy is being implemented.

Therefore, the responsibility rests in the first place on the shoulders of the employers in this country to handle the committees in such a way that the image of those committees can be properly developed. Now, with reference to the value of those committees, the hon. member for Pinetown referred to an experience in his constituency, of Blacks who were present on the occasion of the sitting of the wage board when there was apparently “astonishment” that anything of this nature could happen.

As it happens, the present chairman of the Bantu Labour Board was at that time the chairman of the Wage Board, i.e. Mr. Tindale. Mr. Tindale was the chairman of that Wage Board who conducted the inquiry there, and he allowed those dock workers to attend that inquiry. This is nothing unusual; it is the practice to allow the Black workers to attend such meetings of industrial councils. Mr. Tindale allowed the Black dock workers to attend. The normal pattern was followed, and there was no “astonishment”, of which I have received any report. But I want to go a little further and demonstrate how this system is now being implemented. When the Bantu Labour Board goes to see the Industrial Councils, usually the national industrial council which are organized on a country-wide basis, the Bantu Labour Board makes it its business, as permitted by the Act, to take representatives of the liaison committees or the regional committees, in other words, Black workers, along with them to the sittings of those industrial councils, and in that way a very great deal has been accomplished.

There is one further comment I can add in regard to the question of the actions of these people. One has, for example, the unregistered Bantu trade unions. I shall spend a little time discussing this matter in a moment, as well as the attitude of the Opposition to them. At this juncture I just want to say that we have recently had three cases in which these unregistered trade unions also participated in the negotiations, and as a result of their participation in the negotiations, a wage agreement was reached. But those wage agreements entailed such low wages for the Black workers that the Bantu Labour Board referred the agreement back to the industrial councils in question and stated that they ought to give those Black workers higher wages.

I shall now tell you what three cases these were. These cases occurred recently. The most recent cases were in the clothing industry in the Transvaal and the Laundry and Drycleaning Trades of the Witwatersrand. The hon. member for Yeoville is chairman of one of those companies who participate in this industrial council. The industrial council negotiated a wage, with the assistance of that unregistered Black trade union, which was so low that the Bantu Labour Board felt that they did not want to recommend it to the department. It was then referred back to them and they were informed that they ought to give those Black workers of theirs better wages.

The third industrial council decision which was referred back, and in which unregistered Black trade unions also participated, was in the Liquor and Catering Trades of the South Coast of Natal. Here are three recent cases which I have just mentioned to you which were referred back because the wages were too low and too unfair, which is certainly very good proof of how effective the actions of the Bantu Labour Board are, so effective that it really need not receive any assistance from unregistered Black trade unions and others.

If that is the case, why do you want to do away with them?

The United Party and the Progressive Party are trying hard to imply now that this is something which goes hand in hand with our particular ieology. The word “ideology” was used by the apposite side. It was implied that our labour policy had in fact been built solely around an ideology.

The hon. member for Jeppes said that this system of committees was completely out-dated. If it is out-dated, we are certainly not the only people who are using systems which are out-dated. Perhaps it would be a good thing to mention only two of the greatest industrial countries in the world, so that it may be established whether they could also be regarded as being out-dated. The one is Japan, and the other is France. In both these countries there are committee systems in terms of which the workers negotiate with the companies that employ them. Would one also call France and Japan out-dated because they are using this committee system?

But those workers still continue to be members of trade unions.

In those countries this system has been developed into a very essential instrument in their entire wage negotiating machinery. It is true that a great deal of education still has to take place in respect of this system. Our employers must, in this regard, still be educated to a great extent. I want to recommend very strongly to employers to introduce in their factories or areas, courses to train the members of these committees in the techniques of negotiation. It is a difficult task to negotiate. Trade union negotiations are among the most complicated and most difficult one can find. Even members of the White trade unions sometimes complain about how difficult they find it to negotiate satisfactorily with their employers. I think employers ought to make it their business to have their Black committee members attend such courses.

Fortunately a major organization, the National Development and Management Foundation of South Africa, is engaged in making films for Black workers who serve on committees. They can see in those films what they have to do. Recently they showed us some of the films they have made. Those films may be shown to the Black workers at factories. I really want to urge most strongly that this be done.

There is another field we are venturing into in this regard. I am referring to the question of our Bantu labour officials. At the moment we have 39 of them, but they are all Whites. Since August of last year they have visited 1 100 employers, who employ approximately 400 000 Black workers. They have explained this committee system to them and have discussed it with them. In this way the employers have been properly informed. We also intend presenting talks on Radio Bantu, so that when the Black workers arrive home at night, they may be given further information as to what their rights, privileges and powers on those committees are, so that they will have a better understanding of the matter. In addition to that, I felt that it would also be a good thing if we could find Black people who will act as Bantu labour officers. I have asked my department to go into this matter and to make a submission to me in this regard, so that we will be able to train Blacks also to be Bantu labour officers. They must then speak to their fellow-Blacks in regard to the operation of this Act and all related matters.

That is a good idea.

I come now to the question which is of so much importance to us. I am referring to the statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition some time ago when he announced the latest policy about-face on Black trade unions, and in point of fact set out the recognized trade union rights of Black workers. This was only four months after the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had asked the voters to vote for a system which would really have been only another committee system, for one-third of the system is a committee system. It would have been possible for approximately one million Black workers to become members of the committees.

But then the hon. the Opposition leader came forward two days prior to the election and in The Star of 22 April 1974, under the headline “The Party leaders state their policy”, he stated the policy of the United Party. This is the policy of the United Party which they had been proclaiming the previous few years. According to this policy the third group would also be able to become members of the works committees. However, this is not a matter which we can leave at that. In the present world in which we are living trade unions have become politically important. Trade unions are today those forces which can cause governments to fall or, if they have mercy on them, allow them to remain in office. I think Mr. Heath and Mr. Wilson could both testify to this.

The political power of trade unions is a world-wide phenomenon today. I think that if the hon. member at the back there wants to use his word “dimension” again, he could even apply it to this. Trade unions have now assumed a new dimension in the world. They have assumed a completely new political dimension. And because they have assumed a new political dimension, it is of the utmost importance that the country and this Parliament should be fully aware of why a party is simply able to change its policy in regard to such a cardinal matter, which has today assumed such an important political dimension. Two days before the election he asked the voters for their support, and four months later he came here to this Parliament and quite unexpectedly announced the reversal of the policy. I think one ought to know this.

However, we should also know what the implications are. I think this Committee should be thoroughly aware of what the implications of the United Party’s policy are for our labour policy. Before I come to the implications, which I want to explain on the basis of figures, I do just want to say that since the United Party has made this policy about-face, I do think that it is of the utmost importance that one should know precisely what their considerations were. Is it simply that the Progressive Party has taken the United Party in two, and does the United Party feel that the Progressive Party is now so popular and that the United Party wishes to become as popular?

You all make the same speech.

The truth remains the truth, and I would be pleased if the United Party would tell us in the same honest manner why they have amended such a cardinal issue. This is a cardinal matter. When the hon. Leader of the Opposition announced the about-face here the other day, he said that one of the reasons was because there were now Black trade unions, because Black trade unions were now being established, and because the Act was not prohibiting them from doing so. Black trade unions have been established in this country since 1918, in the time of Clements Kadalie and Ballinger. Surely it is nothing new for Black trade unions to be established in this country. If that were the reason, surely the United Party should have stated this policy of theirs a long time ago. No, this left about turn is attributable to other factors.

It is attributable to political factors, and because the United Party has done an about-face and accepted the Progressive Party’s policy, they are now expecting us to accept it too. Then they came forward with another argument, and referred to the strikes which had occurred. They said: “Look how many Bantu strikes have occurred. That is the reason why we have made an about-face.” But then, surely, a great deal more evidence should have been produced to prove that this was the reason. In fact, they should then, on that basis, have made their about-face before the election, for last year we had 246 strikes, and during this six-month period only 54. Surely they should then have made their about-face last year, if the reason for it had been the number of strikes. In the meantime additional increases to the tune of many millions of rands had been granted to Black workers. One can now with justification ask oneself a question in this regard. Two days before the election a cardinal policy such as this was submitted to the voters, only to be completely rejected four months later.

No, that is not true.

Let us hear what is not true.

That is not the whole story.

Not the whole story?

It was not an about-face, but simply an adjustment.

The gentleman in front of us here accused us a moment ago of repetition. I shall afford him the opportunity in a moment of doing this further. Since the hon. member for Maitland maintains that this is not true, I want to quote to you precisely, in the first place, what the Opposition leader said two days before the election, and secondly, what he said here the other day. Then hon. members can go and ponder whether or not this is the same policy. According to The Star the Opposition leader said the following, two days before the election …

I know precisely what you are going to say.

No, the hon. member must listen now. The hon. member said I was not stating it correctly, and now I want everyone here to determine whether or not it was correct. I quote—

That is quite correct.

Listen carefully now—

But then the hon. Opposition leader rose to his feet here on 5 August and said that he believed there was a communications vacuum, and continued—

No qualification whatsoever was stated, and I want to emphasize this. There was no qualification whatsoever here of a three-tier system.

But that was after the election, was it not?

Yes, it was after the election and after the Progressive Party had shaken them so badly. I shall return in a moment to what the effect could be which this new United Party policy could have on our labour force, but in the meantime I just want to say this: If one can make such an about-face on a cardinal matter, what value must this Parliament attach to the assurance which the United Party gives time and again, i.e. that before the powers of this Parliament are transferred to their federal parliament, the White voters will be consulted by way of a referendum? In the light of this about-face, what value can the voters of the country attach to that assurance? Absolutely none! The voters can attach no value whatsoever to anything of that nature. If it were really the case that the United Party feels that a system of Black trade unions should be put into operation because it would give the Black workers a better deal, why have the United Party and Progressive Party employers in this country not yet set the example by paying higher wages to their Black workers in the factories which are under their control?

But there is job reservation.

If they had been in earnest about better and higher wages, surely it would not have been necessary for my department to send back the “laundry” agreement of the hon. member for Yeoville and ask that it be reviewed. Then they would surely have seen to it themselves, in the first place, that it had been more beneficial. If it had really been the case that the United Party and the Progressive Party were in such earnest about the question of better wages for the Black workers, why was it necessary for me as Minister of Labour to tell the Chamber of Mines at the beginning of last year that I thought the time had arrived for them to pay their Black mineworkers better wages, otherwise I would have to ask the Wage Board to investigate the whole matter? Why did they not begin, of their own accord, to pay better wages if they were then in such earnest about it? If the Opposition suddenly wants better communications, why have the business enterprises of hon. members opposite not even begun to introduce the most elementary form of communication between their employers and Black workers? No, there is much more behind this sudden concern of the United Party in regard to this matter. It is very clear that there are political aims behind it all. Whether it is the Wages Commission of Nusas, or whether it is their kindred spirits who are behind it all,—it is very clear that the Black workers, in a number of these strikes, had left their places of employment perfectly satisfied the night before, and had not turned up the next morning as a result of the influence and incitement by agitators in the compounds. These strikes and other factors are now being combined to force the Government and to twist its arm to make it depart from the course of its sound labour policy. It is taken amiss of me when I say that there are political aims behind their plea for these Black trade unions. I think the following passage which I want to quote, ought to be of interest to the Anglo-American Corporation group on the opposite side of the House. I should like to quote the following passage from the Rand Daily Mail of 3 September to that Anglo-American party opposite. The caption to the article is: “Anglo replies to nine demands.” They say—

Now what has the “liberation of Southern Africa” to do with wages?

But you are referring to Zambia.

Yes, the hon. member is correct, but my point is that what is involved here is Black trade unions. What is involved is that which they now accept as policy, but when we say that the Black trade unions lend themselves to politicking, then the hon. members are just as upset as when we use the word “agitator”. There the Anglo-American party experienced at first hand that a trade union in Zambia was not referring to wages, but was being used for “the liberation of Southern Africa.” The hon. main speaker of the Opposition went further in his speech and reproached the Government for having ignored reality. He said that we were not facing up to the reality of the South African situation. What is this reality? Let us consider it for a moment. According to the 1973 manpower survey there are 2 600 000 economically active Bantu in South Africa, as against 1 400 000 Whites and 500 000 Coloureds and Indians. In other words, there are 2 600 000 Black workers who, according to the policy of the United Party and the Progressive Party, should belong to the same trade unions as the Whites, whether these are the Mineworkers’ Union or the Iron and Steel Workers” Union. That is the statement which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made in this Parliament on 5 August. According to the policy of the Opposition it will be possible for these Black workers to belong to those trade unions. No qualifications were stated in that policy statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. According to the hon. members, they can all participate in this indiscriminately. Now I should very much like to know from the hon. members of the Opposition, who are such great advocates of consultation— they even sign declarations with Black leaders in their eagerness for consultation—I should like to hear from the labour spokesman on the opposite side whether they, when they accepted this policy, had consulted any of the White trade unions,

Yes, of course.

Oh, did you? Did the hon. member consult the Mineworkers’ Union, for example, and ask them how they felt about the matter?

Not specifically.

Oh, not specifically. Did you consult the Iron and Steel Workers’ Association?

We know precisely what their standpoint is. After all, it is Gert Beetge who …

This has nothing to do with Gert Beetge. If the hon. member wants to be the spokesman he must know about these things. Gert Beetge is from the Building Workers’ Trade Union, but I am referring now to the iron and steel industry. Did the hon. member consult the members of this trade union and their representatives? If the hon. member could take the trouble of traipsing down to Natal to talk to Bantu leaders there, could he not also have taken the trouble of going to Johannesburg or Pretoria to speak to these trade union leaders as well, and to hear how they felt about the matter? One need not be a prophet to predict what the effect of this numerical superiority in the trade unions is going to be on labour peace in this country. If this preponderance of Blacks were to be allowed, in accordance with Opposition policy, to belong to these White trade unions, we would have the greatest labour unrest imaginable in this country. But reality does not end here. The hon. member is shaking his head, but he must listen to what I have to say next and decide whether it ends there. What is the effect of this policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition going to be? I have it here and I shall send it to him so that he can read it again. What is the effect of this going to be on the mining industry, which is a very important industry? There are 641 000 Black workers and 85 000 Whites working in the mining industry. Of the 641 000 80% are foreign Bantu. I think it would be of benefit to us in this House if we could, as they say, hear from the horse’s mouth how the mining people feel about this matter. I wonder whether the hon. member for Johannesburg North, one of the top men in the Anglo-American Corporation, could tell us whether it is the policy of the mining industry that these Blacks may be members of White trade unions in the mining industry.

†This is certainly a very simple question. Will these Blacks be allowed to belong to the existing unions? The hon. member for Orange Grove nods, but I would like to hear what the hon. member for Johannesburg North has to say, because I think he is a bit higher up in the Anglo-American Corporation than that hon. member is. Would you allow these 641 000 Blacks, of whom 80% are foreign Bantu, to belong to the same trade unions on the mines as the Whites?

Yes.

Could the hon. member for Hillbrow tell us whether this is also the policy of the United Party?

We have never said that. Does the hon. the Minister not realize that trade unions have a free choice of members and that not all workers are always members of a trade union?

Yes, certainly, but we are dealing with the statutory position. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition states that he believes that these workers should all have the right to belong to them, and this is what this matter is all about. The Progressive Party states that the 641 000 Blacks can belong to these unions, but I think that the hon. member for Johannesburg North should examine his books again. I have the speech here which Mr. Oppenheimer made the other day. [Interjections.] The hon. member will recall this speech. Mr. Oppenheimer said certain things, in the light of which I am unable to understand the hon. member’s standpoint very clearly. I think the hon. member will have to clear up his reply for us. Mr. Oppenheimer said the following—

May I ask a question?

Yes, certainly.

Did the chairman of the Anglo-American Corporation not go on to say that though it may take a little while longer to effect, he did not argue the principle?

I am quite prepared to quote a further paragraph. He went on to say—

By the way, this is exactly what I said when I spoke about our liaison committees. I emphasized how necessary this would be.

So you are on the same side.

Yes, but you said that they could belong to it. Mr. Oppenheimer went on to say—

*The point is that the Anglo-American party, through its main speaker there, said that the 641 000 may belong to those unions. Mr. Oppenheimer said that this could possibly take a different form in the beginning and that they would be able to iron out these matters later on. I hope that we will be able to iron them out further during the course of this debate. This is an important matter in regard to which I think this House ought to be properly informed.

I have now discussed the question of mines in general. Let us now consider the question of the gold and platinum mines. In these mines 90 000 South African Blacks, 238 000 Blacks from outside South Africa and 50 000 Whites are working. These Whites belong to the existing trade unions. We now want to know one thing. The Progressive Party has already told us that it is their policy that those Blacks can be allowed to belong to the White trade unions. I think that that party should spell out very clearly to us whether it is their policy that those 641 000 Blacks working in the mining industry in general, may belong to those unions, and whether the South African and foreign Bantu working in the gold and platinum mines, may also belong to the South African Mineworkers’ Union.

I want to conclude by saying that if such a policy as this were to be applied on this particular level, we would have chaos in this country. It has been taken amiss of me by the hon. member opposite because I said that if their policy were to be implemented, we would experience a worse situation than that of 1922. In all earnestness, if this policy of the Anglo-American Party were to be implemented in this country, i.e. to allow those 641 000 Blacks to belong to the White trade unions together with this small number of Whites, we would experience a disaster in this country which would make you shudder. But this party is governing the country, and for the reasons which I have mentioned I am certain that the workers of this country will ensure that it will govern this country for all eternity.

Mr. Chairman, before I come to the speech made by the hon. the Minister, I should first like to associate myself with the good wishes expressed by the hon. the Minister in respect of the 50th anniversary of his department. We all agree with him that the Department of Labour is a key department in the economy of South Africa, and the fact that it has rendered so many services to South Africa over a period of 50 years is reason enough for congratulating, in this highest assembly, all who have been associated with it. Then too, Mr. Chairman, we want to associate ourselves with the congratulations and the good wishes addressed to Mr. Lindeque. He occupies a “hot seat” and we want to wish him all the best in the new office that he now holds.

Sir, I want to say at once that the hon. the Minister has been in his element this afternoon. This subject of labour, as it features on the South African political scene, is one that may of course be exploited for the sake of political gain, and I want to say that the hon. the Minister was at his best this afternoon. I want to look at a few of his statements and I want to tell him exactly how he has succeeded in playing politics, without, however, contributing anything at all to the solution of any labour problem in South Africa. In order to do this, I want to read out to the hon. the Minister what in my humble opinion is a crucial remark; it appears in Hansard, Vol. 42, col. 1050, of 20 February 1973—

Who said that?

So trade unions for Black people will come, in the words of Die Burger and in the words of the hon. member for Turffontein, whom I have just quoted. Sir, I forgive the hon. member for sitting on that side now; that is his affair, but the statement made here by the hon. member for Turffontein, at that time the member for Yeoville, represents the view of this side of the House, i.e. that Black trade unions will come, if not now, then tomorrow. In fact, I myself have said so many times on the floor of this House that trade unionism for the Black worker of South Africa is the ideal of any thinking person in South Africa. By the way, Sir, I am sorry that the hon. member for Turffontein is not here at the moment. I wonder whether these words which he used here in February last year were also inspired by Mr. Solly Sachs. Sir, the unambiguous standpoint of the United Party is that trade unions for the Black man will in fact come. Where does the Nationalist Party stand in this regard? The standpoint of the Nationalist Party is unambiguous, unyielding: “We will not allow any Black trade union under the Industrial Conciliation Act.” Our standpoint on this side has always been that it will come, if not today, then tomorrow, and in our view “tomorrow” has already come in the industrial life of South Africa.

Sir, I find the attitude of hon. members on that side very strange. They do not ask themselves whether there may be some merit in our standpoint; they do not ask themselves whether Die Burger and the then member for Yeoville were right last year when they said that Black trade unions would come. No, they ask us why we have changed our policy. I shall tell them why we have changed it. There are many reasons, and one of the most important reasons is that we have come to the inevitable conclusion that no matter what the Nationalist Government does, the Bantu of South Africa have become a permanent part of the labour force of South Africa and will therefore have to be absorbed into the labour machinery of South Africa. That is the most important reason, Sir. But the second reason is this, and let us not beat about the bush: The hon. the Minister has replied here to many questions, but he has never told us where he stands in respect of the fact that there are already many Black trade unions in existence today.

It is an old thing.

Sir, they are multiplying in the present climate in South Africa; they are multiplying with a political bias, and that is what we want to prevent. The hon. member for Brentwood gave us a very lucid explanation the other day of how the old trade unions failed in the days of Col. Creswell. Sir, we are aware of all the facts, but we want to prevent the existing Black trade unionism from falling into the hands of political exploiters, as it had fallen into their hands in the days described by the hon. member for Brentwood. That is what we want to prevent.

Now we come to the hon. the Minister. It is one thing to argue about such a vexed issue and to fling questions to and fro, but the crucial question which we have been asking him for days and which we have asked the hon. the Prime Minister is the following: What are you going to do about the trade unions which already exist and which are becoming political instruments in South Africa? What is he going to do? Is he going to stop them? And if he does not stop them, is the hon. the Minister going to sit back and watch these people falling into the hands of exploiters, to the detriment of the stability in the economy of South Africa? Is the Minister going to sit back?

They have existed since 1918.

Thank you. I am glad the hon. the Minister has reminded me of that. You know, Sir, the Nationalist Party is suffering from a disease. This is a crisis Government. They wait until there is a crisis and only then do they act. For years the idea of works committees lay buried in the Statute Books of South Africa, and then a crisis arose. There must be a crisis for these people to be roused to activity. Sir, the hon. the Minister says that the trade unions have existed for years; he will wait until they have become politically orientated to such an extent that the situation borders on a revolution. Once there is a crisis, he will rise to the occasion, but by that stage the human relationships in South Africa will have suffered irreparable damage. This is a surprising situation.

Why do you refuse to support the committee system?

The hon. gentleman does not want to listen to the facts. We said through the mouth of the then hon. member for Yeoville that we would give the committees a fair chance. We are still giving them a chance, but we know this is a road that leads nowhere. The Minister says we have two million Black workers, and if they can all join trade unions tomorrow, there will be an insurrection. Surely, Sir, he is living in a dream world. One does not expect this foolish statement from the hon. the Minister. After all, Sir, trade unionism is not something that develops overnight. Two million people will not join tomorrow. It is an evolutionary process, after all. It will take years for the process to be completed. In the meantime it is the view and the standpoint of this side of the House that the machinery for works and liaison committees is a perfect interim stage. We have never rejected it in that sense.

Then propagate it.

No, we are saying that we want to warn the hon. the Minister that serious things are in the offing in the labour sphere of South Africa. The hon. member for Turffontein said the other day that we were engaged in a great adventure in South Africa. I agree that it is an adventure in the labour sphere, but if one is engaged in an adventure one is running risks; there are points of danger and of conflict. Now the Nationalist Government may decide on one of two things. They may either decide to draw back into the lager, to close the door and to wait until the explosion takes place outside, or they may advance to meet the enemy on his own battle-field. Surely we know where the dangers lie, and that is why my hon. friend comes along and tells the hon. the Minister: Appoint a commission and let us investigate the things that we know may happen; do not wait until they have happened and the human relationships have been damaged, and only then seek a solution. Then, Sir, you will never be able to repair the damage. The times are too dangerous. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am grateful for the fact that he has not rejected the idea of a commission out of hand. But I want to tell him, too, that the time will come sooner than he himself realizes. We shall have to appoint a commission to investigate all the facets of labour matters in South Africa if we want peace and stability in the economic life of our Country. We just cannot get along without that. We do not know where we stand. Now I want to say that I find it a pity that in the face of these conflicting facts, in the face of the great adventure, the hon. the Minister wants to retire into his shell instead of advancing to the battlefield and saying that he is prepared to tackle the matter and to handle it in the light of the circumstances. Sir, we must not be afraid. You do not protect yourself by locking the door behind you. You can only meet the enemy on the field.

†You can tackle him on the battlefield and possibly conquer him, but you cannot conquer him by forever sitting in your lounge or in your study and dosing your door against the dangers facing the people of South Africa. This is not what we expect of the hon. the Minister. We want to give him a chance.

*We are telling him to advance by means of a commission. We do not want to share in this honour. I do not want to claim for myself the benefits arising from the appointment of such a commission. These are South Africa’s benefits. I conclude by saying to the hon. the Minister that I do not care whether or not I have changed my policy, as long as I know that my changed policy is consistent with the facts of South Africa. Even if every Nationalist were to laugh and to scoff at me, I know that I am acting within the framework of the best interests of my fatherland.

Mr. Chairman, there is little that remains for me to reply to in the speech made by the hon. member for Maitland. He asked certain questions, but in the process he answered them himself. He paid the National Party a great compliment, for he said that we were a crisis Government. If we are a crisis Government, I want to tell the hon. member for Maitland that since we came into power in 1948, we have had several crises, but we have survived everyone of them and we have been returned to the House by the White workers every time by an overwhelming majority.

But look at the state the United Party is in!

I do not want to discuss the United Party now.

Two hon. members on the other side have taken part in this debate, and I shall leave the House to decide for itself whether any notice can be taken of the speeches that were made. The first one was the hon. member for Pinetown. I want to tell him that I, too, came to this House as a young man nine years ago. I want to advise him to be careful in what he says and in the statements he makes to newspapers. The hon. member for Pinetown released a statement which appeared in The Sunday Tribune of yesterday. In it I read—

What does that have to do with labour? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinelands made a speech as well. The hon. member for Pinelands was very serious. I can understand why he made that speech, for he agrees with Rev. Hendrikse, the chairman of the Coloured Labour Party, who said at the Progressive Party congress that time was not on the side of the White man. So I understand why the hon. member for Pinelands made that speech. I take it that he rejoiced, too, when it was said at that congress, as reported in Die Burger of 14 September.

The hon. the Minister as well as the hon. member for Turffontein emphasized the fact that the United Party was changing its policy, as we have accordingly learnt from several of their speakers this afternoon. That is so, but what is the position on this side of the House? The interests of the workers of South Africa have always been of primary importance to the National Government of South Africa. Ever since our party was founded, and particularly since we came into power in 1948, this side of the House has made a point of adhering strictly to the labour policy of the National Party, as laid down in the constitution of the National Party of the Cape Province. If any of the hon. members opposite are able to rise and tell me where the National Party Government has deviated from its labour policy, they should do so now. In paragraph 14 I read—

We are doing that every day.

We are doing that.

I do not know whether that is what the hon. member for Pinelands is afraid of.

Through the mouth of the hon. member for Hillbrow, it was again stated in this House this afternoon that if the United Party comes into power, section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act will be repealed. I am grateful to him for that admission, for every time he makes that admission the National Party will return to this House with a bigger majority.

Now, has the National Party carried out its policy? This Government has kept its word to the workers of this country. We have continued to build on the foundations of our labour policy. I regard the labour policy of the National Party as having three firm foundations. I have not heard a single word on those foundations from the United Party or the Progressive Party this afternoon. Let us just dwell for a while on the apartheid measures, the measures that have been created to separate the various races in our manufacturing industry. We have not heard a word about this matter this afternoon. Why not? Because the United Party is guilty. It has been guilty of neglect of duty in the worst degree, particularly towards the White workers of this country. I want to prove that. The Shops and Offices Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1939. The United Party says that it was responsible for that Act. It may have been responsible for that Act, but what are the contents of that Act, and what have its actions been since that Act was placed on the Statute Book? In 1960 we introduced various amendments in order to change that Act so that the labour policy of the National Party might be carried into effect. We had a mandate for that. Those amendments dealt, amongst other things, with separate entrances and exits, separate first-aid rooms, separate pay-offices, separate time-recording clocks, separate sport facilities and separate dining-ware in cafeterias, to mention just a few matters. The United Party then made a statement through the mouth of the hon. member for Turffontein, the former hon. member for Yeoville. Here my hon. friend is sitting to my right. The point was made very clearly, and I want to know from the United Party this afternoon whether or not it is still their policy. In Hansard of 28 January 1960, column 556, the then hon. member for Yeoville expressed himself as follows—

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Turffontein used those words. I have not heard this from the side of the United Party this afternoon. They consistently fought that legislation. They can go and look up the Hansard of 28 January 1960. That Act was fought tooth and nail. At every opportunity a division was forced.

Why? I want to point out that the Shops and Offices Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1939 and that it only applied to shops and offices and offices attached to shops. In addition, the regulations that were to be made to bring about separation between the races, were never made while the United Party was in power. In 1964 this side of the House took the initiative again and introduced further amendments to bring about separation between one population group and another.

The second matter that I want to deal with briefly is the Unemployment Insurance Act. This is an Act which appears on the Statute Book for the benefit of the workers of this country. What, in short has the United Party’s attitude been and what has the National Party’s attitude been? Time does not allow me to deal with this at length. That Act has been amended repeatedly since we came into power. This has been done to provide for greater benefits for the workers of this country. These are benefits they did not receive under the United Party Government. The Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1941 is an Act…

It is a United Party Act.

Yes, it was a United Party Act which the United Party was too weak to enforce. You did not enforce it. The National Party Government has had to amend that Act repeatedly since it came into power in 1948, in order to increase those benefits to the workers, benefits to which every worker in this country was entitled.

Finally, I just want to say a few words about non-White employment. We have heard a great deal about that this afternoon. All I want to say to hon. members on the other side, if time will allow me, is that no matter what they say about non-White employment, the National Party’s policy is very clear, as it has been set out by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. But what we shall not allow as long as the National Party Government is in power, as I view the matter as a good Nationalist, is a disturbance of the social pattern by the unrestricted influx of Black labour. That will not be allowed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in pursuance of the remarks made by the hon. member for Hillbrow in respect of the wage gap. In his opening words he stated that it was not narrowing, but becoming progressively wider. The question of the wage gap between Whites and non-Whites in South Africa is in fact one of the most controversial issues in the entire sphere of labour. That is why it is important that one should have a look at it in season and out of season. On this occasion I should like, if you will permit me, Sir, to ask the hon. members of the Opposition from the bottom of my heart, seeing that it apparently is their aim to co-operate with the National Party in respect of matters of common interest, to display far more responsibility in the years ahead than they have done up to the present time in respect of this question of the wage gap. From the nature of the case this also applies to the Progressive Party. If one takes careful note of what has been said about the wage gap through the years inside and outside this Parliament, and if one sees how the feelings of the Black people and the Brown people have been roused by those hon. members of the Opposition about the fact that, as against the Whites, they have a relative backlog in specific professions, as well as in general, one will realize how necessary it is for the Opposition to display greater responsibility in this regard. I recall that in 1971 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once said in Port Elizabeth with reference to the wage gap, “At once could not be soon enough”. I also recall many speeches made in this House by hon. members of the Opposition in which they called for a very drastic narrowing of the wage gap. Now I want to put a simple question to the hon. member for Pinetown, who was so outspoken on the rights of the Black people today: Is he also in favour of the wage gap between the White and the Black people in South Africa being completely eliminated at all levels?

The rate for the job should apply.

I want to ask them the question, for if one looks at the realities of the development of this matter in South Africa, it is clear that over the past number of years, and particularly since 1970, a very definite change for the better has taken place, especially in respect of the Bantu. The real wages of the Black people in 1973, i.e. the wages after provision had been made for rising prices and the depreciation in the value of money increased by 8% as compared to the previous year. As against that, the wages of the Whites increased by 0,1% and those of the Coloureds by 3%. If one views the picture from 1967 to 1973, one notices that the real increase in Bantu wages is somewhat lower, due to the fact that there was a slower narrowing of this gap in the pre-1970 period. When we speak about this gap, it is as clear as a pikestaff to me that we should display the greatest measure of responsibility imaginable. If the hon. Opposition members want to gull the Black people out there into believing that the wage gap is part of the process aimed at discriminating against them, they are, in fact, inciting the Black people in South Africa. They are telling the Black people that they deserve equal treatment in respect of wages. But then they should go further. They should be consistent and draw that line of equality all the way through. When they come to schools, for example, they should tell the Black people: “No, but you should get the same annual amount per school-going child as the White people get.” If one simply looks at this matter on the surface, one sees that historically it has developed incorrectly in many respects. But if one considers that R483 per White school-going child is paid annually as against R28 per Bantu schoolgoing child, and one makes a simple calculation, one sees that it would cost the State R1 500 million per annum to do this. I just want to tell hon. members that in making their pleas for equality, they should follow through the consequences of their attempts at equalization logically and consistently. They are rousing things in the minds of the Black people which are not in the interests of South Africa at all. It is not in our interests at all when they tell the Black people that we, the Government, discriminate against them, the Black people, as far as wages are concerned. This is a historical development which we should view realistically and should tackle realistically in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of the Black man and in the interests of the White man. I want to say that the policy statements of the hon. the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet will also result in our having to narrow the wage gap gradually. That is our objective, but before we can reach that point we have a long road to travel, a road on which we shall have to deal with economic realities. It is very necessary for us to display a great deal of responsibility in connection with this matter.

If I look at one specific group in respect of whom the Government has considerably narrowed the gap during the past few years, i.e. the Black teachers, we see that the wage gap between Black teachers and White teachers has narrowed by more than 12% since 1973. In order to achieve this the Government has had to spend R40 million in the past financial year. If we wanted to close the wage gap between Black and White teachers altogether, that would cost us an amount of R70 million in the current financial year. This refers to Black teachers only and not to the total spectrum of employees such as, for example, nurses and labourers.

While I am speaking of labourers, I want to mention another point. On 31 August a leader appeared in the Argus in which it was stated that if we should want to close the wage gap between White and non-White workers in South Africa at once, it would cost industry, which footed a monthly wage bill of R187 million per month at present, an amount of R485 million. It is in the light of figures such as these that one has to lay it at the door of the hon. the Opposition in a very serious way that they should be far more responsible when they speak outside, far and wide, left and right, of discrimination against the Black worker in the sphere of wages. It is very simple to extract a few categories and then tell the Black people that discrimination is taking place in that sphere. It is very simple to single out people in respect of a few professional categories or technical categories and to say that the wage gap should be closed in their specific cases. I have here a speech made by Mr. Harry Oppenheimer in which he said—

It is not only South Africa that has to contend with a wage gap. I have here a report which appeared in The Sar of 24 July. The heading reads “United States’ Black Pay: Wage gap widens”. The article comes from New York. I quote—

This is a country in which they are trying with singleness of purpose to eliminate discrimination and differences among people by means of legislation. What is more, in America—and this the hon. members of the United Party and the Progressive Party know very well—there are a number of bodies which strive for equal rights for Black people, and this in a country in which no legal distinction is made in respect of employment. There are also an “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission” and a movement which strives “For the Advancement of the Coloured people”. It is against the background of these things, which are scientific, economic truths in other parts of the world as well, that I should like to address this plea to the hon. the Opposition to act responsibly. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. member for Innesdal that we accept his good intentions in this question of the narrowing of the wage gap. We know this sort of thing is difficult, but our point has always been that it is necessary for us to move in the right direction and we are not confident that the Government is moving in the right direction. I want to talk about the policy of this Government where they restricted the employment and development of Black labour. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister what job reservation and the industrial colour bar, as distinct from job reservation itself, is doing to this country.

The consequences of race discrimination in employment opportunities are having a serious effect on South Africa. Firstly, they are restricting the rate of economic growth. The acute shortage of skilled manpower which we are experiencing, makes it quite imperative that restrictions on the employment of the full talent of all our people should be removed. A man should have the right to develop his talent to the full, not only for his own benefit but for the benefit of this country. Without skilled manpower we are not going to make the economic progress of which we are capable. Equal training, equal job opportunity, equal collective bargaining rights and equal payment based on performance would enable our labour-hungry economy to grow. I think we are all agreed that our future prosperity in South Africa depends on an adequate growth rate. We are fortunate in this country in that we have the potential to achieve this. We have the raw material, the mineral wealth and the manpower. But we are not making the best use of our potential. The removal of economic discrimination need not frighten the Government and can be done without all that much difficulty. It will take time, but it can be done because the economy desperately needs the additional workers, and the additional skills. The opening up of jobs to all will create an even greater demand for workers than at present, because of the release of energy and work effort that will result from a properly motivated and properly committed work force. If we do not have economic growth, because we cannot provide enough people to do the work, we will slow down and even stop the rise in the standard of living of all our people.

Time and again it has been said in this House that inflation is a world problem. This is so, but I want to say to the hon. the Minister that race discrimination in employment practices is accelerating the rate of inflation. Everything that we have going for us in South Africa which will enable us to control and stop the inflationary spiral is set to nought, because of this aspect of Government policy. I hope South Africa realizes the price it is paying because of the stupidity and irrationality of race discrimination in the economy.

One of the most serious results of these policies is the growing frustration and the resentment among Black people in our country. This resentment is a serious indictment of our society as well as being a threat in terms of discontented frustrated people who are not given the opportunity to better their position. They are doing jobs of which they are quite capable, but they are not given the opportunity to acquire skills which are within their ability to acquire. If the productivity of all our people is to be improved, not only will the shortage of skilled labour be overcome, but purchasing power would be increased, because better wages would be paid. Domestic demand could grow to a size conducive to efficiency with the resultant lowering of prices. The more people we can bring into our consumer economy not only as producers, but as consumers, the more our manufacturers will be able to produce goods at an economic price and the more chance there will be of arresting the inflationary spiral. What we ask for is a little more realism in the approach of the other side of the House. I have worked in the building industry for many years and we in that industry are faced with a ridiculous situation. This rididulous situation is not confined to the building industry. In my daily life I am faced with the sort of problems which confront many people in South Africa today. I am faced with the situation where there are just not enough tradesmen to do the work that has to be done. There are not enough bricklayers, there are not enough plasterers, there are not enough plumbers. The building industry is faced with rapidly rising costs because skills are lacking. There are just not enough artisans available. On the other hand, we have large numbers of Black people who are only too keen to fill these gaps. The work is there to be done and there are people willing to do the work. How ridiculous it is that ideology—I use the word that the hon. the Minister of Labour does not appear to like—should restrict us from taking the obvious step. I may say that this labour ideology is already visibly crumbling. Every day more and more Black people are doing work that hitherto it has been illegal for them to do. More and more Black people are holding hammers—terrible thing! More and more of them are holding bricklayers’ trowels and paint brushes. If they were not doing so, the whole building industry would come to a grinding halt. Is it not possible for us to face these realities and accept that these people are a permanent and necessary part of our working population? Why not let us start from there? Once we have accepted these realities the course of action is clear. We must create the happiest possible working conditions, the best possible job opportunities, the best possible education and technical and vocational training for all our people as fast as we possibly can. Again I say, let us be constructive. We cannot do it overnight; but let us go faster than we are going at the moment. Let us get our priorities straight. If the hon. the Minister would take these steps he would be making a positive contribution towards the peace and welfare of South Africa. However, as long as the Nationalist Party, the Government and the hon. the Minister tie themselves to the gross selfishness of job reservation and the industrial colour bar, so long will all the nice things they say about their good intentions in other directions be worth absolutely nothing. There can be no moral justification for job reservation. There can be no moral justification for the industrial colour bar. These are purely and simply manifestations of race discrimination of the worst kind. I realize that many White workers in South Africa feel that their positions might be threatened if we scrapped the industrial colour bar. I do not think that they have anything to worry about. A rapidly expanding economy will need all the skills it can find and standards can be maintained by paying the rate for the job. However, let us stop this nonsense of refusing to allow people to make a full contribution towards the national economy. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if we continue along this path it can only result in economic disaster. It will also result in a further alienation of race relations and further bitterness between Black and White. Between us, Black and White together, we have built a great country. Let us not rush to destruction in this. Let us think again; let us look at the situation again; let us play a positive role in South Africa in which White and Black will continue to work side by side but where merit will be the only yardstick of a man’s ability, not the colour of his skin.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard from the mouths of various hon. members, including the hon. members for Hillbrow and Johannesburg North … [Interjections.] You know, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow is again carrying on about the subject of trade unions. I wonder whether he has ever considered establishing a trade union for leaders and deputy leaders in the United Party. That would give him a considerable measure of protection, for he too, has been relieved of his deputy leadership, and when we look at the Cape Province, there are more of them who are in the same position.

Order! What is the hon. member dealing with now?

Mr. Chairman, I am now dealing with trade unions.

I hope the hon. member will continue to do so.

The accusation has been made here against the Government that job reservation is allegedly obstructing economic growth and that it is the cause of inflation. According to this viewpoint, therefore, South Africa is the only country in the world where inflation prevails. What about the rest of the world where they do not apply job reservation? Why do they come along with that argument? Why is the blame always laid on the National Party? Sir, the hon. member of the Progressive Party, who spoke here about discrimination in such a sanctimonious and pious way, should first tell us how they are going to solve the swimming bath problem in Sea Point. Hon. members of the Progressive Party can easily talk, Sir. Do you know why? They are sitting in Oppenheimer’s stable and they can afford to buy their apartheid here in South Africa. Let them tell us how many supporters they have among the ordinary working classes. They do not have a single one. The supporters of the Progressive Party depend on the fact that they can buy their apartheid in this country, but I want to tell them that job reservation is the corner-stone of our labour policy and that we are going to protect our White workers and not cast them to the wolves as they would like to do.

It is a pity, Sir, that there is a large section of the United Party that is allowing itself to be abused as an instrument by those leftists who only have one goal in view and that is not to uplift the Bantu workers here in South Africa, but to create labour unrest here in order to effect a confrontation between White and Black. Sir, I want to tell the United Party that they are playing a very dangerous game. They are inciting Black workers against Whites; they are arousing expectations in them which they know will not be fulfilled by the National Government. They know this, Sir, for the hon. member for Durban Point admitted it shortly after the election, when he said:

He has denied it.

They know it, and that is why they come along with these false promises to the Black workers.

Sir, there is no country in the world that enjoys the labour peace that South Africa does, thanks to a National Party Government which is here to serve interests of the White worker, the Black worker and the Brown worker. But I fear that the labour peace we are enjoying at present and enjoyed in the past cannot continue for very long if we remain saddled with an Opposition such as this one, which is indirectly inciting the Bantu against the National Party, and not only against the National Party, but against the Whites in South Africa, for the Black workers are constantly being told that they are being discriminated against; that they are being denied trade union rights, and that they are having to work for a slave-wage. These things are being said by them not only for domestic consumption, but for foreign consumption as well, for they know that the world outside will seize upon any weapon to try and unseat the National Government. Sir, if the United Party continues in this way, I want to tell them that I question the patriotism they are always talking about. If they are patriotic towards South Africa, they will not allow themselves to be used and abused as instruments by those leftists in order to effect the downfall of South Africa. Hon, members of the United Party are shaking their heads, but if they would just stop and think for a moment they would realize that they are playing into the hands of those leftists; that they are merely supplying our enemies with ammunition. I want to say this to the United Party, and they must consider it very carefully: If they are in earnest about their policy, they are bringing about the downfall of the White man in this country. But if they are not in earnest about their policy, I want to tell them that with the expectations they are arousing among the non-Whites, they are creating a revolutionary situation in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, much has been said in this debate about policy changes, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition announced during the no-confidence debate that they had changed their policy in respect of White workers to the effect that White workers may now work under non-White workers. We know what gave rise to this policy change, and that is the fright they got during the recent election, and also, of course, the pressure which was exerted on them by the leftists. So we are not surprised at this policy change of theirs. The excuse the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advances for this is that it is already happening in the Transkei. Sir, what a nonsensical excuse coming from a man who calls himself a leader of a party! Surely he knows that under the National Party policy no limits are being set to the advancement of the Black workers in the Transkei and the other homelands; he knows that any Black man in the homelands can rise to the highest position, including that of Prime Minister. Sir, I want to ask the United Party whether this policy of theirs that a White worker may work under a non-White is also applicable to the Public Service. Will the hon. member for Hillbrow give us a reply to this question?

May I put a question?

The hon. member need only reply “Yes” or “No”. I am not going to reply to a question from him, after the stupid statements he made here. Let them just tell us this. Is it applicable to the Public Service that a White man may work under a Black man? But now they do not want to speak, Sir.

I shall reply.

I am now giving the next speaker the opportunity of saying whether a Black man may become the secretary of the department we are now dealing with. They must say whether they are in favour of a Black man becoming the principal of King Edward High School in Johannesburg or of Jeppe High School. Let them tell us that. They should say whether they would be satified with a Black man at the head of those high schools. The Progressive Party would say “Yes”, but now I am asking the United Party to stand up and say whether they will carry that policy of theirs, that a White man may work under a Black man, through to all sections of the Public Service. But that they will not tell us. [Interjections]. It is untrue that this has already happened under our rule.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon. member had half an hour in which to make his speech and now he wants to say some more. I want to tell you that what we have heard here from the United Party once again confirms what we have always said about them, i.e. that they want to open the flood-gates to the Black worker in order, in that way, to undermine the White worker here. They are the people who are pleading for the admission of Black people to trade unions. They are the people who say that the Black man should be able to work where he chooses. They are the people who say that the Whites should work under the non-Whites. That is why I want to tell them they have now become a party which advocates total integration, because it is their hon. Leader who said here at the time of the election that a Black man may become Prime Minister of South Africa, according to their policy. They are the people who want to integrate at the labour level. They are the people who want to do away with the Group Areas Act. They are the people who want to do away with the Immorality Act. They are the people who want to do away with the Mixed Marriages Act. This is a party which advocates total integration. [Interjections.] These are the people who want to accuse the National Party of being an obstruction in the way of peace and economic growth and of causing inflation in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I suppose it will not be expected of me to reply to the hon. member for Boksburg in regard to his accusations that we are being guided by leftist considerations and the fact that he doubts our patriotism. That is the kind of thing the hon. member might as well say to other people in another place, but not to us. Surely it is very clear that we, in the argument we are putting forward here, are being guided by the considerations which, I take it, are guiding all the members of this House, namely the promotion of the interests of South Africa as a whole, and abuse will not bring us any closer to the solution of our problems.

Mention was made several times today of policies which had changed. I want to say that only a stupid person does not change when circumstances force him to do so. I also want to say that it is not only the United Party which has changed. Surely we can all cite numerous examples where the Nationalist Party, this Government, changed their policy. In fact, I want to go further by saying that we have been told time and again that this Government is a government of change. This is said with pride. I want to add that I am grateful that there are indeed some aspects in respect of which the Government changed their policy in a positive direction. I do not hold this against the Government; I praise them for it and appreciate it.

It is not a change of policy; it is development of policy.

I shall argue this with the hon. member at a convenient time, for it is very relative whether it is a principle or an adaptation of principle.

Surely it is very clear that it is necessary for us to accept the Black labour force as a permanent part of our labour structure. At this stage I do not want to become involved in the question whether we should accept it as a permanent part of the so-called White part of the country. I am only saying that we are obliged to accept the Blacks as a permanent part of our labour structure, no matter where. If this is true, it seems to me that it is necessary for us, in the light of the increase of our population figures, to create sufficient training opportunities for those people, and if we want to create enough employment opportunities in the light of our population figures, it is necessary for more and more Blacks to be trained so that they may do semi-skilled and also skilled work, and not semi-skilled work only, as was announced by the hon. the Minister on a previous occasion.

The hon. member for Hillbrow has already indicated how great the need is. It is probably not necessary for me to remind the Committee that we shall have a population of 50 million people in the year 2000. It is totally inconceivable that the Whites will be able to supply the necessary skilled and semi-skilled labourers to meet the needs that will be created by such a large population, no matter where. For that reason I can only say it is most disappointing indeed that, at this stage, we are still stuck with these truly poor figures which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education furnished in reply to a question (Questions and Replies, 1974, col. 171) on the number being trained at present. The figures for 1974 are as follows: Electricians, 212; carpenters, 786; motor mechanics, 569; general mechanics, 288; and builders, 845. I do not want to mention any more of the figures furnished by the hon. the Deputy Minister, but I only want to say that, in the light of the need we are faced with, the number of people in training is hopelessly, totally inadequate.

With regard to the question of trade-unions, it is very clear, after all, that what we are arguing here is very simple. We believe labour and industrial peace in our country demands proper acknowledgement of the fact that the Black people form an integral part of our labour structure. We have said that we are not opposed to the operation of the machinery under the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act. The hon. the Minister himself said, if I understood him correctly, that 500 000 Black labourers were being covered under that Act at present. On a later occasion this afternoon he said that as many as 2,5 million Black labourers were being employed at present.

Economically active.

Economically active. In other words, only 500 000 of those 2,5 million economically active people are being covered by this machinery at present. The hon. the Minister will concede that this is most definitely not a healthy state of affairs. Surely this is clear. The hon. the Minister also conceded that Black workers could organize themselves into trade unions. There is no prohibition on the forming of trade unions. Furthermore, I have very definitely gained the impression that the Government does not intend introducing legislation to restrict such organization into Black trade unions. In terms of the amendments effected to the Act last year, Blacks have the right to strike lawfully under certain circumstances. If these facts are true, therefore, I think it goes without saying that it would be so much better for those black trade unions to be subject to control and to co-operate with the organized trade-unionism of our country. They should not be allowed simply to exist in an unorganized or unregulated manner. I should like to point out to the hon. members of this House that this was the very reason why we had the strike at the gold mines on the Rand in 1946. The African Mineworkers Union led that strike, as we know, and it was not a recognized union in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act.

I ask myself why we are so afraid of this. I think there may be three reasons why we do not want to recognize Black trade unions. The one is that we are bearing the British example in mind, where trade-unionism is directly involved in politics. This is most certainly a valid kind of objection. Nevertheless, I also want to say that that objection will not be valid in respect of Black trade unions only. It will probably be valid in respect of existing white trade unions as well. In other words, we do not have that pattern in South Africa. Neither do we find that pattern in the United States of America. Therefore the objection which was raised here, i.e. that Black trade unions will necessarily become involved in the political processes and will lend themselves to party-political ends, seems totally unfair to me. If that consideration falls away, and if they are in any case allowed to organize, surely they could possibly use their position for political purposes. Therefore, if we recognize them in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, it cannot place us in a worse position.

The second consideration which could apply, is that the position of the White labourer is threatened. With reference to what the hon. the Minister said here, it is obvious to me that if the Black labourers were allowed to organize, there would be a much greater danger of their being able to abuse their position so as to create industrial strife, thus threatening the position of the White labourer.

A third consideration is that it is nothing but a continuation of the usual forms of discrimination on the ground of race and colour which we find in South Africa. To my mind this is probably the basic reason why there is refusal to grant recognition to Black trade unions in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Eden vale, as well as the member for Orange Grove, had much to say about the need for skilled Black labourers. The Government has already stated its policy in this regard. Last year the Prime Minister himself reaffirmed this policy once again during the jubilee dinner of the Co-ordinating Council of South African Trade Unions. On that occasion the Prime Minister said that this Government or the trade unions in South Africa will not stop employers if they want to train Bantu to become skilled workers. But there is something very interesting in this regard I want to bring to your attention. After the Prime Minister had made this speech, there was an interview with a Black man through Oggendblad of 10 October 1973. It is interesting to hear what he had to say on this score. He said (translation)—

He goes further (translation)—

In other words, the Government is in no way forming an obstacle to the promotion of employment opportunities for Blacks in this country.

I want to refer to another aspect. I would like to consider our manpower position in South Africa. According to the latest manpower survey conducted by the Department of Labour, the total labour force of all races in the Republic of South Africa, excluding agriculture and domestic servants, consists of 6,4 million people. The White labour force alone amounts to 1,38 million, in other words 30% of the total labour force. Furthermore, if we take into consideration the fact that the White population only constitutes approximately 17% of the total population, and that it supplies 30% of the total labour force, one can quite rightly come to the conclusion that the White man has made the biggest contribution by far to economic growth in this country. But it does not stop there. The labour productivity of the White man also created additional employment opportunities for the other race groups in our industries. It is also interesting to note that the contribution of the White woman in our labour force was as follows: In 1969, 359 000 White women were employed in the White labour force. However, this figure has increased tremendously. In 1973 this figure increased to as many as 453 000 women in the total White labour force. This represents an increase of 31,8% of the total White labour force. In the course of these four years it was quite evident that the White woman plays an increasingly important role in the labour force of South Africa. The working woman has therefore become an indispensable part of our White labour force. Since the White labour force has to depend on the White woman to an increasing extent today, we must realize that she has to fulfil this dual role of both mother and breadwinner. If we are concerned about the diminishing birth rate of the White group, there may be good reason to pay some attention to the needs of the working woman in South Africa. But, Sir, I leave this matter at that.

We also notice that the employment opportunities created for the better trained and skilled Bantu have improved appreciably. According to the manpower survey of 1969—the hon. member for Edenvale must listen carefully now—only 57 600 Bantu were employed in the professional, semi-professional and technical employees’ division. In 1973 this figure increased by more than 58% to over 92 000 Bantu. During the same period the Whites in this employment category increased by 21,5%. From this we conclude that Bantu in this category increased proportionally. Black people are, therefore, doing to an increasing extent work which have normally and traditionally been done by Whites. However, the important fact is that the survey indicated that the Whites were not necessarily pushed out of these employment categories. The Whites, in turn, for the most part entered the managing and executive employees’ division. The number of Whites who had entered this division was no less than 30,5% during the four years covered by the survey, compared with 0% in the case of Bantu. The employment opportunities for Whites therefore were not detrimentally affected in this change. The only result was that of greater labour productivity. The change that took place in these categories actually created greater employment opportunities for the Whites. This pattern of change in the composition of our manpower set-up must definitely never be upset in White South Africa. In other words, the security of the White man in respect of his employment opportunities is also the guarantee for labour peace in South Africa. I think this is the basis on which the whole of our labour policy has been built. This is where the labour policy of this side of the House differs from the labour policy of that side of the House. If we have economic growth in South Africa without taking cognizance of the numerical proportion in the manpower set-up, it will lead to chaos in the sphere of labour. In practice this policy is being implemented by doing two things. In the first place, through consultation with our White trade unions and, in the second place, through job reservation, not only statutory, but also on an administrative basis. The Bantu labourer is afforded statutory recognition by means of the works and liaison committees which have only been operating properly for a year. Hon. members must give them a chance and wait and see whether they are successful, although the hon. the Minister has explained to us that this system is making good progress.

The Government is prepared to train Bantu so that they are able to do more skilled work, and the trade unions are prepared, in the interests of our country, to allow Black labour in skilled work categories. Therefore there is no problem as far as the Government and the trade unions are concerned. As this Black man has said, industry must now be told to do their share as well. They have to provide pre-employment training and then also in-service training. The economic development programme anticipates that we should have a growth rate of 5,75%, something which will reduce unemployment among Bantu, in respect of which we have very few statistics. Furthermore, if we take into consideration that 640 000 Bantu in South Africa are employed on the mines—of whom 80 000 are foreign Bantu—and if we could implement a policy in terms of which the South African Bantu could be protected against unemployment by means of job reservation, there would be no reason why the Black man in South Africa should be unemployed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bethal pleaded for non-White workers in South Africa to be employed on a larger scale, and we on this side agree with him. He said, furthermore, that job reservation was there for the protection of the White man. This is a peculiar argument for we heard a moment ago that job reservation affected only 3% of our White workers. If job reservation is applied in respect of 3% of our White workers only, surely job reservation is no protection for the White man as such. All that job reservation is in reality, is an insult to the White man. The White man does not want it. The White man does not want it to be said that he needs laws to protect him as he cannot compete with the non-Whites.

Read a few of the agreements which were entered into.

Just speak to any worker in South Africa and he will tell you that he does not want this protection, this insult the Government is levelling at him. The arguments I heard here this afternoon from that side made me wonder whether we were living in the same country and whether we were dealing with the realities in South Africa. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark who made such a noise just now, spoke of the peace and calm in this country, but does he not know that approximately 300 strikes took place in this country last year? Is this the peace and calm he was speaking of? The hon. member also went further and said the Government was going to content itself with the labour arrangements which applied in South Africa at present, and that the status quo was to be maintained. Does the hon. member not realize what the real position is in South Africa? At present there are 21 million people in South Africa, of whom four million are Whites. Four million people cannot supply services to 21 million people. What the hon. member for Bethal said in this regard is quite correct. Let us see what the position is going to be towards the end of the century. We have a duty towards posterity in this regard. Towards the end of the century there will be 52 million people in South Africa. Of this number, 21 million will be economically active. Nine million of these people are required in the unskilled categories of workers, and they will be Black people. Five million semi-skilled workers are required and they will all be Black people as well, because there will not be White people to do that work. As far as highly skilled work is concerned, six million people will be required, but there will be only two million economically active Whites to carry out these duties. Where will the others come from? These are the facts, and these are the facts that everyone who is honest with the voters and the people of South Africa will have to face. This is the problem to which the hon. the Minister must give us a solution. These are alarming figures, but we need not throw our hands up in despair and run away from them. At the same time that we were saddled with this position, this country was blessed with the means enabling us to cope with it. In the economic sphere we have the potential to become the richest and the largest industrial country in Africa. It is not necessary for me to refer today to our gold deposits, our iron deposits and our coal deposits in South Africa. Now I am not even speaking of our mineral wealth and natural resources. We have all these assets, and all we have to do is to exploit and process them. But what is happening in this counrry at the present time? We have iron deposists which are sufficient for 500 years, but one cannot buy even a small piece of steel in South Africa today. Steel prices have risen by 25% and we have to import steel today. What about our growth rate? It was a miserable growth rate of 3% or 4%. This year, for the first time, it is 7%, but it comes nowhere near the target rate of the Economic Planning Council.

Business interrupted to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The subject of the debate this evening is in the first declaration of an organization as an affected organization under the Affected Organizations Act, 1974. I am referring here to the organization of Nusas. Because this is the first declaration in terms of the Act and as this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss this matter here in this House, I hope that we will be able to have some clarity in respect of the vital matters which flow from the application of this Act. We are dealing here not only with Nusas but with the very important matter of the application of the Affected Organizations Act. It is a truism—but I think it worth repeating in order to remind hon. members—that whatever is done by this Government under any Act of Parliament makes them answer-able to this House for their actions. The Affected Organizations Act provides that the State President may, if he is satisfied that politics are being engaged in by or through an organization with the aid of or in co-operation with or in consultation with or under the influence of an organization or person abroad, declare that organization to be an affected organization. He cannot do so until he has considered a factual report by three magistrates in respect of that organization.

In this regard one cannot now criticize the provisions of the Affected Organizations Act. However, as some hon. members will recall, at 4 o’clock in the morning earlier this year we opposed the Affected Organizations Act on three main points. In the first place, the report of the Schlebusch Commission, on which the Bill was founded, was not before us. In the second place, there was no proper definition in the Bill of the political activity which might cause the State President to exercise his powers. In the third place, it was our view that the factual reports of the three magistrates in respect of the organizations concerned should be laid on the tables of both Houses of Parliament to enable us to adjudge whether or not the power given them had been properly exercised.

Since then, we have had the final report on Nusas, the fourth interim report of the Schlebusch Commission, This report recommended, after hearing the evidence in regard to the activities of Nusas, that organizations which indulge in politics, political organizations, should in fact not be entitled to receive money from overseas. The Affected Organizations Act was put on the Statute Book to that effect. I want to put on record that we wholeheartedly agree with that principle—that no funds whatever should be permitted to come from overseas for any body which in effect practises politics in South Africa. Political parties cannot do so, and we will brook no interference in our internal political affairs from anyone else. Financial aid is just that, because the principle of he who pays the piper, calls the tune, applies.

I want to make it quite clear that if the activities and actions of Nusas as disclosed in that fourth interim report are continuing at present then there is no doubt that the Government will have been justified in acting in terms of the Act in having declared Nusas to be an affected organization. Some of the activities that have been disclosed, not necessarily because of the findings of the commission but which have come from the lips of the leaders of Nusas themselves, speak for themselves. I hope that if the Progressive Party is going to take part in this debate it will indicate whether it approves or disapproves of some of these actions. There is the determination to bring about a polarization and confrontation between Black and White; the propagation of economic, arms and sport boycotts in order to bring pressure to bear against South Africa; the statement by one of them that the leadership was moving in the direction of the real liberation movement; the collection of money overseas for the purpose of educating prisoners which was then misappropriated— at one time, R9 000 of it—for the purpose of furthering the political aims of Nusas and their other activities; the statement: “I conclude therefore that the pattern of South African political change lies in the direction of the urban skilled Black proletariat. It will, in fact, be a true workers’ revolution,” and so forth. One can go on in this way.

Sir, so one could go on—undoubtedly political activity in South Africa and undoubtedly falling under the Act. Mr. Speaker, we strongly disapprove of those actions.

But, unfortunately, that does not determine the matter. The Schlebusch interim report was in fact presented to the State President in December of last year, and its recommendations and findings were based on evidence given some time before that, and since then, as long ago as February of last year, the leaders of Nusas who were responsible for the facts and activities which were reported upon in the fourth interim report, have been removed from the scene of activity in Nusas. Sir, the Affected Organizations Act provides, as I have said, for a factual report by three magistrates after an investigation to determine whether or not in the instant case Nusas as an organization is as a matter of fact continuing its political activities in similar vein. The reactions and the statements of the Nusas leaders lead one to believe that they are but, Sir, that is not sufficient. The factual report of the magistrates must be as to whether or not as a fact Nusas, since the Act came into operation, has been or is continuing its old activities or pursuing other similar activities.

Sir, that is why we moved as an amendment, when the Bill was discussed, that the report should be laid on the Table so that we would know whether in fact this had happened. We asked the hon. the Minister to table those reports; he indicated that he was not prepared to do so, but he did indicate that he would be prepared to disclose the contents of those reports, provided that it was in the interests of national security to do so. What we would like to know is what is in those reports and specifically whether there are findings other than those contained in the fourth interim report of the Schlebusch Commission; whether or not there are any findings which are different from those set out in the Schlebusch report; whether it discloses that they have been continuing or are continuing with their activities, and whether in fact the organization concerned was given an opportunity in the investigation to dispute any of the allegations made against it.

Sir, I do not know how the investigation was carried out. This is the first case that has occurred since the passing of the Act, and we would be obliged to the hon. the Minister if he would tell us not only what is in the reports but in what manner they went about in investigating this organization. I think it is important—indeed it is obligatory, as I have indicated previously—that the hon. the Minister should tell this House just what in fact motivated him, as a result of reading those reports, to make the recommendation which resulted in Nusas being declared an affected organization by the State President.

Sir, there is another important aspect which I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister, and that is the future of a national body to represent the English-speaking university students. The second interim report of the Schlebusch Commission made it very clear that there was no intention whatever to get rid of Nusas, and in this connection I want to quote paragraph 23, which says—

I do not think there is anything which has happened since then to change the attitude which was expressed by the Schlebusch Commission, and which I think is the feeling of everyone in this House. We have the curious situation—and one finds this in newspaper reports on the reaction of Nusas to the declaration we are discussing—that Nusas cannot apparently operate without overseas funds. That would appear to be a somewhat unhealthy situation for a body which should in fact have as its primary concern the student welfare, if it cannot gain support for those purposes from the South African people.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied that the vast majority of students at English-language universities are concerned at the past political activities of the Nusas hierarchy consisting of full-time non-students. I believe that the finding of the judicial commission of inquiry at the Natal University, which was chaired by the late Mr. Justice Harcourt who said that there is not an imputed or factual identity of interests or views between Nusas and the general student body holds good for all English-language universities. But the students on the campuses of the English-language universities are entitled to have a body which represents them generally, to deal with matters of common student concern and matters of student welfare. After what has happened in the past few years and after the reports we have received, the students at these universities must be given the opportunity to stand back and view the happenings of the past few months and years. Many are the happenings purported to have been done in their name and these students should be given the oppertunity of restructuring Nusas as the representative servant of legitimate student interest. It is important, I believe, for them to know that if the house of Nusas is put in order, including its accounts, the Government will review the delaration of this body as an affected organization, so that for those legitimate purposes it might, if necessary, have money from overseas sources to devote to the legitimate welfare of students, to devote to activities properly conducted in terms of the National Welfare Act. Sir, one of the things which I think has shocked everyone is the manner in which the moneys collected from overseas sources and other sources have been misappropriated in this field, money which was in effect a trust given to people on the basis that it would be used for welfare work. There is nothing in the Schlebusch Commission’s final report on Nusas which seeks to preclude this happening. I hope that we will have an answer from the hon. the Minister on this as well, because if this approach is not taken then I believe that any other attitude, any hard-line attitude in this respect, might well produce a reaction which will be counter-productive and which will indeed serve the ends of those who have for so long pursued policies which are detrimental to the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister told us on Friday when he made the announcement that Nusas and its three affiliated organizations were going to be declared affected organizations, that this arose out of the unanimous recommendations in the Fourth Report of the Schlebusch Commission, the majority report which was signed by the representatives of the United Party as well as those of the National Party. Therefore I suppose it is understandable that the United Party’s shadowy Minister of Justice should be so cautious this evening in introducing his motion. Indeed, as I listened to him this evening, I wondered where the urgency was. He seemed only to be probing the hon. the Minister for some details on the administration of the Act.

I can understand his caution because, after all, the Government is only doing what his colleagues recommended. They did not ask for any exceptions. They did not ask for exceptions under the National Welfare Act. They did not ask for exceptions so that a national body of students would be allowed to operate. In the majority report they simply stated that Nusas was carrying on political activities, that it was getting money from abroad and that steps should therefore be taken against Nusas. I might say that practically any activity in South Africa falls within the definition of “political activity”. So those recommendations were very far-reaching indeed. The first time, of course, that the Government carred out the majority recommendations of the Schlebusch Commission and took urgent action against the students, the United Party reacted in rather a different way. It professed itself to be horrified at the time when the students were banned. Of course, it stayed on the Schlebusch Commission. It seems addicted to the Schlebusch Commission. The Schlebusch Commission has a fatal fascination for the United Party, rather like the fascination of the snake for the rabbit.

Like the Defence Amendment Bill for the Progressive Party.

It is probably a waste of time to remind this House that most of the conclusions of the Schlebusch Commission were based on a number of unrelated incidents and statements issued from Nusas leadership over a period spanning ten years and that students of today are being held responsible for the statements made, and actions taken, by students who preceded them in Nusas leadership many years ago when the present leadership was still at school. [Interjections.] It is probably also a waste of time to point out that several allegations of the Schlebusch Commission have subsequently been proved to be incorrect. Perhaps the most recent example I can give is the accusation which was made against a West German MP, Frau Von Bothmer. It was a serious allegation of her involvement in anti-South African activities and her involvement with the visit of Paul Pretorius to West Germany. Frau Von Bothmer visited this country this month and she was appalled at what she found in the Schlebusch Commission’s report. She issued an immediate denial. I want to point out that Nusas itself has repeatedly said that the money it got from abroad, it got on its own terms and for its own purposes and that it was not being used by any foreign organization for their nefarious ends. I do not happen to agree with some of the purposes of Nusas. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have said this over and over again in this House and if hon. members want references I shall give them to them. Nevertheless, many of the purposes for which money from abroad was used were highly commendable.

Such as?

Bursaries for African students, prison education, literacy campaigns …

Hand-outs.

As far as I am concerned all those things, and research projects—let me say this immediately—into wages and other conditions for Black workers were commendable. I want to remind this House and, I may say, South Africa, because I am sure that the minds of our citizens may well have been bent by the vicious and slanted reports coming from the SABC on student activists, that Nusas was never given an opportunity to defend itself, that the commission is not a judicial commission and that it is not a court of law, although it blandly makes judgments and asks for punishments. The Schlebusch Commission is simply a posse of prejudiced politicians who have been relentlessly pursuing their prey since they have been appointed.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find myself in an uncomfortable position this afternoon. This kind of debate is usually conducted on a matter about which the Opposition feel so strongly that they can no longer wait for it to be discussed and then want to talk about it for half an hour. This afternoon I find that the Opposition are in effect agreeing with me and merely want to hear a few particulars relating to the drafting and contents of the magistrates’ report.

We want proof.

Before replying to those questions, I just want to clear up one impression which has become apparent to me from the English newspapers. It is being insinuated that we have something against English-speaking students and the English-language universities on account of this action against the Nusas organization and its affiliates. Here I want to make it very clear that this Government is by no means carrying on any campaign against English-language students and universities in South Africa. I want to say that I have heard that the majority of the English-speaking students at our universities do not agree with the course adopted by Nusas. I also believe that the majority of English-speaking students at universities have, just as I do, a very great love of their country and are desirous that this country, with its policies, with its arguments on policies and with its White, Black and Brown people who are living together, should move ahead in peace. Therefore I believe that Nusas, in the active steps taken by it, represents a very small small percentage of the students, and they are the political activists with whom the hon. member for Houghton apparently agrees. I want to appeal to the great majority of English-speaking students to dissociate themselves finally from the course adopted by Nusas. I am not wasting my time when I ask them to reconsider the matter at this stage of our history. Our country is very stable. Our country is an example to the rest of the world, in the monetary and in every other possible sphere, as far as stability and progress are concerned, whereas we have a great deal of chaos, unrest and movement around us. It would therefore be fitting for our English-speaking students to take a very serious look at themselves and to ask themselves where they are heading when they attend Nusas meetings. I want to make an appeal to them, because the responsibility lies with them. I should like the English-speaking students of South Africa themselves to effect a complete change in the course taken by Nusas. I do not want to do this for them. They themselves must take up the cudgels against the political activists in Nusas who only have one object in view, namely to break the existing South African society, irrespective of what party is in power. This is in fact the object which Nusas has already declared at its seminars. I want to say these words to the students: “Stand up and be counted; stand up against the present doctrines of Nusas.” My hon. friend must forgive me if I only mention that it is being said in the newspapers that we came forward with this line of action after we had forwarded the report to the Attorney-General. Why did we not wait for the Attorney-General’s findings before coming forward with this line of action? I just want to put it on record that the Attorney-General has nothing to do with the organization of Nusas as such. Nusas is not a company which can commit offences; Nusas is a student organization. The Attorney-General was put in possession of those documents and traced the extent to which individual members of Nusas had contravened the Act and to what extent he was to take action against them. Therefore this has nothing to do with the fact that Nusas has been declared to be an affected organization.

When are you going to reply to the debate?

Now I should like to tell the hon. member for Durban North that the report on Nusas and those on its affiliates were signed and came into my hands on 6 August and 9 August 1974, respectively. Now the hon. member wants to know whether the activities of Nusas are still continuing. I could ask him the same question. Let us suppose that a change of course took place in Nusas on 5 August. What am I to do in such a case? Am I suddenly to appoint a commission of inquiry once again? Am I to order a number of magistrates every week to institute an inquiry? After all, there must be a time when the matter is closed, and that time is now. I can tell the hon. member that there are no indications whatever of Nusas having changed its course at this stage. In fact, the magistrates considered documents relating to activities of Nusas and these were also included in their report.

The hon. member also asked me whether there would be a time when we would be prepared to consider whether we would, as it were, “deproclaim” Nusas as an affected organization. Sir, I want to make it very clear that I am not carrying on any campaign against the student organization called Nusas. Our Government is not against them as such. Should there be clear indications of Nusas having become purely a student organization which only serves the student interests on the campus and does not concern itself with these radical politics of change in which it is engaged at the moment, the time would most certainly have arrived for the whole situation to be reconsidered. We are prepared to do so at all times. If the students were now to take this organization by the scruff of the neck and clean it up, and if the organization were to show us signs of moving ahead, we would most certainly no longer consider it necessary to seize these funds, no matter where they might be from. This is the answer to my hon. friend in this regard.

The hon. member asked me to table these reports. I gave him a very clear reply in the debate we conducted when the initial report on this organization was tabled and the Bill which resulted from it was introduced. I am not prepared to make these reports public, and I have very good reasons for refusing to do so. I did state my standpoint in the debate we had last time. I put it to the hon. member that I was not prepared, in the event of the magistrates’ finding that an organization should not be declared to be an affected organization, to submit all those documents to Parliament for inspection. Many of those documents deal with people who may be quite innocent. Why should their names be tabled in public? We cannot do it. Because the report of the Le Grange Commission was tabled and because, from the nature of the case, the magistrate had to rely a great deal on what was stated in that report, especially on the documentary submissions—let me tell the hon. member for Houghton right here and now that we have sufficient documentary submissions and also evidence from the lips of the Nusas leaders themselves to declare them to be an affected organization—I am quite prepared to give members of the House of Assembly who are interested in this matter the opportunity to come and look at those reports in my office, if they so wish. They must regard them as confidential, please—for the reason I have already furnished here. In these specific circumstances I am prepared to do this, but I do not want it to be regarded as a precendent. There are other organizations which in fact I am still considering and in respect of which I will under no circumstances permit the reports to be tabled. As far as this matter is concerned, however, I am prepared, in cases where members are in fact interested in these reports, to allow them to inspect them.

Since it is now being said in the Press that we are putting a stop to the activities of the cultural and welfare organizations of Nusas, I should like to put the matter right. The hon. member for Houghton has referred to the “prison education funds”. I want to tell her that that matter was dealt with fully in the report of the Le Grange Commission. As far as that report is concerned, I just want to call her attention to a particular part of it. The hon. member for Durban North also referred to it, but I should just like to explain that we are not engaged in simply putting a stop to the activities of the welfare organization as such.