Mr. Speaker, on 2 August 1974 the Central Flood Disaster Committee was registered as a welfare organization under section 19 of the National Welfare Act, 1965 (No. 79 of 1965). The object was to establish and control the Central Flood Disaster Committee and to collect financial and other contributions in order to render financial and other assistance on an ex gratia basis to persons who suffered damage and loss as a result of floods during February/ March 1974.

The State decided to render financial and other assistance to the Central Flood Disaster Committee, and, inter alia, the following amounts were included for this purpose on the draft estimates of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for 1974-’75: (a) Revenue Vote.—R3 million; and (b) S.W.A. Vote—R250 000.

In view of the large amounts contributed by the State a request was received from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for the accounts and books of the Central Flood Disaster Committee to be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General. The latter had no objection to this request, but it is not in his power to do the audit unless Parliament, by resolution of both Houses, requires him, in terms of section 58(2) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1956 (Act 23 of 1956), to undertake the audit of such accounts.

Such resolutions were also taken in the past in respect of, for instance, the Union Festival Committee, the Republic Festival Committee and the Central Boland Disaster Committee.

I now move that the House also take such a resolution in respect of the audit of the books and accounts of the Central Flood Disaster Committee. I therefore move—

On behalf of this side of the House I would like to say that we support this motion.

Motion agreed to.

When the debate was adjourned yesterday the hon. member for King William’s Town was addressing the House. He appeared clearly ignorant of labour matters, as if he were dealing with something he knew nothing about. He commented on the question of job reservation and apparently did not realize that trade unions themselves take care of job reservation. I want to refer to the negotiations which took place last year between the powerful Mineworkers’ Trade Union and the Chamber of Mines concerning the attitude towards non-White workers. This entire matter was handled by the trade union itself. I also want to refer to agreements made by the Trade Union for the Iron, Steel and Related Industries. I want to quote from a circular in which the union states quite clearly, as follows (translation)—

I am leaving out a section of the paragraph and read further on—

This circular was signed by the then chief secretary, Mr. Lucas van der Berg. The hon. member raises a hue and cry about this reservation the Government is now allegedly applying, but he does not realize that it is being applied in an insignificant manner, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has already indicated. This is being done for the sake of general and sustained well-established labour peace in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member: Where in the world does one find as much labour peace as one finds here in South Africa? Job reservation is not something that was created by the National Party. The first time one encounters job reservation in the legislative journals of South Africa, is when the Milner government of the Transvaal implemented it by proclamation in respect of the Chinese who were imported as labourers for the goldmining industry. It is therefore a product of capitalistic forces of that time and those people on that side of the House who have so many cynical things to say about the application of job reservation by the present Government, have always been kindred spirits of those forces.

The other things they said relate to works and liaison committees. Their opposition to these works and liaison committees can be ascribed to their fear that the works and liaison committees may be seen as an evolutionary step in the relations between workers and employers, and that a further step will be the representation of the employees on the board of directors of companies providing employment. It is a fact that such committees always create good relations with the employers. I know of instances in the mining industry where such committees exist and really produce excellent results. I am mentioning this in regard to the relations between White workers and powerful mining companies. Today one finds the situation in European countries such as, for instance, Germany, that in an attempt to improve the relations between workers and employers major industrial companies give their workers representation on the boards of those companies. In the Scandinavian countries good relations are created by admitting workers to the board of directors of companies in other capacities as well. Even in a country such as Japan such a good relation exists between the trade unions and companies, that companies even pay the wages of the leaders of those trade unions for the organization work they do among employees.

Another aspect which was mentioned here by speakers on that side of the House, an aspect towards which they adopt a critical attitude, is what they called the wage gap. There is something fundamentally wrong with this criticism from the opposite side of the House in regard to the wage gap between White and non-White workers, or between Blacks and non-Blacks. First of all, they apply incorrectly the standards of Western civilization to the Black man. Different cultures exist. One culture accentuates man as a responsible individual, while in the other a tradition-orientated culture exists which accentuates the community, in other words, the tribal culture where the personality of the tradition-orientated person is eclipsed by his ties, to a particular community, which also varies from one ethnic group to another. It is a feature of the mining industry that various ethnic groups have various attitudes towards this industry. It is this very factor which creates problems because there is a vast difference in their attitude towards the work they do in this industry. We find, for example, that one tribe does not want to work in the mining industry at all, while the members of another tribe offer their services for this type of work.

The wage gap is, furthermore, a traditional feature of the South African economic life established at the time of the discovery of gold and diamonds in the previous century, together with a capital-intensive mining industry. Under the circumstances skilled labour, and I should like to emphasize this point, had to be imported. The wages of these workers were determined by conditions in their countries of origin. One therefore even had the situation that, even those persons who derived from different countries, were paid different wages, depending on their countries of origin. On the other hand we had the position that the wages of local unskilled labourers were determined by the prevailing local conditions on the labour market.

It goes without saying that this dual wage structure came about as a result of the ordinary workings of an ordinary competitive labour force in an economy in which the law of supply and demand applied. It has absolutely nothing to do with the supposed policy of discrimination against the supposedly less-developed section of the non-White labour force. In this regard the National Party does not have a guilty conscience at all. The criticism levelled here came from the Opposition, kindred spirits of the money magnates which have always been representative of the capitalists of that time. Throughout the world this type of dualism exists in wage scales. The major challenge is to get rid of certain backward and under-developed aspects of our labour force by means of economic development, education and the provision of training facilities. This has been and is still being tackled in earnest and successfully carried out by the National Party Government. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when labour comes up for discussion one thinks of a very wide field in our economic life and our national economy. When we speak of labour, we think in the first instance of productivity as well, something which is probably one of the most topical issues in the times in which we are living. Productivity is the best weapon for combating inflation, poverty and unemployment and for fulfilling individual needs. Productivity is a matter which ought to receive a great deal of attention, and I do not believe it would be out of place to ask that we give it special attention next session, that we discuss this question at length, in a penetrating manner and in depth, something in which the people as a whole and the entire population ought to be involved. As I see it, one encounters productivity in three degrees. The first degree represents a condition of non-productivity; in the second place there can be negative productivity, i.e. if only one of the factors in the manufacturing sector, the industry or the economy functions well and the others do not. Thirdly, we find positive productivity and this one encounters when all the factors work together and there is optimal utilization of labour. It therefore concerns not only the worker but also the management. Everyone, from the highest employer down to the most modest employee, is involved in this question of productivity. This Government does everything it should to promote higher productivity. In the first instance, there is no unemployment in South Africa. Unemployment is recorded only when it involves more than 2% of the labour force. This is the recognized figure. In the second instance, the Government’s policy is in fact responsible for the measure of productivity we have in South Africa. In the third instance, the high productivity can be ascribed to the improvement in the labour situation for which the Government is constantly making provision at all times.

I now come to the question of ethnic employment. The hon. member for Maitland disputes the fact that this is the case. I give you the figures which were released at the end of July 1974. There were 3 477 unemployed Whites at that time, or 0,2%. The figure in respect of Coloureds is 3 284, or 0,7% and that in respect of Asians 1 026, or 0,6%. Taken together they come to a total of 7 774, or 0,4% of the total labour force.

But 80% of the labour force are Bantu.

Everyone who wants to work, can do so. There is work for everyone who wants to work. But let us compare this unemployment figure with that of a few other countries. Let us, for example, compare our position with that of the United States of America. Out of their economically active population, 4,6% were unemployed in May 1974. In the United Kingdom 4,2% of the population was unemployed; in West Germany the percentage was 2,1% and in France 1,9%.

They calculate it in a totally different manner.

The Opposition are constantly asking: “What about the Bantu?”

Of course!

We provide employment for foreign Bantu in the goldmines and the platinum mines. In the same way, we provide employment for 94 466 Bantu from Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland. That was the figure in 1973. Furthermore, we provide employment for 79 065 Bantu from the tropical regions and 64 084 Bantu from the East Coast. That gives us a total of 238 015 foreign Bantu for whom we provide employment. That is the total number of workers from our neighbouring states and territories in Africa for whom we provide employment.

We need them; we cannot manage without them.

In 1973 there were 677 668 employees working in the Republic’s mines.

I now come to the second point I mentioned and that is that higher productivity is also attributable to the policy of the Government. The Opposition may dispute this, but we are experiencing industrial calm and labour peace in this country. This is one of the basic factors of higher productivity. We are experiencing this because this Government recognizes no Black trade unions and because it maintains the colour bar in the trade unions. The third reason why we have this situation is that we allow no White in White South Africa to be replaced, to his detriment, by a non-White. The fourth reason is that we have no mixing of the races in the same work situation and, fifthly, that we will not allow any White to be subordinate to a non-White in a particular working circle. These things are responsible for ensuring peace and calm in our industries. We should not talk about discrimination now, for what applies to us here applies to them in the homelands, and what applies to them here applies to us in the homelands. We believe in essential differentiation. Discrimination does not enter the picture at all.

There is an argument for you!

The Government and the Department of Labour are constantly taking steps to utilize our limited human material to the best advantage.

When we say this, we are looking at what is being done by the Department in many spheres. Our skilled labour is being placed into productive working channels where their potential can develop to the full. In respect of apprenticeship—I want to plead that the hon. the Minister should constantly keep his finger on the pulse as far as this matter is concerned—adjustments are constantly being made and the training of apprentices is being modernized regularly and adapted to circumstances. The training period is being shortened and the curriculum is being modernized. The achievement of trade status by means of qualifying trade testing is constantly being revised and improved, and this also contributes to our ability to bring about higher productivity. Technical training facilities are constantly being extended and improved. In 1969 the Industrial Conciliation Act was amended by this House in order to provide that industrialists could train their own skilled labour so that there would be no need for them to lure labour away from other concerns and employers, for labour turnover is one of the most expensive processes one can imagine. In this way the Government does what it has to do.

Mr. Chairman, to me it sounded very much as though the hon. member for Etosha was speaking on the Mines Vote. However, I wish to reply briefly to the hon. member for Hercules. In my opinion job reservation kills productivity. The hon. member spoke of job reservation and productivity in one breath. You cannot have both since job reservation merely protects the lazy White man. Concerning the hon. member’s remark about foreign labour, I would like to assure him that if the use of foreign labour in South Africa were discontinued, half of the gold and other mines would have to close down. However, I do not wish to speak on that.

The hon. member said a few words about apprenticeship training. I cannot agree with the hon. member on that point because the tendency to shorten the time of apprenticeship training is an alarming one in my opinion. Mention was made by the hon. member for Hillbrow in his very excellent speech of the critical shortage of skilled labour. In every newspaper we open we see the same old story being repeated, viz. “no labour”. The Sunday Times of 15 September said—

In the Sunday Tribune of the same day there appeared an article by their industrial editor, wherein he said—

I know that there are many schemes afoot —and some of these are excellent schemes with which I congratulate the hon. the Minister—for the training of trade hands, operators and artisans under Act No. 38 of 1951. However, I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what is being done to train more artisans under the Apprenticeship Act. I know he will tell me that the Railways, Iscor, the Post Office and other big corporations are training apprentices, but they are training them for their own use only. Most of those apprentices, when they complete their apprenticeship, will be absorbed by their respective employers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is being done about training apprentices for outside industries. I agree that there must be emphasis on technicians, as the hon. member has suggested. Technicians are very necessary, but technicians are boys who are being trained virtually to university standards. They are the new supervisory group. They are not artisans or bench hands. The operators are not bench hands either. The people, including non-Whites, whom we wish to train in operator’s work will become the operators and trade hands. An isolated few will become tradesmen in the true sense of the word. Who is the link between the operator and the technician? This is the point I would like to emphasize with the hon. the Minister. The tradesman can be defined as a man with an intimate knowledge of all aspects of his trade or craft. He is the link between the supervisor and the operator, he is the man who can take the blue-print or drawing and produce a prototype, whether it be a machine or something that can work or play a part in some other structure. That is the tradesman. He breaks down that particular prototype into smaller production units which the operator can copy. He is the man who makes the templates, the jigs, the patterns and he is the man who supervises that particular operation through to its final assembly. We can look at this another way. There may be a machine that breaks down. The true tradesman will take that machine, will strip it and will find the broken part. He will then repair that broken part or replace it. He will then discover what caused that part to break. He will not just leave it at that. He will decide that the part broke for a particular reason and he will remedy that reason so that that machine will not break down again. This is the true tradesman. How few of them do we have today! I only have to ask you to take your car to any garage today. They immediately want to replace the part. They cannot repair it and it can cost one a fortune simply having parts replaced and no real repairs being done. The whole problem is the cost of training apprentices. The big employers I have mentioned—the Railways and Iscor are examples—can afford to train apprentices and to pay them wages which will attract young lads into the trade. They have established working conditions which make it attractive for those lads to work there. In many cases they have shortened the period of indentureship from five years to three and a half years. They are turning out well-educated boys, technically and, to some extent, practically. However, I have heard complaints from the Railways recently that these boys are only paper artisans. They are not skilled artisans in the true sense. After they have been graded as artisans, they still need two or three or four years to enable them to become fully conversant with the trade. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister, if what this newspaper article alleges is true, that an amendment to the Apprenticeship Act is forthcoming, to consider ways and means of encouraging the training of more apprentices. Perhaps the most important part of such proposed amendment should be to find out ways and means of assisting the smaller engineering firm or very small employer to train their own apprentices; to make it economically possible for them to take in apprentices and to train them. This can be done in several ways. A levy can be imposed upon all employers of labour. Each one could pay in a specific amount each month, including the Railways and Iscor, because they are the ones who snap up the artisans from outside industry as soon as they are trained. They benefit by it so let them also contribute towards the training of those apprentices. This fund should be set up and the small firms assisted to establish working conditions to make it attractive for these boys to become indentured to them as apprentices, particularly in the small rural towns. In these cases, these boys usually have to leave the town because there is no firm there to which they can become apprenticed. At the same time, this fund will be utilized to compensate the small firm for the cost involved in training these apprentices. I should like with all respect to suggest to the hon. the Minister that when he considers amending this Act, he may perhaps recommend the appointment of a commission to find out what is required before those amendments are effected—what is required under the heading of assistance to employers, what is required in regard to ways of encouraging youths to enter the trade today, and whether the emphasis in the trade should be placed on highly technical qualifications or on aptitude. I think that too much attention is being given today to whether a boy is good at mathematics or not, or whether he is good with his hands in the trade. We are not looking for technicians, we are looking for tradesmen. I should also like to know whether the hon. the Minister wishes to re-establish the division of the trades to prevent overlapping. Trades have changed a great deal. Many of them have disappeared altogether. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could find ways and means of fusing some of them together under a trade heading or disestablishing some. He can then establish methods of controlling the training of apprentices, whereby there can be regular inspection of the premises and also of the type of training which the apprentice is receiving. At the same time he should establish means to ensure that these boys get a regular trade test to see that they are indeed benefiting by the technical and the practical training that they are getting at their places of employment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast will pardon me if I do not follow up immediately on the ideas he expressed.

Sir, we have been discussing the Labour Vote since yesterday afternoon. Labour is probably one of the most important Votes this Committee can concern itself with. Since yesterday we have been sitting here listening to the representations made by the Opposition for the establishment or recognition of Black trade unions. It was mentioned here that Black trade unions already exist. I am asking myself why we have had these strong representations from hon. members of the Opposition for the establishment of Black trade unions. In this the Opposition saw a straw at which to clutch because they know that their political career is like a ship heading for the rocks and that nothing in politics can save them any more, and for this reason they clutch at this idea to try and create the impression that they are acting here in the interests of the Black man.

For all the workers.

No, not all the workers; we shall still come to that. Reference was made here to the strikes that have taken place recently; mention was made of the thousands of people who took part in the strikes, and in this connection I should like to put the following question to the Opposition: By whom are those factories at which the strikes took place controlled? It was said here a moment ago by the Opposition that the Blacks are also human beings; this I admit. This side of the House admits that the Black man has a right existence in this country and that the human dignity of the Black man should be taken care of every day. I want to put this question to the employers in whose factories those strikes took place: What was it that they, as employers, did which led to these strikes? Did they recognize the human dignity of their Black workers; did they take care of their interests? No, Sir, the Black man was being exploited by those employers, and now the Opposition raises the cry here that Black trade unions have to be established for the Black man to receive additional rights. Sir, this will not give him additional rights; this will only mean more problems to him. The hon. member for Hillbrow may smile at this if he wishes.

Whom are you annoyed with?

No, I am not annoyed with anyone. I agree that we should take care of the interests of the Black workers and that many improvements will still have to be effected. We know what improvements were introduced during the past year to better the lot of the Black man. Sir, we have heard many pleas in this debate from the Opposition on behalf of the Black man, but not one single member of the Opposition got up in this House to make any reference to the benefits and privileges of the White workers.

But this their trade unions are doing.

On that side not a word is said about the White worker. Why not, Sir? Because the White worker has been rejecting the United Party since 1948. The United Party can no longer persuade the White worker to vote for it. I am not even speaking of the Progressive Party; all we have in common is that a few of them are migrant labourers during the Parliamentary session, too. No plea is made on behalf of the White worker; not a word is said that he should also be given certain privileges.

You have been pleading for the White worker for 26 years.

Yes, and that is why this Government will remain in power for another 26 years because the worker who casts his vote at the polling booth has rejected you long ago and, what is more, the Black workers do not believe you either. It will be no use coming along with this whited coffin of yours because we know that it is filled with deceit and skeletons, with which you will not be able to buy the Black worker.

That is one of your best men speaking.

Regarding the mining industry, of which I have a great deal of experience and where we are employing large numbers of non-Whites today, I want to ask the Opposition the following question: How will you manage for all those 641 000 or more to be able to belong to a trade union?

Surely, all the workers are not members of a trade union.

What is the purpose of it then? They want to afford benefits only to a certain class of worker, therefore, and the others will be neglected. Surely, if I, as an underground White mine-worker, is allowed to belong to a trade union, it may also be possible for the non-White employed in the engineering trade on the mines, or working underground or in whatever section it may be, to belong to a trade union? Why not? Why then do you want to discriminate? He may belong to it.

To his own trade union.

Yes, to his own trade union. A moment ago you said to me, “No”. I say one does not have these strikes in the mining industry one has had in Natal and elsewhere. Why not? Because the mining industry has taken and is still taking better care of its non-White workers, than have the major industrialists, many of whom were responsible for these strikes. The Blacks were working for starvation wages and it was that which caused the strikes. Except for the few cases where agitators had acted as leaders and had instigated the strikes, the reason for the strikes was the fact that people were working for starvation wages.

You are therefore supporting Oppenheimer now?

You can go and learn from Oppenheimer and then tell the people in Natal how they should treat their Bantu. [Interjections.] I say again that the non-White should be able to make as much of a livelihood as I, he in his area and I in mine; that he should also make a living because everything is becoming more expensive. We must not use the non-Whites for political gain. It is clear that the Opposition is using the non-Whites for its own political gain. That is what they are doing—they are exploiting him. Sir, I say again that every person who is prepared to work, is able to work in this country. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Hercules, has already pointed out that the unemployment figure in South Africa is the lowest in the whole world [Interjections.] It is the lowest in the whole world.

For Whites only.

No, not only as far as Whites are concerned. Indians, Coloureds and Bantu are also included in this figure.

That is untrue.

No, that is not untrue. One only has to go across the borders to the countries so often visited by the hon. member for Houghton and for which she makes such a great deal of propaganda to see the amount of unemployment in those countries. If one wants to grant a livelihood to the Black man who is prepared to work, he is able to get it here. But we on this side of the House do not want to use him for political ends. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, because the hon. the Opposition from its own conviction and according to its own claim also means it well with South Africa—and I believe it—I am going to mention certain arguments and facts today that I expect them to confirm. I also expect them to concur in what I am going to say.

What do you know about labour?

The best barometer for the prosperity or adversity of a country is the degree of employment of the people of that country, in other words, the country’s unemployment percentage. I have information here which was not compiled by the National Party or any other body or person in South Africa, but by the International Labour Organization. According to this the unemployment rate in various countries at the beginning of the year was as follows: France 1,9%, West Germany 2,1%, the United Kingdom 2,4%, and the mighty and prosperous United States of America 4,6%. These people tell us that when the unemployment rate in a country is 2% or below 2%, it is an ideal situation. In South Africa the unemployment figure is 0,2%. How is this done? One can only say that this situation is attributable to this fine Government that has created a favourable labour climate with its labour policy over a period of many years. Today I want to do something which is not done often enough in South Africa and say that to a large extent this situation is also attributable to the entrepreneurs in South Africa. Without the entrepreneurs it is not possible for workers to find employment. Therefore the entrepreneurs are making a major contribution, although they also create major problems at times. In drawing up a balance sheet, I am obliged to say that the entrepreneurs have meant a great deal to South Africa as far as the labour position and economic situation in this country is concerned.

I also want to give attention to another matter, and in this respect, too, I think the Opposition will agree with me. I have here a newspaper report which reads as follows (translation)—

I want to react to this in two ways. In the first place I want to draw a comparison between the wages of our Black workers in South Africa and those in other African States, and, secondly, a comparison between our Black workers in South Africa and those in Australia itself. I want to present to you, Sir, the following report which does not originate from South Africa, in order to draw a comparison between South Africa and other countries in Africa. An English newspaper from London reported as follows under the headline (translation) “South African Blacks are paid best”—

The report continues—

I have much more evidence here that I could quote. There are newspaper headlines such as “Black Africa’s wages compare badly with those of South Africa”. Another headline reads, “Anti-Government people pay worst wages to their workers employed in South Africa itself”. This refers to the position in South Africa and it is very interesting. Another headline reads, “Black workers’ wages have doubled over the past five years in South Africa”. Now compare this with situations in the rest of Africa.

I now come to Australia, the people who accuse us. In my hand I have an extract from a report which was drawn up on the Black people in Australia. This is an authoritative, scientific report. The Black people in Australia say of themselves, “We are Black Australians”. In 1970 a commission of inquiry investigated the living conditions and the incomes of these people. It found, inter alia, the following—

These are the conditions in Australia, the people who accuse us. I quote further—

In the report the following question is posed—

This is Australia, the people who accuse us of paying our Black workers too little. I am compelled to speak in the idiom of our hon. the Prime Minister and to ask whether the time has not arrived for those people, as far as this matter is concerned, to sweep in front of their own door before they look at South Africa. I am very confident that the next Opposition speaker will support us in these arguments and facts.

Mr. Chairman, I do believe that I must reply to the hon. member for Stilfontein seeing that he has criticized the Natal industrialist for not looking after his employees. He said that possibly we could learn from the goldmines and from Mr. Oppenheimer, and try to give our Black workers a similar standard of living and similar conditions of service to what we find there. I would like to point out to him that over the past 18 months or two years the price of gold has risen from about $35 an ounce to as high as almost $200 at one stage. A lot of this money is coming into South Africa, and a lot, no doubt, is going back to help the employees in the gold industry. I would like to point out to him that gold is not sold or eaten in South Africa. Natal is basically a manufacturing and agricultural province. Is he suggesting to us that we must increase the price of sugar, shoes, motor cars and many other products that are produced in Natal? If this is the case, may I ask how the hon. the Minister of Finance feels about this question, especially after the very heated debates we have had on the subject of inflation?

The hon. member for Meyerton said that there was not much unemployment in South Africa. I do not have exact figures— and I doubt whether this Government has exact figures of unemployment in South Africa amongst our Bantu—but I will say that I have a farm very close to the industrial complex of Durban and not a day passes without a stream of Africans looking for work in industry. Maybe the fact is, that they are not particularly interested in earning low wages in rural areas and would rather have a decent job in industry. I think that, if you fly over the Durban complex, you will see that there are many huts springing up in certain areas, which is indicative of the fact that there are a lot of squatters in and around Durban who are not able to get jobs in the city, and therefore should be registered as unemployed. I think we are hearing too much about what is happening in other countries around the world, as we have heard from the hon. member for Meyerton, who talked about Australia and the United States. I think it is time we started to face a few realities of what is happening in South Africa. First of all, we have a tremendously expanding population. By the turn of the century there are going to be 50 million people in South Africa, the vast majority of whom are going to be Black. These people have rapidly rising aspirations. Many of them are not content to live out in the rural areas. They want to work in the cities. Let us face it. If this is correct, I would suggest that these realities should lead us to regard as No. 1 priority in South Africa the objective of creating at a tremendous rate, an industrial capacity to provide the wealth to pay and give these Black people the standard of living which they now are beginning to demand. That this is what South Africa wants, is borne out by the fact that we have so many industrial areas springing up around the country, and also by the fact that we have a tremendous development in Bantu areas and townships around our major cities. I think it is indicative of the fact that this is the way this country has to go.

However, Sir, we have a major problem at the present time. It was brought to the fore by the hon. member for South Coast that there is a tremendous shortage of skilled labour. We find it in the motor industry, the building trades and as regards artisans in general industry. I wonder how many hon. members here appreciate how many Black workers duck and dive when an industrial council inspector visits building sites in this country. Do they appreciate exactly how many Blacks are being given exemptions to act as skilled tradesmen when really they do not have the basic skills to do these jobs? I have had personal experience of this. What is the result? We are having fragmentation in certain jobs. I have nothing against job fragmentation providing it is done to improve the industrial output of our workers. But I think much of this job fragmentation takes place in order to employ an unskilled person for a skilled job. Thus is in fact happening. It is resulting in a falling of standards. I personally am most concerned about this situation. Being an engineer, I am concerned about the fact that many people are doing jobs without having the proper training. As a result, there is tremendous competition for labour. Wages are going up, resulting in high pay for poor work. It is not the fault of the employee. I believe this is the fault of this Government in not ensuring that we have an adequate skilled labour force to meet the demands of this developing country of ours. This is one of the main reasons why we have inflation today. Unless it can be brought under control, we could in fact be heading for a recession, which, in the case of South Africa, with its expanding Black population, would be a disaster, I fear. I honestly believe that this Government should face the reality of the South African scene today. I believe that they are being locked up in the apartheid dogma as laid down by Dr. Verwoerd. I want to refer to what Dr. Verwoerd had to say. In 1951 Dr. Verwoerd warned:

However, he continued by saying:

Dr. Verwoerd in fact indicated:

That is what Dr. Verwoerd said. I believe that this dogma has put the South African economy into a strait jacket. So for instance we have job reservation. I am not prepared to accept the point which was made by the hon. member for Etosha when he said that this idea was thought out by Lord Milner or whoever it may be. The fact today in the South Africa of 1974 is that job reservation is not acceptable to our economy and to our country as we see it today. I am not concerned about who started it, but what I am concerned about is that job reservation should be abolished in South Africa.

Then we have the lack of training facilities. This Government is now asking industry to start establishing training schools for workers. This is an admission that this Government has after 26 years, not provided the necessary schools and training facilities in this country to provide the labour which is required today. Let me talk about pay discrimination. The hon. member for Etosha said that there were bound to be wage gaps because of cultural differences. I think this is a lot of nonsense. If a man is doing a job competently, he should be paid the rate for the job. These are the things which I believe we should get sorted out in this country. I believe the answer to this problem is that this Government which is in power and which has received one of the largest majorities this country has ever seen, should have come forward at this time and presented this House with a dynamic policy towards labour in South Africa. First of all I believe that there should be a lot more said about the basic and elementary education of our Blacks. I believe that far greater emphasis should be placed on training for our workers, and we should eliminate job reservation not only for the economy’s sake, but because it is required for the security of the White man in South Africa. How can the Blacks in this country, who are becoming more and more integrated into our industry today, respect the White man if on the one hand they see that the White man sometimes earns as much as four times as much as the Black man is earning for the same job. Therefore I believe we should eliminate job reservation. Secondly, we have to give adequate pay for the correct job.

Finally, I think we have to give recognition to the Black trade unions. This Government is going to accept this; it will not be too long before this Government accepts the registration of Black trade unions. I personally do not accept the principle that my colleague from Pinetown, who is interested in the people who live in his community, must get involved in labour disputes in the industry of Natal. For the same reason I do not believe that Barney Dladla should get himself interested in industrial disputes in Natal. Industrial disputes should have nothing to do with politics and likewise politics should have nothing to do with industrial disputes. The sooner this Government accepts that Black trade unions are a fact in South Africa and gets them registered under the Industrial Conciliation Act, the sooner we shall have the means to ensure that we shall have the same industrial peace in South Africa in the future as we have had in the past years because of the Industrial Conciliation Act. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat apparently turned the heat-control switch on full because he tried to create an effect by introducing heat into the debate. I definitely do not want to follow him. The times we are living in, as far as our labour issues are concerned, are far too serious for us to generate a great deal of unnecessary heat about these labour issues in this debate.

Our labour is faced with a number of bottlenecks. I want to wish the Minister all of the best in the future because if there is one Minister who has difficult times ahead of him, then it is the Minister of Labour. Today I want to point out a few of those bottlenecks. According to the 1970 census, a total of 574 000 people were untrained, in other words they possessed no school qualifications; 189 000 were in possession of a diploma; 26 820 were in possession of a B.Sc. degree; 10 830 were in possession of a B.Com. degree; 3 680 were in possession of an M.Sc. degree; 410, of whom ten were women, were in possession of an M.Com. degree; and 1 220 were in possession of a doctor’s degree.

And half of them are working for the Government!

I could have answered the hon. member, but the fact that I do not do so, and that, after he has made such a rotten speech, shows how decent I am towards him. We have to provide annually for about 219 000 additional economically active people of all race groups above the age of 16 years entering the labour market. In the light of these facts I want to deal with the bottlenecks. I want to divide them into three main categories. Firstly there are the bottlenecks which arise as a result of what I want to call the ordinary, everyday micro-economic activities. Secondly, there are the, bottlenecks which arise as a result of the pressure of population on our economy and the inevitable effect this has on our labour. Thirdly there are the bottlenecks which are connected with the latest international events. As far as the first category of bottlenecks is concerned I want to say that we are saddled with a rising standard of living and a rising wage structure and we have to deal with a narrowing of the gap between the wage structures, a narrowing which contributes towards an increase in purchasing power. Our consumer spending has taken on disturbing proportions. In 1971 the increase was 11% and in 1973, 15,5%. Allowing for the price increases there was still an increase of between 3% and 5% in consumer spending. This consumer spending, for the most part, was in respect of durable consumer goods such as furniture, appliances, etc. In 1972 it was 4% and in 1973, 12%. The disturbing factor is that personal savings gave way to consumer spending. As a result of the rise in consumer spending, personal savings in 1973 dropped by no less than 20,6%. If we take into account that private consumption expenditure forms 60% of the total expenditure, this situation does create a bottleneck on our labour front. On 1 June of this year higher interest rate structures were announced, higher wage structures were announced with effect from July and at the same time we were faced with a long delay in the delivery of means of production such as capital goods. This has a profound impact on the organization of the labour force and on the planning of production processes in, for example, automation which is designed to eliminate manpower. The population pressure on the authorities and the labour market is assuming impressive proportions. What picture does this present to us? The births per thousand of our population are at present as follows: Whites 21,6; Coloureds 38,2; Asiatics 32 and Bantu 39,6. This gives us a total population increase in the country of 604 000 per annum. Apart from this, every year there are an additional 219 000 economically active people whom we have to provide with employment, for whom we have to create employment opportunities. In what direction is this forcing us? Irrespective of all other considerations, it is forcing us in the direction of making provision for a population growth. We have the Saldanha scheme, Newcastle, Richards Bay; we have the expansion of our Defence Force which we have been forced to make; we have to manufacture armaments; there is the development of our mines; we are saddled with enormously expensive water projects; we are saddled with the development of the homelands; we are saddled with the expansion of the Post Office; we are saddled with the development of extremely costly infrastructures; and we are saddled with the provision of houses for these growing thousands. If we analyse this population pressure, this picture seems to take on something more of the aspect of a bottleneck. This is because this pressure lies squarely and chiefly on the shoulders of that population group which has the lowest rate of increase, namely the Whites. The population increase of the other race groups, chiefly the Coloureds here, is so great that it exceeds by far the technological progress and the technological productive capacity of their numbers. That extra weight, too, falls upon the shoulders of the Whites.

I now come to my third point—how events in other countries influence us. Instability has come to our borders. This fact may have an effect on investment capital which could possibly come to our country and this again, will have an effect on the interest rate structures. Our trading partners abroad are experiencing difficulty owing to a lack of capital because the energy crisis, the oil price, has eaten deeply into their capital assets. As I have said in the past, we are also saddled with a domestic crisis here, within the heart and soul of our people. We have developed a resistance to labour. That is why I say that the hon. the Minister of Labour has to contend with all these bottlenecks, and that we can only wish him God’s grace in dealing with them in the future. I do have a few words of comfort for him. There are encouraging signs that, owing to larger capital gains by companies, internal financing is taking on shape and purpose here in South Africa. In consequence, an increased domestic demand and domestic investment may occur. This, above all, we should remember: that in spite of the Opposition and what is happening in the world, in spite of all the whining to the effect that we should abolish job reservation, job reservation has served to support the traditional labour pattern. That is why we have the industrial peace we are experiencing today. This is a ray of light to us. We also have a sound policy which we apply in respect of trade unions and that provides an additional support within this larger framework of industrial and labour peace.

I want to conclude by saying that to us, the brightest ray of light is the fact that we stand here in Africa as the acknowledged and indisputable growing giant in the economic sphere. Sir, I want to make a prediction here today: If a world economic recession or depression were to come, all these militant loud-mouths in South Africa would be the first to be hit in the economic sphere and South Africa would stand out like a shining star here in Africa.

Sir, in the debate thus far, as far as the part contributed by the Opposition is concerned, there have been a few things which have struck me. One of the important things which struck me was that in conducting the debate and in the attack launched by that side of the House, by both Opposition parties as they are sitting there, not a single word has been uttered about the White worker in South Africa. Sir, what should I conclude from that?

You did not listen properly.

The only conclusion I can come to, is that that side of the House is not interested in the White worker of South Africa, because the White worker of South Africa does not vote for the Opposition in any case. In the second place I want to say as far as this aspect is concerned that the hon. the Minister and his department should regard it as a feather in their caps, and I want to congratulate him, because it also means, on the other hand, that that side has no criticism which they can level at the labour policy of this Government. Sir, there is another aspect which struck me and that is that all that side of the House spoke about throughout the debate was the position of the non-White worker in South Africa, and that they echoed yet again the cry of so-called suppression of the Black man which allegedly takes place here and of the discriminatory measures which we supposedly apply in South Africa. Sir, a big fuss has been made by hon. members on that side concerning the question of Black trade unions in South Africa. The hon. member for Edenvale came along with the argument that if conditions change, one should adapt oneself to them, but we on this side of the House are still waiting to hear one single argument from any member of the Opposition concerning what has supposedly happened over the past five months to change conditions to such an extent that they need to change their policy. No argument to that effect has been put forward in this Committee.

Sir, I now want to deal with the hon. members for Orange Grove and Pinelands, who spoke about the frightful discrimination which supposedly takes place in this country. I want to refer, Sir, to a report which appeared last Saturday in Die Burger with reference to a speech by the Rev. Alan Hendrikse at the Progressive Party congress in Sea Point. Entitled, “Time not on the side of the White man”, the following, inter alia, was reported concerning what this gentleman said there (translation)—

Then the report goes on (translation)—

And he added the following (translation)—

Sir, I want to put this question to all the members of the Progressive Party who are sitting there: Did they applaud with him? The hon. member over there shakes his head; he said that he joined in the applause. Sir, the hon. member for Orange Grove is a mediator in this House for the Rev. Allan Hendrikse and his utterances. Sir, now I am not only looking at hon. members of the Progressive Party; I am looking at the official Opposition too. Is this not the same language as that we have heard from the hon. members for Bryanston and Yeoville in other debates in this session? It is precisely the same standpoint. If this is the kind of speech we get from responsible people, I want to ask whether it is not true that it is speeches of that very kind which will be used by the inciter and the agitator to hoodwink the worker in South Africa, more specifically the Black worker? I say it is a shame. Sir, this side of the House has a proud record as far as labour is concerned. The National Party has seen to the interests of the worker— whether White or non-White; his colour is immaterial, because this side of the House has a policy to ensure that the worker’s standard of living is raised, because the prosperity and the satisfaction of the worker ensure in addition the prosperity and the satisfaction of every people, and consequently, too, the people of South Africa as a whole. There are many methods of achieving this. Our legislation teems with them. The fundamental basis on which a sound economic growth can be assured, lies in industrial peace and quiet, and this we have in South Africa, thanks to the sound labour policy implemented by us. [Interjections.] I want to refer to the question of the standard of living which is rising in our country as a result of this sound labour policy implemented by the Government. In this respect, too, South Africa has a proud record under National Party rule. Since 1948 the standard of living in South Africa has risen by 70%, measured by the average income per capita of the population after allowing for the rise in the cost of living, in other words, measured against the real income of the population. Thus, on the average, salaries and wages have risen by 254% per capita since 1948, while the cost of living over the corresponding period has risen by only 126%. We see, too, that by means of its policy the Government has created more pleasant conditions which have made it easier for the worker to enjoy healthy living conditions, for example through housing, etc., in respect of which an amount of R212 million has been spent on the Witwatersrand and surrounding areas alone, and then only in respect of Black workers. You know, Sir, talking of the standard of living, often much is made of minimum wages, of the so-called “poverty datum line”. We follow a policy of a living wage as a minimum wage. There is sometimes loose talk about the fact that the wage paid to workers, and Bantu workers in particular, is less than a living wage, but, of course, it is not as simple as that. Owing to this kind of propaganda which emanates from that side of the House, and is intended for overseas consumption, it is interesting to note that in the United States, the U.S. State Department recently recommended that American employers in South Africa should not pay the workers less than R100 per month. This, now, is regarded as the so-called reasonable minimum wage. But what are the facts? It came to light that 24 million Americans earned less than R100 per month, and that in a country with a higher cost of living than South Africa. According to the market research bureau of the University of South Africa, which recently released details of an investigation into non-White standards of living in South Africa, the minimum living wage which they adopted as a basis, would have been a utopian one for the majority of the inhabitants of Africa and Asia if they had earned so much. This investigation proved that almost all single Black men and women in the major urban areas, who comprise 57% of the total number of economically active Black people in that area, have incomes greater than the minimum living wage. The majority get far more. These aspects are regularly taken into consideration. Over the past year alone the Wage Board has pushed up the minimum wages of the lowest paid workers by 20%. Other sectors followed suit and some mining groups raised salaries for their Black workers by up to 50% for the year ending 30 June 1973. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Koedoespoort will forgive me if I do not reply immediately to his remarks and to the noise he was making. I would like to try and confine this debate to matters affecting labour. In my speech yesterday, I pointed out …

Yesterday?

Yes, yesterday. Just listen carefully. Yesterday I pointed out that the hon. member for Turffontein took me to task when I said that the strikes, involving well over 70 000 Black workers, were illegal. He said I did not know what I was talking about because there was provision in the Act which enabled strikes to take place. Of course there is. We all know that. The hon. the Minister knows that far better than the hon. member for Turffontein. But the point is quite rightly that any legislation which allows for strike action only allows for that as a last resort. The point I was making was that there are many people—it is an almost daily occurrence—going on strike without using the existing legislation which is on the Statute Book. That is the point, and that point still stands. The hon. the Minister referred to a great number of industrialists who are paying very low wages. He is absolutely right. He also went on to point out that there were many managers and industrialists who were not providing adequate communication channels for their workers. He is absolutely right. When I referred to a new dimension, he did not like that very much. He can call it a new era, he can call it what he will, but the fact is that there are growing numbers of industrialists who are realizing that the Black worker is no longer an undifferentiated unit of labour. They are realizing that he is a man, that he has needs. He has training needs, he has skills, he must be given an opportunity and he must be trained.

Who is denying that?

I am very glad the hon. member agrees with that. At last he has got the message. The fact that many industrialists refuse to pay a living wage, the fact that they refuse to provide adequate communication channels, reinforces the argument I made yesterday, which so many on this side of the House have been making for the last two days, i.e. that there must be an opportunity, that there must be collective bargaining extended to all workers so that management does not get away with this any longer. The situation is not confined to some industrialists or to only one part of the country. As long as some workers have basic rights as workers and others are denied this basic right, there will be the possibility of very serious labour unrest in South Africa. The main reason why so many White workers have been able to get a better deal, better job conditions and better wages is because they have a trade union working for them, speaking for them, because there is unity of purpose. That is simply not happening for the Black worker today. I am not suggesting for a moment that recognized unions for Blacks will be a panacea for all industrial ills in South Africa. In a capitalist society, however, and this is a capitalist society, strong management on the one hand and strong labour representation on the other are absolute prerequisites for industrial harmony. It is only when these two are held in tension that you can have creative labour peace where a fair deal is earned for both sides. The simple unpalatable fact is that we do not have industrial peace in South Africa even at this time. As far back as 1951, as many members in this House will know, there was a commission of inquiry regarding industrial legislation under the chairmanship of Dr. Botha. This commission was not appointed to undermine the Government or to make political capital, but to investigate the situation. They accepted the basic principle that Black workers had a right to belong to recognized trade unions. All the conditions they set out in this long report would not be acceptable to us today, but the fact of the matter is that they accepted the principle and that now, a quarter of a century later, we have this kind of nonsense coming from my left. With strikes, with development taking place and with a new deal emerging, almost 25 years later, the Government still refuses to accept this basic principle which is fundamental to industrial relations. With very limited time, let me say once again that trade unions, the extension of the principle of collective bargaining for all workers in South Africa, Black and White, can only be of benefit to management, to labour, to the Government and to all South Africans, because sound industrial relations are essential in a very precarious sub-continent.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House really do not need the hon. member for Pinelands to tell us that the Black worker is also a human being with needs. Before the hon. member came to this House, perhaps before he was born; people on this side of the House not only perceived this truth, but acted humanely towards our Black people right throughout our history. That is why there are good relations. We recognize it as much as the hon. member does, and we desire as earnestly that the non-White worker will be a happy worker and will work under good working conditions. If the hon. member in any way implied that we only regard the Black worker as a number and that we are not concerned about his welfare, I want to reprimand the hon. member severely for doing so.

I said nothing about that.

I accept what the hon. member says, but when reading his speech, he will notice that it creates a different impression altogether. Of course, the employee must have an opportunity to negotiate in regard to his working conditions. If we want to summarize the essence of the debate in respect of Black trade unions, one has to come to the conclusion that no one in this House wants to deny any worker the right to negotiate in respect of his working conditions, his wages, his working hours, and so forth.

But why do you not want to give them the machinery to do so?

We are all in favour of machinery in order to help the Black worker in this process of negotiation to ensure that he will enjoy proper working conditions. Where the real difference comes in, however, is in respect of the kind of machinery we should give Black workers. Surely, the hon. member for Hillbrow cannot pretend now that works committees and liaison committees are not machinery. If he were to do that, he should tell Japan that their entire system does not constitute machinery. Machinery is essential and this side of the House recognizes that fact, but what is involved is what form that machinery should take. But I now want us to consider a little why hon. members on that side now regard the trade union as such a wonderful piece of machinery, for the Bantu worker as well. The only arguments they advance, and what I can gather from what they say are, in the first instance, that the existing, recognized trade unions in South Africa are functioning well within the framework of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Therefore, they say that it necessarily follows that Black trade unions will also function well within the framework of the Industrial Conciliation Act. The second argument I am trying to abstract from what they are saying, is that trade unions are thé channel in these times we are living in the “with it” channel through which negotiations have to take place. The world demands that this be done. Everywhere trade unions dominate the labour sphere, the economic sphere and even the political sphere in some countries. That is why we must also yield now and give trade unions to the Black people too. The third argument proceeding from this, is that it would constitute discrimination if we were not to give them trade unions. But let us consider briefly these arguments. In the first instance, it is no argument to measure the possible success of Bantu trade unions against the existing success of the trade unions which are recognized at present. If this were a valid argument, I would likewise be able to tell you that, because the British trade unions result in so much chaos, trade unions are worth nothing and simply cause unrest. But I do not want to advance such a simple argument. No. Sir, the fact of the matter is that the recognition of Black trade unions would result in drastic changes in our labour dispensation, and would result in extremely negative consequences.

In the first instance, what will become of the existing, recognized trade unions? How will the establishment of Black trade unions affect their productivity and continued existence? In this regard I want to predict that in respect of labour it will more or less have the same effect as when the Progressive Party’s political policy is accepted and “one man, one vote” is applied. In trade unionism, just as in politics, the numerical factor will cause the White worker to be dominated altogether by the Black worker with regard to labour bargaining and in the sphere of labour as a whole.

That is a good point to reply to.

The hon. member for Maitland says he grants me that, but he pleads for Black trade unions.

No, I said I shall reply to you on that point.

In the second instance, the recognition of Black trade unions would have serious political implications. The hon. member for Maitland also mentioned in his speech the risk that Black trade unions may assume a political character. This is not simply a smoke screen we are throwing up; it is a very, very great risk. In fact, if we should yield to the request of the parties on that side, there are elements at the ready to pounce on Black trade unionism and to use it in order to change the existing order in South Africa. Just read this report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations, a report which was co-signed by a few members on that side. Read page 464, where the following is stated—

It is dealing here with wages and the whole sphere of labour—

These people are at the ready and are waiting for the National Government to be as foolish as the Opposition is asking it to be. But this soap-bubble was pricked in an outstanding way by the hon. the Minister, and we are now engaged in finally wiping up the wet spots of this argument.

What do we offer, as opposed to that side, in the line of machinery? We offer a system which, if applied in a dynamic way, has the potential to offer the Black worker, in the first instance, the best possible opportunity to express himself and to realize himself in his labour situation, to accept co-responsibility in bargaining for his working conditions. If it is applied in a dynamic way, we are affording him a proper communication channel, a channel which is not exposed to the other negative dangers, a channel which will not be susceptible to manipulation by Nusas leaders and many others, a channel which, in fact, may pave the way towards effective communication between the Black worker and the employer in South Africa, a channel which, as hon. members heard from the hon. the Minister, has a liaising procedure by means of the hundreds of Bantu labour officials who ensure contact between a works committee in one industry and a works committee in another industry, so that cognizance can be taken of what is happening in other factories and that one may learn from the other. The liaising procedure is there and the department is at the ready, but if we want this system to operate in a dynamic way, we shall have to get away from the attitude of the hon. members on the other side, who only point an accusing finger at the Government as if the Government is, in the first instance, responsible for relations between employer and employee. In associating myself with the hon. the Minister’s plea, I want to say that our employers must accept this system instead of putting up a fight here about the machinery. They must accept the machinery established by the Act. We shall have to obtain their support for the positive propagating of the possibilities of this machinery instead of its being disparaged so that the people reading the English language newspapers, newspapers which do not put the case of this side of the House, may start believing that this system in fact, have some potensialities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, from the nature of the case, owing to the problems and the questions that are involved, labour affairs in South Africa are such a delicate topic that any political party—and when I say that I include the non-White political parties in South Africa—should, in my opinion, deal with this topic only with the greatest sense of responsibility and with the greatest circumspection. I believe it to be essential for us to realize that when we discuss these delicate matters in this House or from political platforms, our speeches are usually taken down in writing. We should take care, therefore, that what we say does not perhaps have the opposite effect to what we want to achieve.

To start my speech today I want to address a word of sincere thanks to all the workers in South Africa. When I say this I am not referring to the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians only, but to the Bantu as well. We are very proud of South Africa and we know, after all, that all of us have co-operated to attain everything that has been achieved in this fast-growing industrial country of ours. However much we may fly at each other, however much we may abuse each other, one of the primary tasks of the members of a political party is to do their best to see to the interests of our workers, of our labour, to the best of their ability. If we were to try and incite race groups, colour groups or national groups against each other, it would get us nowhere. It could never be in our interests or in the interests of South Africa.

Let us face the truth squarely—our workers will themselves have to do a few things as well. Our Whites will have to ask themselves the question whether they are able to do all the work in South Africa and whether they are able to meet the heavy and growing demand for skilled and semiskilled labour. In addition we should ask ourselves whether it is in our interests and the interests of South Africa that unemployed non-White people should begin to enter a state of ferment and unrest owing to hunger and frustration. After all, it is true that a busy man, one who does not have to trouble himself or worry about feeding or clothing his family, is a productive unit and is usually a satisfied person, too. On the other hand, our non-White workers, too, will have to ask themselves a few questions, inter alia whether they can merely demand, without further ado, everything which the White man has already acquired for himself, and they should also ask themselves: “What is my attitude towards my job as such?”; “What is the extent of my productivity? What am I doing about the opportunities that are being created for me? What initiative am I displaying?” The National Party has been in power now for 26 years, it is true, and not everyone, perhaps, is satisfied that it has done everything it might have done, but, in contrast to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti who spat out his speech here, I believe … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “spat out”.

I withdraw them, Sir. It is maintained that the Government has established no training facilities, but this Government has gone out of its way for the sake of all the population groups in South Africa. Let us just compare the position in 1948 with that of 1974. I want to repeat that we do not want to imply that we have achieved everything, that we have achieved the Utopia which the hon. member for Hillbrow sketched for us on 30 August in connection with the migrant labourers in Europe, to which I want to come back later. If we look at the years 1948-’50, we see that at that stage there were eleven training centres for the Whites in South Africa in trade and industry. Today there are six colleges for advanced technical training, 26 technical colleges and 35 industrial and trade schools. At that time there was absolutely nothing for the Bantu as far as industrial schools were concerned. But let us look what there is for them today. There are two technical colleges, six technical schools and 43 trade schools and secondary schools with trade sections. And that is not to mention the in-service training programme in connection with which the hon. the Minister of Finance recently made a another announcement, concerning tax rebates. For the Coloureds there were two places in South Africa where they could receive training. The one was in Roeland Street in Cape Town which was an extension of the college here and the other was at Aliwal North. Today, in the Peninsula, there is one college for advanced training as well as five other technical colleges. For the Indians there was nothing. Today there is the M.L. Sultan College.

We regard the Bantu in South Africa not as a permanent inhabitant of White South Africa, but as a Zulu, a Xhosa, and so on. Whether the Opposition agrees or not, that is our policy. [Interjections.] However, on 30 August the hon. member for Hillbrow conducted a speech here—I hope that is permissible, Mr. Chairman—in which he said (Hansard 1974, Col. 1894)—

Listen to the Utopia that follows now—

When a statement of that kind is made by a front-bencher of the Opposition, one is inclined to take cognizance of it and is inclined, too, to accept that that is the truth. Let us test it against what really goes on abroad. I have in front of me a report entitled: “Migrant workers: International Labour Conference: 59th Session, 1974.” It is therefore fairly recent. This is what they say here about the total number of migrant labourers in Europe and America—

Job reservation.

Mr. Chairman, this to my mind smacks of job reservation. But this is not happening in South Africa; it is happening in Europe and America.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Mr. Chairman, it is not I who said that for the migrant labourer in Europe conditions were Utopian. It was said by a front-bencher of the United Party, the hon. member for Hillbrow. Let us take a brief look at the rights of the migrant labourer there as far as trade unions are concerned. They say here—

Not compelled—

They do not even have the opportunities which our works committees have, namely of acting on behalf of themselves or others. I am still dealing with the hon. member for Hillbrow. Let us take a further look at what he said. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria East started well but ended on a very false note.

What note was that?

It went well until he said: “We regard the Black worker as not being permanent, whether that is the truth or not.” When one says that, that they consider it to be so, whether it is true or not, then one is unable to argue the matter. Then it is not possible to argue the matter. Secondly he said that the hon. member for Hillbrow compared the situation in Europe with the situation here and said that the migrant labourer there enjoys many more benefits than he does here Unfortunately the hon. member for Pretoria East forgot about the important part of the argument. The argument goes like this: “The Nationalist Party says that the Bantu working here in our midst, are migrant labourers, and because they are migrant labourers, they should enjoy rights not here, but in their homelands. The question we want to put, is this: Is the hon. member for Pretoria East prepared to grant all the privileges enjoyed by the migrant labourer in Europe (even though these are fewer than the privileges of the citizens of the countries concerned) to the migrant labourer in South Africa? That is the point; that is the only argument.

The hon. member should rather discuss the question of migrant labour under the next Vote. This request was made from the Chair yesterday.

I have no more to say about it. Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your guidance. The hon. member for Vereeniging told us about all the dangers inherent in trade unions, particularly Black trade unions. The dangers are supposedly legion and it is very clear to me that according to him they are the most dangerous things that could ever be allowed in the labour structure of South Africa. If the hon. member is correct, I want to ask him in all courtesy whether he can tell me how many Black trade unions there are in South Africa at present. If I tell him there are 30, will he agree? If I tell him there are 50, will he agree?

There is a big difference between a recognized trade union and a trade union which is not recognized.

Sir, a trade union is a trade union. If trade unions are supposedly so dangerous, as the hon. member states, why then, does the hon. the Minister not tell us that he is going to put a stop to them?

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I have only ten minutes and I have a number of points to make. Sir, if trade unions are so dangerous, then put an end to them and avoid the danger in South Africa.

Sir, during the last few hours this debate has been conducted in a very calm atmosphere. I missed the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark because he is a person who raises storms here, even though they are only dust storms. Sir, an attack has been launched here by the Government on our change of policy as they call it, as regards the permitting of Black trade unions under the Industrial Conciliation Act. The first point made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark is that if such trade unions were allowed they would simiply become puppets in the hands of political exploiters. However, the point I want to state frankly in this connection is that uncontrolled trade unions, Black or White, which do not fall under the labour legislation of South Africa, create unlimited opportunities for political exploitation in South Africa. It is the very fact that these trade unions fall under the control and the stabilizing influence of the Industrial Conciliation Act that prevents political influences from playing a role in the trade unions. The hon. member for Vereeniging knows that our Industrial Conciliation Act expressly prohibits money being utilized for political purposes, and I may mention in passing that this is one of the major differences between our legislation and that of Britain; the two are not comparable.

The second point I want to make, is that it is in fact the strike weapon that is the strongest political weapon a trade union can use, and the tragedy of South Africa is that this weapon has beein used, is being used and will be used in the absence of the sobering influence of the trade union traditions of South Africa, traditions which go back many years. Sir, our trade union leaders in South Africa have proved that one can achieve one’s objectives of salary increases and improved living conditions in South Africa without striking, and that is why we say that it is of the greatest importance that these trade unions should fall under the control of the Industrial Conciliation Act. These trade unions already exist today, and I fear that when the time arrives when we want to permit them, subject to control, the Black trade union leaders will tell us: “When we wanted recognition, you did not want to recognize us; now you want us but we do not want you.” And that. Sir will be the end of the White workers’ secure future in South Africa.

The third point made by hon. members opposite, is that hon. members on this side only champion the cause of the Black worker. Sir, we champion the cause of all workers in South Africa. However, it would be highly irresponsible for any hon. member to champion the cause of the White workers only in this House. Let me put it this way: The interests of the White labourer, the Black labourer and the Brown labourer are indissolubly interwoven, and I am telling you today, Sir: If there is revolution among the Black labourers, if there is dissatisfaction and frustration among the Black labourers, then woe betide the future of the White labourers in South Africa.

The fourth point I want to make is this: We were told here yesterday that we have changed our labour policy. Sir, the principle of trade unions has always been acceptable to the United Party. It was only a question of how and when. The time appears to us to be ripe at the moment, and I want to submit for the consideration of the hon. the Minister that he too should begin to think that the time for the acknowledgment of Black trade unions has now arrived.

The fifth point I want to make is this: To exiploit the labour problem on the basis of race is not only dangerous, it is also dangerous in the sense that we would be obstructing the most urgent adjustments which have to be made in South Africa, specifically on the labour front.

But they should not be maladjustments.

Sir. I have not the slightest doubt that there will have to be adjustments. We are told that through this we are going to cause the Whites to come to grief, but that is just what one will do if one does not want to make the adjustments which are imperative for the sake of the future of South Africa. That is why I find it so deplorable that hon. members opposite are again trying to exploit the race situation now by telling us: “You are not championing the cause of the White worker; you are only championing the cause of the Black man.” No, Sir, the interests of the White worker and the Black worker are interwoven and to champion the one and not the other is to bring about an unbalanced situation in South Africa which can only lead, eventually, to the detriment of the White man. Sir, I want to tell the hon. the Minister this afternoon that I am pleased that he told the hon. member for Hillbrow that he does not intend to reject out of hand the idea of a commission, a commission which could investigate all aspects of the labour situation in South Africa. Sir, the last commission, the Botha commission, was appointed in 1951. That was 24 years ago, 24 years during which a revolution has taken place in South Africa on many fronts, a revolution so rapid that one would be justified in calling it a revolution, and in the midst of all these things we are now faced with the situation where the hon. the Minister can only win his arguments by playing politics and scoring petty debating points, while he forgets about the overriding interests of the greater South Africa. That is why I plead in all humility that the Minister should no be too guick to discard the idea of a commission. I believe that there are sufficient grounds in respect of the training of the labour force alone. There are sufficient grounds as far as organization is concerned and there are sufficient grounds in regard to socio-economic problems which will arise out of the training of the Bantu. Sir, the Nationalist Party has forgotten that when we train someone to perform a particular task, we are not only making his hands skilful, we are also turning him into a different person, a person who will be drawn into the Western industrial life of South Africa, That person will ask for all the rights and privileges of the Whites, whether my hon. friend wants him there on a permanent-temporary or a temporary-permanent basis—it is immaterial. When he asks that, Sir, you and I will have to make provision in this country to save the White worker, about whom my friends opposite have so much to say, because he is the man in the front line and will be the one who will have to bear the brunt. That is why I plead with the hon. the Minister. [Time expired.]

Sir, since we have now come to the end of this debate, I want to start by expressing my thanks to the members on my side of the House for the analytical and the incisive contributions they made to this debate.

They were all like a lot of gramophones.

This has been a debate concerned with the handling of a sound labour situation in South Africa. At the same time I want to thank them for having taken the opportunity to spell out the contrast between the National Party policy and the Opposition policy so clearly that one and all may realize precisely what the alternative is for the country and for all workers if one should ever follow the foolish course adopted by the Opposition in the sphere of labour. That is why I am expressing my thanks to my side who did this so thoroughly.

But now that I have listened to the Opposition, after one has listened to their speeches, which had one single thread running through all of them, i.e. that job reservation should be abolished and that it should be possible for the numerically superior Black workers to be members of our existing trade unions—having listened to these things for two days and having waited in vain for similar pleas for the White workers, one realized anew why this joint Opposition have become so small that they only fill a few benches here today. This proves why they have become so small, but alas!—and, actually, I find this pitiable—with an attitude such as this one this Opposition will never make any impact or impression on the electorate of South Africa. It also has this disadvantage, and we had an example of this in the course of this debate, namely that the smaller this Opposition becomes, the wilder they get. In this debate they have tried to be almost as wild as the Progs, and the things we heard from the United Party bear testimony to this. This, not right about turn, but left about turn of policy by the United Party through the acceptance of Black trade unions is just another manifestation of their getting wilder as a result of their getting smaller. But now, Sir, this has a further disadvantage in my opinion. The other day we were reproached here, and even outside Parliament the National Party is now being reproached, with the frustration from which English-speaking people in South Africa are suffering because of the fact that they do not have a share in exercising power in South Africa. Now, I do want to say that it is very unfair to blame and reproach the National Party for their getting smaller while following a policy such as this one and then casting their frustration in our teeth. A policy such as the one followed by the Opposition shows that they have totally lost touch with the realities of South Africa. The Opposition no longer have their roots in the South African situation: they are tuned in to different wavelengths and definitely do not have their roots in South African soil. The Opposition are becoming progressively smaller and more powerless, and now the National Party has to be reproached for their frustrations. This is most unfair. Out of this frustration we now have various wild statements, and I am going to deal with one of them at once. Inter alia, we have had this statement from the hon. member for South Coast: “Job reservation protects only the lazy White man.” This is the kind of statement one gets as a result of the position in which the United Party has landed. “Job protection protects only the lazy White man,” he said, and I thought it would be a very good thing to ask whether the following people could also be described as “lazy”. Perhaps the hon. gentleman does not yet know that it is not only the White man who is being controlled in this country by the provisions of job reservation. Large numbers of Coloureds are also being controlled in South Africa by job reservation. In my opinion it is important to furnish the hon. gentleman and the House with the figures in order to see what effect job reservation has on those people. By doing that we shall also be able to find out whether job reservation exists in order to protect a lot of “lazy Coloureds” as well. Let us consider the facts.

Are you trying to work up feelings?

It seems to me the hon. member is very upset about facts. I noticed this yesterday already. The hon. member is going to get quite a number of facts in my reply; he should therefore hold his breath a little for the shock that lies ahead. I have quite a number of facts. We are dealing now with the “protection of the lazy White man”. Here in the Western part of the Cape job reservation is applicable to various industries. Now I want to mention to you the real position in these industries where job reservation is also applicable in respect of the Coloureds. I want to mention the numbers and percentages to indicate how the position of the Coloureds was affected over the period 1968 to 1973 in those various industries where job reservation is also applicable to them. I start with the footwear industry. In 1968 there were 139 Whites in this industry in the Western Province. By 1973 this figure had dropped to 58. As against that there were 4 195 Coloureds in 1968. This figure increased to 4 541. In the footwear industry the drop in the number of White workers was 58%, whereas the numbers of the Coloureds showed an increase of 8,2%.

Here in the Cape Province job reservation is also applicable to the Coloureds employed in the furniture industry. In this industry the number of Whites dropped by 76% over this period. As against that the number of Colourds increased by 21%. In respect of liquor and catering job reservation is also applicable to the Coloureds. Here the number of Whites dropped by 7,3% and the number of Coloureds increased by 49.9%. In the building industry the number of Whites did increase by 28%, but over the same period the number of Coloureds increased by 73%. The last industry I want to mention is the clothing industry. If job reservation had not applied in this industry, the present position would definitely not have applied in respect of the Coloureds. During this period there was a drop of 42,9% as far as the Whites in this industry were concerned, as against an increase of 39,6% in respect of Coloureds.

These figures show that in those industries where job reservation is applicable to the Coloureds, they have not suffered as a result. On the contrary, if we did not have job reservation in some of these industries to protect the Coloureds here in the Cape, and if we did not have the influx control measures of my colleague the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, the Coloureds would have been driven out completely as a result of Black labour. Numerous employers are continually approaching my colleague to ask for Black labour here in the Cape, an area which is being regarded as the traditional area of the Coloureds. Since this policy of the Government in respect of job reservation and influx control also protects the Coloureds by reserving jobs for them, I want to know whether these Coloureds are also “lazy Coloureds” according to the standpoint of the hon. member for South Coast. Of course not. Therefore I want to reject this reference to “lazy White men” with the greatest contempt. The United Party is continually mounting the platform in order to read us a lecture on good race relations and preaching all sorts of sermons for our benefit. If one wants to have good race relations in this country, one has to bear in mind that there are such things as race relations between Whites and non-Whites, but also between non-Whites and Whites. To describe job reservation as “protection of the lazy Whites” is definitely not a contribution to the good race relations which we need in this country. However, to me this is, alas, the consequence of the United Party’s numeric situation in which they find themselves today.

Now I come to another hon. member who also spoke about this question of the Colour bar, namely the hon. member for Orange Grove, who took part in this debate yesterday. He said, inter alia, “the colour bar must be scrapped”, and the same went for job reservation. The trouble with the Opposition—the Progressives are guilty of this to a worse extent, although basically they have the same characteristic—is that they are so obsessed by the position of the non-Whites and by strikes and trade unions that they totally overlook and ignore the other leg of our labour force. They have totally ignored the other very important section, the White section, in our labour force. I want to remind the hon. member that people who disregarded this White section in the past had to pay a very high price, politically, for having done so. If an Anglo-American man attaches importance to industrial peace, and he ought to do so—especially in the mining industry —he ought to have very serious misgivings about the abolition of the colour bar in the mining industry. Although we have in the mining industry only 85 000 Whites as against the 641 000 Blacks, the position is that if these 85 000 Whites in the mining industry were to withdraw their labour and go on strike, the mines would come to a standstill. As the Minister of Labour I have had experience of that in the years that have gone by. Now I should like to know from the hon. gentlemen of the Anglo-American group sitting in this House of Assembly whether it would not be a much more practical and sensible thing, if they want to abolish the colour bar since it is a matter of political necessity and political expediency with them, for them to consult first with the 14 trade unions in the mining industry on this question. Hon. members are talking about consultation all the time. Do they not think it would be much more sensible first to go and ask those 14 trade unions, in the coming recess, what their views are? They would be well advised to do so, because we shall be debating these matters once again next February, and then we should very much like to know whether they had used their time meanwhile to go and consult these 14 trade unions in their industry. I think it would be very useful to us if hon. members could thrash out this matter with them first. If hon. members could come to this House next year and say that they had consulted these 14 trade unions, that ten of them had said we could abolish the colour bar whereas four were opposed to this being done, we would at least be better informed in this House. If hon. members are in such earnest, they could perhaps influence them, and this could mean much more to us. Then one would have a mandate from the people employed in the industry, an instruction that they want the colour bar to be abolished. That is why I really feel that, before any hon. member should ask here again for the abolition of the colour bar in the mines, he should first ascertain whether these 14 trade unions in the mining industry also feel that way.

Now I come to the question of restrictions which the hon. member raised here. He had a great deal to say about it and suggested that, inter alia, the colour bar and job reservation were restrictions, too. All these restrictions are restricting our productivity, according to his argument. What I think will be of importance in this regard, will be to quote a person who is not represented in this House but who is very highly respected, namely the president of the S.A. Federated Chamber of Industries. I am going to quote Mr. Morcombe, who, at a banquet last year—some of the hon. members were present, inter alia, the hon. member for Hillbrow—said the following in his presidential address, something which is very interesting in the light of the question of the restrictions which are supposed to have such a hampering effect on our industrial development—

Then I also want to quote the last paragraph—

Sir, this underlines the statement we have made from time to time, namely that industrialists and political parties sitting on that side are too often taking refuge behind the so-called restrictions of job reservation and the colour bar, instead of utilizing properly the very numerous opportunities that exist for the non-Whites and of bringing them to the point of maximal productivity.

Now I come to the hon. member for Maitland. The very first thing I want to tell him is that I should be pleased if he would read up my Hansard of yesterday after this reply which I am not going to give him in connection with the commission advocated by him. I said yesterday, with reference to the pleas which had been made here as well as those I had received from the general public, that I was prepared to recommend to the Government that a commission be appointed to go into the operation of the channels of communication, but only after the works committees and liaison committees had functioned a little while longer. Not for a moment did I say—nor do I intend doing this—that we were going to appoint a commission to go into matters relating to labour affairs in South Africa, and that for the simple reason that we do not need it.

South Africa does not need something of that nature. When there are enough industrialists who have gained sufficient experience of this specific matter, we shall appoint a commission to investigate it further. Various thoughts have been expressed to me on how this may be developed further. We shall listen to them. But this does not mean at all that a general commission is going to be appointed, as has been suggested by the hon. members. I want to ask the hon. member to read up my Hansard of yesterday.

I accept it.

The hon. member accepts it; we need therefore not pause at that point any longer.

That is a very good start.

Now I come to another standpoint which the hon. member took up here. The hon. member said that the leftist change in policy was aimed at preventing the development of Black trade unions.

Controlling.

Very well. I take it that the background to this thought expressed by the hon. members is that they want industrial peace in this country. If the Opposition are also in earnest about our having a contented Black labour force, I want to ask them why on earth they do not support this committee system—of which there are as many as 1 400 already and of which the majority are functioning satisfactorily. If they are in earnest about having industrial peace in this country, why do they not support this system? Now the hon. members want to blow hot and cold at the same time.

On the one hand they are pleading for Black trade unions, but on the other hand the hon. member said yesterday that he would give these committees a chance. Surely what they are doing here amounts to a senseless way of handling a labour matter of this nature. The fact of the matter is that out of the million economically active Black people in our country only a paltry few thousand are members of trade unions at this moment. This is the position about which the hon. members are so keen to make a fuss and in connection with which they have been asking me how many trade unions are going to be established now. They have been asking me and hon. members on this side, across the floor of this House, how many trade unions there are at this moment. These are such pointless questions. Whether there are X or Y-plus trade unions does not make any difference to this position. Let me mention to hon. members the fact that a few thousand Blacks are members of existing trade unions, whereas the Black labour force in this country consists of more than 2½ million workers.

Now the United Party and the Progressive Party want this labour corps, none of whom have any knowledge of the operation of a trade union and none of whom have any understanding of trade-unionism, to become trade-unionists overnight. I wonder whether the hon. gentlemen opposite have ever given any thought to the tremendous illusion they are dealing with here. To conduct negotiations with employers is a lengthy process, and that is why I really feel that the opportunities for negotiation which the committee system affords the Black workers in South Africa are unsurpassable. No trade union organization can conduct negotiations on behalf of this mass of Black workers. As I have already said, more than half a million Blacks have already been involved in the 1 400 committees that have already been established. In this way they are being given an opportunity for negotiation which they will not be able to have in any trade union.

In trade unions one finds a situation that from a head office, in Johannesburg for instance, the trade-unionists are being instructed what they are to do. The workers are therefore not being given the opportunities which the committee system offers them. That is why I want to say that the committee system is worth much more to and is much more in the interests of the development of the Black workers than any trade union will ever be able to be. The hon. member for Edenvale said yesterday that as compared with the 2½ million economically active workers the half million who are members of these committees are very few. Do hon. members know what the position is in regard to the White workers?

The position is that there are 1 300 000 economically active Whites in this country but that only 421 000 of them are members of trade unions. In proportion to these works committees, which have only been functioning for a year and a half now, this is to my mind a remarkable development in coverage which has taken place in respect of the Black workers in this short while. The most important aspect of the whole committee system is to my mind the fact that far more Black workers are going to be involved in conducting negotiations than would ever be possible in any trade union organization. Nor does this apply in respect of them only, for trade union leaders here in our own country are often complaining about the lack of interest which the rank and file have in trade unions.

Let me add here that this does not only apply in South Africa. Even in a trade union country such as England the trade union leaders are complaining—they mentioned their complaints to me when I was there—about the lack of active interest which the workers in England have in the organization, the bargaining and the negotiations of the trade union movement. Here we have now introduced a system which is really going to afford a large mass of Black workers an opportunity of being able to negotiate directly, which cannot be matched by any trade union organization. But now we are treated in this way by the United Party! Let me tell the United Party that if they are really in earnest about improving the Black man’s wage position, this committee system ought to receive their full, unqualified support, because these pleas with which they have been keeping us busy in the meantime have the disadvantage that U.P.-minded and P.P.-minded employers meanwhile do not have to do a thing as far as establishing channels of communication is concerned.

On the contrary, they are sitting back and wating calmly for this U.P.-P.P. Utopia to materialize. In the meantime they are doing nothing. Hence the fact that I told you that in the 300 strikes we had there were no works committees or any other means of communication in the case of 281 of them. Having seen and said this of the United Party, one is grateful that large, influential organizations such as FCI, Seifsa and NDMF (the National Development and Management Foundation) are most sympathetic towards the idea of this committee system. They are not only sympathetic, but continually engaged in a actually arranging meetings at which guidance is provided in order to bring this idea home more effectively. The only thing lacking at the moment is that, as I asked yesterday, employers should pay the necessary attention to these committees so that they may really be regarded and accepted as the true mouthpieces of the Black workers.

Now I come to the question of training which was mentioned here, especially yesterday. Yesterday the hon. members for Durban Central and Edenvale and today the hon. members for Hercules and South Coast spoke about it. The Opposition cry was actually that there was a need for more training for Blacks. Reference was also made to training for Whites. The hon. member for Hercules spoke with great appreciation about the apprenticeship system that was being introduced, and I want to thank him sincerely for his words. As far as the question of training is concerned, it was asked whether we were doing enough by way of the Apprenticeship Act and the other schemes. This is a question which one certainly must ask in a House such as this one from time to time. I think one must examine this matter from time to time, examine it critically as was done here.

This question arises: Are we doing enough to train people? I think one can never do enough to train people, but that we are doing a great deal within our means, is most definitely the position. If one considers that we have 31 apprenticeship committees and that we have the National Apprenticeship Board in which the employers and the trade unions are represented, that the people who have knowledge are represented in them and that they are continually deliberating on improving technical training, then it is a sign that we are not asleep.

But the number of apprentices is getting smaller and smaller.

I shall give the hon. member the figures in a moment; then he will be able to compare them so as to see whether they are in fact smaller. This Apprenticeship Board represents the interested parties, the people concerned with these matters. They are the people who have to decide what improvements are to be effected to the system of training apprentices. As a result of the proposals submitted by these committees to the Apprenticeship Board, we have now shortened the periods of apprenticeship in respect of several industries. We are continually smartening up the system in order to adapt it to changed circumstances; consequently we had 38 000 apprentices indentured for this year. In the light of the tremendous scope for labour which exists here, this figure is a very good one indeed. Apart from these 38 000 indentured apprentices, we have in the building industry a special training centre at Baragwanath, and I really want to recommend to hon. members that they pay it a visit if they have not done so yet. There they will be able to see what is being done to train persons who are 19 years old and older, how they are given a crash training course lasting a few months, subsequent to which they are indentured with employers.

Then hon. members will also realize that the legislation relating to the training of adults has afforded 13 000 adults the opportunity of acquiring artisan status. In addition to this the amendment which we effected in 1970 in order to render training schemes possible, has made a tremendous contribution to the training of adults. The position today is that we have nine industrial council schemes of this nature. These we have in two non-industrial council areas. Except in two of these areas which I have mentioned now, these training schemes apply in respect of both Whites and non-Whites. The decision by the councils in question amounts to there being two in which this was not to apply in respect of Whites and non-Whites. Other than that it applies in respect of all the other schemes. Over and above these we have, for Coloureds, the Government-financed training scheme for motor mechanics. By the way, the allowance paid to them is exactly the same as the one for Whites, namely R16 a week.

The Opposition mainly spoke about the training of Black labourers. During this debate we heard very little in respect of the training of Whites and Coloureds. Although the training of Blacks falls mainly under the Vote of my colleague the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, I should just like to give a résumé of it. I just want to say that as regards the training of Black people in homelands, in border areas and in metropolitan areas, a very great deal has been done and is going to be done. Schemes have been devised which are going to lend very great impetus to the training in this regard, and hon. members will be furnished with those particulars by my hon. colleague and his deputies.

To come back to my field, as regards the more effective utilization of this labour and how these people are to be utilized in industry after they have been trained, I may just say that our industrial councils are constantly engaged in reviewing the classification of employment in such a way that Black people may be permitted to perform more advanced work in various industries. Let us just take the mining industry as an example. A new scheme for artisans’ assistants has been established in the mining industry. This has been done with the full co-operation and approval of the Mineworkers’ Union and the other trade unions involved, and those new Black artisans’ assistants who are going to work in the mines are going to do a very great deal towards meeting the mines’ problem of a manpower shortage.

In the engineering industry a similar scheme is being considered at the moment, and it will probably be announced shortly. In the motor-car industry we have exactly the same scheme. As from the beginning of July Black operators may do certain facets of skilled labour which they could not do before. In the major part of the building industry in the Transvaal a new operator, class I, has now been introduced by industrial council agreement, and this class I worker, who may be a Black worker, will be able to do numerous facets of the work being done by skilled builders in the Transvaal at present. Similarly, Sir, various steps are being proceeded with so that more liberal use may be made of Black labour, Black labour that is being trained and will in the future be trained to a larger extent under the scheme being handled by my colleague sitting next to me.

Sir, in conclusion I just want to say this: The Government will, in an orderly and realistic manner, continue to take these various steps which it has been taking up to now. What this Government definitely does not intend doing is to steer our labour arrangements on such a course that we shall simply have to rush along in an uncontrolled manner as far as the employment of Black labour is concerned, for we believe that this cannot do South Africa any good, because the White worker remains the key to the training and employment of Black workers and to better opportunities for them. If the White worker should feel that his security is being undermined, one would not only have industrial unrest but also find that he would be unwilling to train the Black worker, and where would we find ourselves then? Then we would have made no progress at all.

For that reason I should just like to say in conclusion that the Government will continue to train Black labour and to place them in employment in an orderly manner, but that this will always be done in such a way that we shall not be undermining the traditional position of the White person, for, Sir, if one should undermine his sense of security, South Africa will not have made any progress. With this realistic policy, this Government is determined to go on promoting the welfare of Black, Brown and White.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? It has been reported that the hon. the Minister said outside this House that he would forbid employers to conduct negotiations with unregistered Black trade unions. In my speech I asked him how he was going to do so and under what legislation. He still owes me a reply.

Sir, that hon. member is the new shadow minister of labour. [Interjection.] Sir, I shall reply to the hon. member’s question. When the hon. member quotes me, I do at least expect him first of all to quote me correctly. Where is that quotation; would he read it out? If he does so, I shall gladly react to it.

It appeared in all the newspapers.

If that is the case, the hon. member ought to have the quotation at hand. No, Sir, what I said was that if people tried to circumvent the Industrial Conciliation Act, the Government would step in. Nowhere did I say that we would forbid employers to conduct negotiations with Black trade unions. The provisions of the relevant sections of the Industrial Conciliation Act, which make provision for this matter, will be applied.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 15, Loan Vote N and S.W.A. Vote No. 5.—“Bantu Administration and Development”:

Mr. Chairman, may I avail myself of the half-hour privilege? Sir, we are here today to deal with the Government’s policy in respect of the Black people of South Afirca, a policy which has been described by some of the most responsible, some of the most moderate and some of the most prominent of the Black leaders in this country as “a discriminatory exercise doomed to failure.

Do you agree with that?

I will answer the hon. gentleman in the course of my speech with an affirmative. I propose, Sir, to examine the situation this afternoon in some detail to see to what extent that picturesque and very damaging description of the policy of separate development is correct. I shall deal initially with the second part of that label, that is to say whether or not this policy is a policy which is doomed to failure.

Now, what does separate development set out to do? Firstly it aims at dividing political control in South Africa on a geographical basis by giving to the Black people full, permanent and exclusive political control of some areas of South Africa which are called homelands and to the Whites full, permanent and exclusive political control of other areas of South Africa which we call the Republic. The object of any political power is not, however, merely to control areas of land. It is to control land and the peoples who live on that land, and there is a direct relationship between a political authority, the people under its control and the land under its jurisdiction. For any system of partition to work, for any system of partition to be workable, particularly a system of partition which aims at independence, these three factors must coincide, i.e. the political authority must have control of the people who live on the land under its jurisdiction. In so far as the homelands are concerned, these requirements are met. I leave aside for the moment—I will refer to it later—the question of the fragmentation of the homelands. But to solve the problem of the homelands in South Africa and the Bantu who live in those homelands is not remotely to solve the problem of Black-White relations in South Africa, because the bulk of the Black people do not spend their lives in the homelands and never will. In so far then as the policy of separate development is designed to give to the Black Governments full control and authority over the majority of Black people in the areas where they permanently live, that policy, Sir, is a failure, and its failure will increase in extent as the years go by. That, then, is the extent of the first failure of the policy.

Secondly, separate development was designed to free the Government and the people of White South Africa of pressures, both political and economic, from the Black population. It was designed to free the Government and the people of South Africa of two forms of pressure from the Black people, political pressure and economic pressure. Everyone recognizes that pressures of this kind inevitably arise where you have a large group of people permanently settled in a place and the policy was designed to free us and the Government of pressures from that source. In the economic field the policy has already failed, and I believe that the Government will accept that that is so, or rather they will say, I have no doubt, that it was never designed to deal with the economic field. You and I, Sir, know that in fact it was and that it has failed to do so. Job reservation is now becoming inoperative in many fields in which it was originally applied. Week by week the Black man is rising in the sphere of semi-skilled labour, and shortly he will be doing skilled jobs as well, and he is doing these jobs not in the homelands, and not even in the Black areas of White South Africa, but he is doing these jobs to an increasing extent in White South Africa proper. Indeed, in my lifetime—and I like to think of myself as not a particularly old person—the whole situation of the Black man in industry has changed. We have moved in my lifetime from a situation where under a South African Party Government, what the hon. gentleman would call an integrationist Government, the Black man did hardly any job in industry to a position where under a Government which advocates separate development there will in my lifetime be hardly any field of economic activity which is not open to the Black man in White South Africa. I believe that on those facts one can strongly and legitimately say that in the economic field the policy of separate development has been a total failure. Pressure from Black workers in the economic field, both on the White people of this country and on the White Government, is a matter of almost daily occurrence. Proof is to be found, if one needs it, in the recent strikes, most of which were illegal, and in the fact that the Government has had to igncre the law in that respect. If one needs proof in another field, one finds it in the growth of Black trade unionism in South Africa. We find that everywhere and it has recently been the subject of debate in this House. In the economic field, therefore, the policy of separate development has failed. It will increasingly be seen to have failed as the years go by.

Let us look now at the question of Black political pressure on the White man and on his Government. As I have said, the policy was designed to avoid this happening, to prevent the White people of South Africa and the White Government from coming under Black political pressure. What is happening in that field? Already at this early stage, in many cases before even the first Black elections have been held, the Black leaders of South Africa quite naturally—and I emphasize “quite naturally”—are using the urban townships in the White areas as the venues for their big political meetings. What do their speeches consist of, by and large? Their speeches are directed at the Black man in the White areas, at the laws which govern the Black man in the White areas, at the White Government and its administration of the White areas and they are directed at the behaviour of the White man in the White areas. The whole content of the major speeches of the Black leaders is almost exclusively related to the White areas and what goes on in the White areas. This is not a passing phase either. It will become accentuated as time goes on. As the Black population in the White areas becomes ever larger, so will the electoral power base of the Black leaders and the Black Governments shift increasingly to the White urban areas, if it is not there already. As the Black man ascends the economic scale in the White areas, something which he is already doing rapidly, the involvement of Black Governments and Black politics in White South Africa will develop to an ever-increasing extent. In short, far from separate development dissipating the political pressures stemming from the Black population, our White Government will to an ever-increasing extent come under pressure from the Black Governments in regard to its administration of the White areas. This is because the Black Governments will, to an ever-increasing extent, be under pressure from their voters in the White areas who are increasing numercially by the year. In what direction will this pressure take us? In what direction will this Government be moved as a result of that pressure? Quite clearly in the direction of the dismemberment of the policy of separate development, because that is what Black politics today is all about. Indeed, in my lifetime we will have reached the stage where there will be wide fields of administration of the White areas of South Africa where the South African Government will not be in a position to proceed with legislation and administration in respect of the Black people in White areas without getting the consent of the Black Governments in advance. I believe that we are already moving into that sphere at the present time and that the pressure in that direction will continue.

Separate development had a third objective, viz. to enable the White people of South Africa to live their lives, in the physical sense, separately from the Blacks, to travel separately, to play games separately, to live apart, to entertain separately, to learn separately, to shop separately and to buy postage stamps separately from the other races. This is the only sphere in which there has been a measure of success. This is the only sphere in which separate development has achieved some success and it is rapidly becoming the sphere in which the Government is most embarrassed by the policy. Can you believe it; the greater the success of your policy, the greater the embarrassment to your Government? That is the situation we have achieved after 26 years of the administration of this policy. What is the future course of events likely to be in the field of physical separation? Despite the views of some hon. gentlemen opposite, like the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Vryheid, who believe that this aspect of apartheid is both permanent and necessary to the policy of separate development, the Government has already begun to dismantle physical apartheid. There is no longer separation in many fields where it existed in the past. It has broken down in the field of air travel. It has broken down at the airports. It is breaking down in some hotels. It is breaking down in many fields in which it was previously operative at this level and that process of breaking down will, likewise, proceed apace. If I could borrow a phrase, the picnic in that respect is now over.

The only conclusion to which one can come after looking dispassionately at the policy of separate development is that it is a policy, in the words of the Bantu leaders, that is doomed to failure. If one looks at the intention of it maintaining an effective and permanent division of political control on a geographical basis between racially exclusive groups, which was one of its objectives, if one looks at its ability to free the people and the Government of White South Africa from Black political and economic pressure, which was another of its objectives, and if one looks at the continued physical separation of Black and White in daily life, which was its third main objective, one realizes that in every respect the description of the homeland leaders that it is a policy that is doomed to failure, has been proved correct. As events unfold it will be increasingly seen to have been proved correct.

I would like to look at the other aspect of this label, viz. whether or not this policy is a discriminatory exercise. There was a time when it was unashamedly discriminatory, but we have passed through that phase now and one finds apologists of the policy from the Government ranks today suggesting that it is not a policy which is discriminatory. No one can deny that this is an important factor, because, as I have said, large sections of the National Party now accept that one must move away from discrimination. I think the majority of people in this House today agree that one must move away from the situation of unjustifiable discrimination purely on the grounds of colour and race. That seems to be generally accepted. In the field of physical separation in the White areas, the policy was undoubtedly an exercise in discrimination, and in many respects this was wholly unjustifiable discrimination.

But I prefer to look for a moment at what is called “grand, apartheid” or “groot apartheid”, to examine whether in that field the policy can be justified as not being a discriminatory policy. It is often said that a policy which gives 13% of the land to a large portion of the population and 87% …

That is a hackneyed theory.

… to White ownership, is ipso facto indefensible. The answer usually given by gentlemen like the hon. member for Vryheid, is that Belgium must be discriminated against, because Belgium has far less land than France. Both arguments, I believe, are superficial and largely untenable. In Europe or America the question of who owns what land is largely unimportant. The important question there is whether the bulk of the people can exercise civic rights in the areas where they live and work, and whether they can share in the overall administration of the country in which they live and work. Those are the overriding questions. The fact that in Portugal 80% of the land, I believe, is owned by a small handful of families is unimportant in their society. The fact that in socialist Great Britain a few aristocratic families own half of Scotland is unimportant in their society. In fact, in Europe and America the great mass of people live out their lives without ever owing a square inch of land. And they live it out successfully, having all the rights of people in sophisticated countries. They do that, because whilst they may own no land at all, they can enjoy civic rights and they can share in the overall administration of the country in which they live. It is only here in South Africa, under a policy of separate development …

And in terms of your policy?

I shall come to my policy.

You will be pleased to get away from yours.

No, we want to hear yours.

The hon. gentleman would have much greater opportunity of hearing me if he kept quiet. It is only in South Africa under a Government which espouses a policy of separate development that land becomes the major bone of contention. Sir, this is a matter of the greatest importance at this time, and it will be, under this Government, in the years that lie ahead. The reason for that is that this Government barters. It barters with the Black man. It offers him land in the homelands in exchange for civic rights in the area in which he lives and works. That is the basis of the policy. It says to him that he cannot have any civic rights in Soweto, because he has tribal rights in the homelands. That is a barter, Sir. Civic rights in the place where a man lives and works are subordinated to tribal homelands. And, as you cannot stop pressure for civic rights, you are going to have limitless and continued claims for additional land; because separate development ties additional civic rights for the Black man directly and exclusively to additional land in the homelands. There is consequently, in my view, no doubt whatever that the policy, even in the field of “groot apartheid” is discriminatory; because the Government is pledged not to exceed the quotas laid down in the 1936 legislation. Pledge after pledge has been given to people of all races, based on the 1936 Act, an Act which was never intended to meet the aspirations of the Black people, either as independent States, or even in an industrial society in one State. It was intended to provide land for peasant farming under tribal ownership at a time when that sort of activity was the only occupation open to the great bulk of the Black people of South Africa. To that extent the 1936 legislation in its time largely succeeded. Can there be any doubt then that the policy of separate development is fairly and properly described as a discriminatory exercise which is doomed to failure?

Then there is the question of fragmentation. I talk of fragmentation and not of consolidation because with the exception of the Transkei—and I hope that the hon. members opposite do not throw the Transkei at me because it is an exception which I accept—consolidation does not exist and is not being planned by the Government at the present time. There is an element of partial consolidation being planned, but consolidation is not planned. The latest report of the hon. the Minister’s department has a useful map of the Bantu areas. I believe that I can say categorically that no one today can pretend that even if the Government’s partial consolidation proposals come to fruition—in my view there is even doubt about that—any of the homelands, with the exception of the Transkei, will be a viable state within the foreseeable future. There is a total absence of infrastructure and they and their nationals will to an ever-increasing extent be reliant upon and part of the economy of White South Africa. Their people will to a similar extent become subject to an increasing extent to the jurisdiction of the White Government.

What are the inescapable factors of the South African situation? I believe they are firstly that we in South Africa have built up a highly sophisticated economic and industrial machine which has inevitably brought about increasing inter-dependence both economically and politically between White and Black and that this is a process which cannot be stopped. I believe the second factor of our situation is that peaceful co-existence internally, the realistic defence of South Africa externally and the sustained growth of our economic machine demand irresistibly the abandonment of the policy of separate development. The third factor of our position today relates to group identity. The wish to preserve one’s own identity as part of a group regardless of what race one belongs to, the wish to have a domestic environment amongst one’s own people and the wish to have that security that springs from living in and bringing up one’s family amongst one’s own people are all immensely strong factors in the South African situation and they cannot and in my view they should not be ignored. They are desired by most people of all races and I believe that they are within the reach of a South African Government and within the reach of any government which applies the correct policy. At the level of the community, and I wish to emphasize that word, be it a district, a suburb, a neighbourhood or a town, you have a unit which is universally acceptable, which is viable and which can be administered as a homogeneous unit. The homogeneous community is really the only level at which separation is acceptable and at which separation is attainable. Above that you must link with somebody else and you must become part of a greater whole, because of the simple forces and requirements of administration. Those things make linking above that level inevitable. That is why the United Party believes in federation, because no other political structure can accommodate in a workable manner the strongly ingrained wish of most people of all races for group identity and the security that it gives them. No other political structure can combine that with the practical requirements of the South African situation, which demands both political and economic inter-dependence within the South African State. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister will tell us a lot about roads and bridges and development within the homelands.

So you know about that?

That is all very interesting, but it does not deal with the problem of Black-White relations within the Republic of South Africa. All it does is show what advances the Government has made in the sphere of regional self-government within the South African State. There is total agreement amongst us all on the need for that. The entire House is agreed that there must be regional development and a measure of regional self-government of the Bantu areas. There is no purpose whatever in our debating it further since there is agreement on those questions. Let us debate those questions on which there is not agreement and on which an answer is required in South Africa at the present time. The hon. gentleman who is in charge of this Vote once told us, a year or two ago, that it was five minutes to 12.

Yes, in respect of a certain thing. Do you know what that thing was?

Yes, nevertheless it was five minutes to 12. I would like to say that it is now 12 o’clock and that all over South Africa amongst responsible people of all races there is a sense of uneasiness at the direction this country is taking and as to what the future of this country holds. The reason for that uneasiness is to be found, I believe, in the fact that separate development is not seen to be providing a solution to our problems, that after 26 years separate development is not seen to be lightening the burden that rests on our people. That policy is rapidly becoming the politics of confrontation. What the people of this country want is not the politics of confrontation in the racial field but the politics of consensus. That can be achieved. It was achieved in broad measure by the United Party in one day of summit conference with the Black leaders. I emphasize “in broad measure”. That consensus has one essential prerequisite, viz. the abandonment for all time of the policy of separate development. It demands that one’s approach to the negotiation table should be on an entirely different basis and I believe it is that basis which we ought to be discussing in the two or three days that lie ahead for discussing the hon. gentleman’s Vote.

Mr. Chairman, just to warm up a little at the outset, I first want to say a few words. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana ended his speech on a note of “not politics of confrontation but politics of consensus”. He then referred to their so-called leaders’ conference with the Black peoples.

Why “so-called”?

If he uses that meeting in support of his argument, I want to ask him: Why was he opposed to the meeting at Mahlabatini? Why was he so furious about it that it almost led to a rift in his party? Surely that was the first step in that direction.

You saw that in the newspapers, did you not?

It was not only the newspapers that were discussing this matter; everyone was discussing it. The hon. member for Zululand … [Interjections.] I beg your pardon. The former member for Zululand, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, actually for only 30 voters there, is dreaminig if he imagines that that was such a wonderful unified consensus. It was no more a unified consensus than there was unity at Mahlabatini. Within a week after the Mahlabatini agreement with the tiger of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, namely the member for … Yeoville …

You are really struggling today, aren’t you?

Then the leader of the Zulu Government, Chief Buthelezi, himself made a symposium speech in Natal, in which he made statements which were in almost every respect completely divergent from and different to what had been boasted of in respect of the Mahlabatini agreement. [Interjections.] Now, with this conference …

Give us proof of that.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite must not become so excited. Why are they becoming so excited? Did I say the wrong thing? [Interjections.] It seems to me hon. members opposite still do not know how to sit still. That hon. member on the opposite side told an hon. member on this side a moment ago to sit still; then he would hear something. There are quite a number of hon. members opposite to whom this also applies. After the leaders’ conference which they held earlier there were, similarly, statements by Bantu leaders which were completely divergent. I referred to this earlier, and I am not going to discuss it any further now. I just want to tell the hon. member that I think he is relying on fictions if that is what he wants to base his party’s policy on.

I want to begin by saying this to the hon. member: During the election campaign in Natal I said something which infuriated him, and I want to repeat it. I want to repeat it here with a minor amendment because he exposed himself more blatantly here today than was the case during the election campaign. During the election campaign—I think it was in Greytown or one of those places—I said that that hon. member “out-Hertzogs Hertzog”. I want to say here today that I find this speech of his to be a wonderful example of what a political cross he is. He is a political cross between Hertzog on the one hand and Suzman on the other. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not take exception to that. There must be no misunderstanding on this score. I am saying this with reference to the hon. member for Houghton as well. I was talking about political cross—to the great relief of the hon. member for Houghton! Do you know what, Sir? We have been told of a great philosopher who possessed such a thorough grounding in philosophy that he once delivered an entire address on the existence of the Deity. Immediately afterwards he took the opposite thesis and presented it just as logically. All the hon. member needs is a tiny vision; then he will be able to state our policy as well as any of us on this side of the House are able to state it.

Better.

That hon. member says even better. At the moment I cannot believe that yet. He must first see the vision; then I might believe it.

The hon. member presented us here this afternoon with an entire semantic play on concepts. Not everything the hon. member said was correct. He simply takes an assumption and then elaborates on it. The hon. member said for example that the purpose for which the policy of separate development had been devised—as if it had been devised; surely it was not devised— was to create political power and to be able to escape from political and economic pressure. Sir, the policy of separate development is not something which has been devised like a policy of race federation around a table or in a locality where one can delight in all kinds of convivial things. The policy of separate development is nothing but a perpetuation of what is happening throughout the world with all peoples in all countries. [Laughter.] Sir, the louder the neighing and the hollower the braying, the more I know that what I am saying here is the truth. Sir, what is the purpose of separate development or multinational development; what is its real purpose? Its sole purpose is that it must provide, and must help every people, linked to its homeland, to obtain, opportunities for self-realization—in simple, straightforward words. This is the purpose which multinational or independent development has for Americans, Russians, French, South Africans, Australians and for any people in the world. That is all our policy envisages; to make it possible for a Zulu people to realize itself as a Zulu nation, linked to its homeland, and the same applies to the Venda and the people of Gazankulu, etc.

And the Coloureds?

Sir, just as one has driven hon. members on that side into a corner, they run to the Coloureds. When it is time to do so, then I will be able to express an opinion on this matter as well, but hon. members on that side know that I cannot, at this juncture, do so here, they are simply trying to run away from the point I am dealing with. Mutatis mutandis this applies in any case to the Coloureds as well, but the position of the Coloureds is not identical to that of the Bantu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having allowed me this little diversion.

Mr. Chairman, a people realizes itself in every respect, and if it is capable of doing so, then it realizes itself with its own strength which it is able to produce itself; in this way great peoples throughout the entire world have realized themselves. But not all the peoples throughout the entire world—and this Continent has produced the most examples—have been able to realize themselves; they had to find assistance in that process, and many of our Bantu homelands fall into the same category of African nations which need assistance in their self-realization, linked to their homelands, and that is the policy which we as Government are applying.

Sir, the hon. member also made a few other disconnected statements to which I just want to respond briefly. He referred to the labour pressure, the labour expansion, which will increase in the ranks of the Bantu. But, Sir, surely the hon. member knows that in South Africa Bantu persons are admitted to avenues or categories of employment only through regulations dealt with by the Minister of Labour, which topic has been discussed here for a few hours since yesterday. Surely it is not an open matter that any Bantu may simply walk into any avenue of employment here in the White area and be appointed there. Surely the hon. member knows that it has to be properly regulated. It is being regulated because the Bantu workers are present here in the White area in a secondary capacity, not in a primary capacity in the way that I and the hon. member himself are. Surely there is an order, a method, a dispensation, in accordance with which these matters are arranged. In other words, if a Bantu person or a group of Bantu persons rises to higher or other categories of employment, this is done in accordance with an orderly process which is permitted within our policy in terms of our legislation The hon. member seizes upon a fact and then distorts that fact as he wishes, and then he says things about it which he cannot prove. Sir, the hon. member tried to make a point in regard to Bantu leaders who addressed meetings in large Bantu residential areas in the White area. What is wrong with that? After all, the Bantu leaders have to make contact with their followers in the White area. In fact, Sir, we are helping them to make contact with their followers here in the Bantu area. Why do they come to speak to their followers here? The hon. member said something there which gave the lie to what he has said. They come to speak to their people precisely because there is a bond between their people here in the White area, whether it is Langa or Soweto, and their people in the homelands. Because that bond exists, the leaders are making contact with their people here, and we are encouraging this.

What do they discuss homeland matters or urban matters?

They discuss everything.

They discuss everything with their leaders. That hon. member, who is curled up so comfortably in his bench, also discusses everything under the sun, and a lot of nonsense to boot; this is a common occurrence in the political lives of some people.

Especially yours.

The hon. member said that the Government would still have to consult with groups of Bantu and with Bantu leaders on matters in the White area in respect of Bantu. Whereupon I said to him: “So what?” We have been doing this for a long time. If there are matters affecting Bantu persons in the White area and we draft legislation on these matters, then we consult the Bantu leaders and the homeland governments, in regard to such matters as labour bureaux and all kinds of other things which affect them. They are being consulted on those matters, but not on matters which pertain solely to us as Whites. The hon. member still has a very poor conception of the interaction between one people and another, and he still has to make a far more penetrating study of it. If he receives only a suggestion of a vision, he will wax lyrical about it.

This is all a dream.

The hon. member tried to make a point of the separate places which are then equipped and where one can buy postage stamps and do all kinds of other things, and this he attributed to the policy of separate development. Sir, that technique, that practice, of indicating separate places, entrances, amenities, etc., existed in South Africa long before the National Party began to apply its present policy.

It was done by their party as well.

The hon. member for Albany is very vociferous, but I want to furnish him with an example now from the history of his own party. The hon. member is pretending that things like this did not occur in the time his party was governing. The hon. member should look up the debates in 1948 and read about the signboards which Mr. Sturrock had had made and which they fetched from the Railway workshops at Salt River, signboards for Bantu, Whites and Coloureds which had to be affixed to the trains. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout revelled in this matter in this House in 1950. Sir, the indication of amenities for people—I want to tell you I think it is a reprehensible procedure to present all this as being nothing but wilful, deliberate discrimination to cause people distress. At about the time of the recent election I was walking along in Johannesburg and passed a big building there. Walking in front of me was a Bantu woman with a child on her back, in the city of Johannesburg, and it so happened that I saw all this. I looked at the new building, which really impressed me, because I had not been there for a long time, and then the woman suddenly disappeared from sight. When I looked round, I saw a signboard above an entrance there, about 30 to 40 yards from Johannesburg’s main post office, in the heart of the city therefore, with the words “Abafazi” on it, and she had gone in there. Sir, was this not a very great convenience? This is in the constituency of the hon. member for Von Brandis. He would do well to go and look at it himself. I am now asking you whether there should not be things of this nature for those persons as well? And there are many other benefits as well. You must not point to all these things which serve as indications to amenities for Whites and non-Whites, lifts in a building, or whatever it may be, as merely being a means of discrimination against people, for these things have tremendous advantages for all. It is a right, an opportunity, which is being reserved for him or her. It is a right of which he or she can make use, so that he need not use mine and I need not use his. I regret it that hon. members opposite keep on giggling about it in this way. [Interjections.]

Order!

No, Sir, you must not do anything about this. They are simply displaying a certain mentality and you must simply make allowances for it. [Interjections.] Rather a schoolmaster than a bumpkin.

But are you then like a dog which does not make use of such amenities? [Interjections.]

Order!

I have said on more than one occasion that it is a mistake and very unscientific to dismiss all these things as “discrimination”, simply because steps have to be taken against people. There are many of these measures which we apply which effect proper differentiation, which makes a distinction between people, not because the one is inferior to the other, but in order to draw a distinction between people in order to create opportunities and amenities for people. We state very explicitly in our policy—I said this here a moment ago— that the Bantu in the White area are present on a secondary basis and in a casual capacity. The Bantu are not primarily and fundamentally present here on the same basis as the hon. member for Durban Point and I are present here. The Whites are here because this is their homeland. That is why they have here the first claim and the first right to literally everything. The Bantu who are admitted here are not here on that basis. They have homelands in South Africa where they are in fact the primary people and we the secondary people. If, on the basis of this distinction, it is now said to those people who are here on a secondary basis: There you have your football fields, there you have your places of recreation, there you have your opportunities, etc., then I maintain that this is no ill-disposed discrimination, but a differentiation on the grounds of the factual basis of their presence in this part of the country.

The hon. member also referred to socalled fragmentation of South Africa and said that South Africa was being cut up into pieces, pieces in which there was no infrastructure whatsoever. The hon. member is now pretending that the subdivision of South Africa into Bantu homelands and White area is being done in order to create areas with a lack of infrastructure. However, the hon. member knows what the position in the Bantu homelands is. He knows that the Bantu homelands have been there from the earliest times, without any structure of any nature, but he also knows that we have already worked miracles in this regard. He knows this very well because he tried to poke fun at me by saying he knew I was going to speak about bridges, roads, dams, etc. He therefore knows what the facts are. However, he presents them in a distorted way. That is why I said that all that that hon. member needs to be able to see our policy, is a tiny vision. Then he will also be able to state our policy very well and effectively.

In regard to our policy I should like to remind hon. members that assistance is always rendered on a very positive and permanent basis to our Bantu homelands and Bantu peoples. Positive assistance, positive development, positive establishment of amenities and opportunities for development are regarded as being the current principle. I am going to elaborate on this quite extensively now, and perhaps I shall do so again when I participate in the debate again on a subsequent occasion. We have, in our work, lived up to the spirit of the trust idea, the spirit which is embodied in the 1936 Act. Then, too, this Government has, especially over the past 15 years, proved by word and deed, and demonstrated, how this trust idea should not apply forever in respect of the Bantu peoples, as if they were enfeebled and spiritually handicapped beings, and as if all that could be done for them was to serve and wait on them as if they could do nothing for themselves. This is an approach which is evinced in certain circles, but it is not our approach. Our approach is that this policy must be applied in a meaningful way, as we have also explained before. It must take place by way of creative selfwithdrawal. As the Whites withdraw themselves, so these peoples must be able to create for themselves. Or stated the other way round: As the peoples in the homelands are themselves able to create and do things, so we as Whites and as their guardians can ourselves withdraw from them. I could mention many individual and disconnected cases, but I just want to state a few general aspects of this matter, by way of general categories. Earlier this year already, during the censure debate. I discussed this matter a little, especially when I pointed out the progress that had been made on the political level. I reminded the hon. members at the time that at this stage we had eleven Bantu areas with their own governments, and a total of 60 Ministers, each with his own department. This did not exist before. Each of these departments is creating an infrastructure. Are departments themselves not institutional structures which have to be developed for a people? I pointed out how, within these departments, there had been a great increase in the number of Public Service posts, and how there had been a percentage decrease in the number of Whites working as officials in those departments. I pointed out how those departments had been set up. It is the policy to set up these departments in such a way that they can be readily transferred to an independent government, or even before the stage of independence, that departments which have work to do there are arranging matters in such a way that it is possible for divisions of those departments to be transferred readily to a homeland government, even if it is not yet independent. In this way, for example, my colleague, the Minister of Health, had a section of his own health administration in the Transkei as a subdivision of his own framework. This was transferred just as it was to a homeland government when that homeland acquired its own health department. This is also being done with other departments in other homelands with regard to the same territory, and also with regard to others. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications pointed out that he, too, was doing this. It is a planned, creative withdrawal which we are applying there.

Generally speaking I could just say, in respect of the Whites’ and the Government’s entire approach in respect of the homelands, that whereas, in earlier years, we had a system of control over those homelands, the emphasis has now shifted away from a controlling administration to an advisory administration, so that they may handle their own affairs. This is what happened to peoples who became independent, throughout the entire world. However, not all those peoples had a well-intentioned guardian who was at hand with well-intentioned advice and money to help them as is the case here in South Africa. On the level of education and training I want to remind you that here, too, we are withdrawing as a White administration on a colossal scale. The first withdrawal took place during the fifties when we took Bantu education out of the hands of the Whites, and made it a State concern. Subsequently, we handed it over from the Department of Bantu Education to the homeland governments, each of which has its own education department with a separate Education Act and powers. [Interjections.] They have changed it, yes. For better or worse, but they have changed it.

(Inaudible.)

But, Sir, it is their business if they change it in this way. This is in accordance with the principle of having their own rights, which is an integral part of their process of development.

In this regard I want to remind hon. members that the self-withdrawal of the Whites from the education of the Bantu has progressed to such an extent that the Flack people themselves have for some time been teaching their children in the primary schools of all Bantu peoples in South Africa. In respect of secondary education, it is pushing 90%. In this way the withdrawal has taken place. But in regard to education at university level, we have also carried out a great programme of creative withdrawal. First, the University of Fort Hare was withdrawn from the old basis on which it existed and was subsequently set up on a basis according to which Bantu persons themselves could help in its creation. In addition to that, other universities were established, viz. at Ngoya and Turfloop, universities for the Bantu, where it is possible to develop creatively so that these universities become all the more real to them as institutions. This cannot happen overnight. The development has taken place to such an extent that we already have 90 professors and lecturers of various ranks, Bantu persons, at these three universities. We began a few months ago to appoint Bantu persons to the councils of those three universities so that they could learn in that creative way the art or the technique of university administration.

I also want to mention to you the tremendous creative withdrawal which we have brought about in the sphere of health, to this extent that we have already established scores of Bantu hospitals and clinics in the Bantu areas throughout the whole of South Africa. As I said a moment ago, the Transkei already has its own department of health. In other homelands, the nucleus of such separate health administrations is already present, so that they can build up something like this and will in due course be able to have their own departments and their own Minister of Health. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of nurses and other paramedical Bantu staff members in these Bantu hospitals throughout the whole of South Africa. This is the process of becoming a nation, of national realization, as I said at the outset. Now, what has this to do with discrimination? This is the positive growth, the dynamics of a people in its forward course of development, on the way to its own destination. But hon. members close their eyes to this and sit and bray when one discusses it. In this sphere we still have a great backlog to make up. Although it is true that we have, in regard to the nursing profession, made great progress, there is a backlog as far as Bantu persons are concerned among all the various peoples, of medical practitioners, dentists, veterinarians, and these difficult professions. However, there are already quite a number of Bantu who are trained medical practitioners. Progress has already been made in this regard, and I hope that we will in the near future be able to take more positive steps.

Before I turn to the economic sphere, I first want to point out what is being done in the sphere of the administration of justice. In this sphere we have perhaps had the most striking example of where the controlling administration, applied by White individuals on behalf of a White authority, has been changed, and this has been done in respect of the Bantu Affairs Commissioners throughout the whole of South Africa. We have, to a great extent if not completely, changed and converted Bantu affairs commissioner administration—at least in the Bantu homelands. And we have not only withdrawn the Whites there and created new departments, administrations and separate governments. Their own people have also occupied those posts to an increasing extent, so that today, fortunately, we already have 28 Bantu persons, throughout the whole of South Africa, who are practising as magistrates. Every month and every year this number will increase. We have already paved the way for the establishment in the Transkei of a superior court of its own, not a superior court in its perfect form seen from the point of the Transkei, but one which will nevertheless grow and develop in that direction.

Then there is the economic sphere, on which I want to elaborate a little further. We have, with our creative self-withdrawal, worked miracles in the sphere of economic activities in an exceptionally short time and in an exceptionally difficult time, because hon. members must realize that as a smallish country in the world we do not have unlimited financial means at our disposal. Let us consider the position for a moment. I do not want to tire hon. members by enumerating a lot of minor points, but I do nevertheless want to present hon. members with an overall picture of the position, sketched in broad outline. There are hon. members on this side of the House who are able to go into this matter in greater detail, and I know that they are going to do it well. The economic sphere is perhaps an example of the most spectacular self-withdrawal which we could mention to hon. members. We know that in most homelands there was very little in the economic sphere which we needed to withdraw, for nothing was established in earlier years. In the Transkei the situation was different because earlier United Party régimes had seen to it that the wrong things had been done there, from which we now have to withdraw ourselves and have to establish new things in their place.

What wrong things?

I shall tell the hon. member now. But the hon. member must sit up straight so that he can hear properly. The hon. member ought to know that we have during the past ten to twelve years withdrawn a large number of Whites who, with vested rights, were entrenched in the Transkei. We have already spent approximately R32 million on the acquisition of properties of Whites. This includes land business premises, residential dwellings, business rights and all kinds of related matters. This amount was spent in the process of causing those properties to be transferred from the White people to the Black people of that homeland. We will probably have to spend even more than that to comply with the rest of the obligations in the Transkei. This process has been carried out in respect of commerce and in respect of all industries, such as dwelling houses and land in particular. We have also done other creative work in the economic sphere in the Transkei, as well as in the other homelands. We have done creative work in respect of commerce—the wholesale and retail trade—factories, mines, and we have during the past few years in particular done creative work in the industrial sphere with the introduction of industrial development on the agency basis in all the Bantu homelands. In some homelands this has been more successful than in others because the former were more conveniently situated, or because circumstances were more favourable for economic development and exploitation by the entrepreneur. It is in that sphere that the infrastructure, to which the hon. member referred a moment ago, was lacking. It was not a question of insufficient infrastructure; it was completely lacking. There was less of it than was necessary to form a basis from which to develop. To be able to do this we had to do literally everything in those homelands which was necessary for the establishment of proper economic development. We had to build bridges and roads, make provision for water supplies in various ways, we had to provide power and transportation, we had to construct buildings and even put up fences. We had to establish everything which was needed for proper planning and development. In respect of mining, I can inform hon. members that prospecting was carried out.

There is a host of minor matters which I could mention, but as I said a moment ago, I am going to confine myself instead to the major and general economic facts to show hon. members how we have with economic dynamics commenced creative work in a very short time and have already made great progress with it. I want to remind hon. members of one thing, and then the hon. member for Umhlatuzana—of whom I said a moment ago that he was a cross between Dr. Hertzog and Suzman —must allow his Hertzog blood to take over and go and make propaganda outside with what I am now going to say. Do you know, Sir, that we have in this Parliament, over the past ten years, appropriated R1 563 million for the Bantu homelands in the four provinces of South Africa, excluding South-West Africa? Did that money just disappear? Did nothing come of it? Were living monuments and creative work not brought into being with it? Let us take a little glance at this. I shall simply sketch the position in general outline. I shall confine your attention to a few aspects. I am going to confine it to the income that has been earned by Bantu persons in the Bantu homelands. I am going to confine your attention to labour which has been created in those Bantu homelands in this period of scarcely ten years. I am going to confine your attention to the over-all work and spending of the Bantu Corporations, actually to that of the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation.

These three corporations are not old. The oldest is the B.I.C. which was only established in 1959 and did not even commence operating immediately. The X.D.C. was only established in 1966, not even ten years ago and the Mining Corporation only in 1969. Nevertheless we can point out to you exceptional monuments which they themselves erected. I remind you of the fact, Sir, that we will, by 31 March 1975—this includes the financial year with which we are now dealing—have appropriated an amount of R134.6 million for share capital for the three corporations; this is only for the purpose of making capital available. Up to the year ending 31 March 1974, the year which has just ended, this amounted to all of R 100,4 million. With the moneys received by the corporations, as well as those earned from their own resources, loans have been granted to Bantu persons. Now, hon. members must bear in mind that loans are not granted to every person who puts in an application—a fact which so many of the Bantu persons who make application cannot understand. An applicant thinks that if he puts in a request, he receives a loan. Not all of them understand that there has to be economic justification for this, that the purpose for which he is requesting the money must be correct, that the security has to be there, etc. Hon. members opposite are businessmen, and therefore know what I mean, but that concept is not so clearly present among all the Bantu. We have granted loans of more than R18 million to 2 627 applicants for all kinds of purposes. In respect of the basic infrastructure we have established a very great deal. The X.D.C. alone has established infrastructure to the value of R8 million. The Bantu Investment Corporation has, in respect of the industrial agency establishment only, in respect of infrastructure, invested R5,6 million at places such as Babalegi, Sitebe and up there in Seshego near Pietersburg.

Is this for the last ten years?

The figures which I am giving you refer to the period since the establishment of the corporations. As I have said, the X.D.C. has been in existence since 1966, and the B.I.C. since 1959. Therefore the periods are not the same for all; the one is older than the other.

And the figures are for the two corporations together?

Yes, I gave the figures for the two together. I could give them separately, but I think that this would be going into unnecessary detail. I come then to the money which has been spent on agency work in the industrial sphere. I am referring to entrepreneurs who want to start factories within Bantu homelands—where there is nothing, as the hon. member said. The hon. member said that because there was nothing, one was not able to make a viable country of it, but let us see. The B.I.C. and the X.D.C.—I am not even mentioning the mines now—had up to 31 March 1974 established 115 entrepreneurs at various places. The investment of the corporations in these entrepreneurs and in the facilities for those entrepreneurs amounted to almost R36 million. Work was also directly created for 11 800 people. This happened over this period alone, and with this money only. As far as creation of work is concerned, this is a multiplication factor. The hon. member must listen. He is already sitting there feeling gleeful because the figures which I have just furnished now do not agree with the old figures which he picked up somewhere. I am telling him that this is only in respect of industrial work. In general, in respect of other kinds of work which was directly created—this is direct work of the corporations—the B.I.C. and the X.D.C. has during this year created more than 38 000 posts in which Bantu persons are working. Hon. members must also realize, if this is the direct work which workers were able to find, that there is a great deal of consequential work which results from this. It is an old economic rule to say that, roughly speaking, consequential work for one tertiary worker originates as against the work which is established for every worker in the basic industries, and the number of people who are dependent on that, is five or six times as much. We can therefore quite safely say that this work which I have just sketched for hon. members, the work which has been directly created for these people as employees, has resulted in all of a half million souls being able to make their living from it. [Interjection.] That is together with their children and dependants. Hon. members do not want to hear anything about the facts. The hon. member for Houghton can crease her forehead as much as she likes. All it does, when she pulls such an ugly face, is to make her look a little older.

Don’t be personal.

You don’t look so jolly young yourself.

The hon. member must leave me alone. I am proud of this old bald pate of mine. The hon. member for Houghton need not be afraid if she looks older because she pulls an ugly face.

May I ask a question? Mr. Chairman, I am a trifle worried because the figures the hon. the Minister is giving us now are in conflict with answers he has given me in the House. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether these figures he is giving now are official ones because they are in conflict with the figures he has already given me in this House.

The hon. member put certain questions to me. I do not have that question here. It may be that the question was framed differently. However, these figures I am quoting now are the corect and official figures in relation to the matters I am dealing with at the moment.

*I can also, for the sake of hon. members, elaborate further on the Bantu Mining Corporation, to show them how this corporation has in the very short period of barely four years, accomplished the carrying out of 315 prospecting surveys, and how 37 mine leases have already been finalized by this Corporation. I also want to furnish hon. members with a few other economic facts. In 1970, four years ago, the total income of Bantu persons in South Africa, excluding foreign Bantu from beyond our borders, amounted to a total of R1 804 million. In 1973 this amount totalled R3 688 million, compared to the amount of R778.1 million which it had totalled to in 1960. The per capita income of all South African Bantu therefore increased from R75 in 1960 to an estimated amount of R166 in 1973, an increase of 121%, while the consumer price index over the same period increased by only half as much, viz. 61,9%. I think this is a very fine and a very good comparison. I can provide hon. members with even further information. [Interjecjections.] But, Sir, there is more I can mention to you. I want to mention to you the per capita income of the Bantu. The figures which I have just furnished here are for the whole of South Africa. I now want to furnish you with the figures within the homelands. From 1960 to 1973 the per capita income of the Bantu within the homelands increased from R54,l per head to an estimated amount of R 132,7, an increase of 145,3%. Now, compare this again with the increase of 61.9% in the consumer index over that period. But, Sir, there are other things as well that we could enumerate to you. I should like to furnish hon. members with the figures in respect of commuters, i.e. those people who move back and forth from their homes within the Bantu homelands to their places of employment in the White area. Virtually all their earnings return to their homelands, for they return every day to their homes. The contributions of commuters to the incomes of their own homelands have increased in an impressive way. These figures refer to approximately 300 000 of them. In respect of the eight homelands, plus the Swazis who do not yet have a politically declared homeland, the amount increased from R173,3 million in 1970 to R282,5 million in 1973.

In three years the increase in the earnings of these commuters was 63%.

Sir, these are the people who travel back and forth, the migrant workers, to whom hon. members on that side of the House have referred here disparagingly. It is unfortunately the case that not all the money of the migrant workers returns to their homelands. In fact, it is estimated that only approximately 20% of the money which the migrant workers earn, returns to their homelands, but let us look at the figures in any case. I have the 1960 figure as well, but I am omitting it because the other figure which I gave here, is the 1970 figure. In 1970 the migrant workers earned approximately R345,7 million in this way, of which, as I have said, approximately 20% went to the homelands. In 1973 the figure was R547,7 million, an increase of 60%; in other words, the earnings of the migrant workers increased by 60%, and that of the commuters by 63%; these are very fine comparable figures which correspond and support and confirm one another.

Sir, what was earned within the homelands alone? The earnings which I have mentioned here are earnings for the most part if not exclusively in the White area. Within the homelands an amount of R 193,2 million was earned in 1970, and R275,5 in 1973, an increase of 42% within the homelands. I think this is an excellent and a good beginning for the first major period where momentum is being given to this development. The earnings of all homeland inhabitants, i.e. those who are earning wages within the homelands, those who live in the homelands and who are migrant workers, those who live in the homelands and who are commuters and travel back and forth every day—not those who are in the White area—amounted to R712 million in 1970 and to R1 105,7 million in 1973, an increase of 55%.

These are the earnings of all Bantu persons living in the homelands. Sir, I think these are figures which present a very fine picture of dynamic economic development of homelands which could in due course become increasingly self-supporting, or viable, to use the word of the hon. member.

†Mr. Chairman, it is evident that there was a rapid and a strong economic growth in these homelands from 1960 to 1973. The rate at which this economic welfare of the Bantu nations increased from 1960 to 1973 was made possible by one thing and one thing only, and that was the development programme undertaken by this Government: industrial decentralization, education, housing and the provision of infrastructure to which I have referred only briefly, as well as, of course, the maintenance of a generally high economic growth rate in South Africa in general. The contribution—and the point that I am going to deal with now is very significant and most important because it relates to the customs of the Bantu people—the contribution of subsistence production inside the Bantu homelands to the gross domestic product of the homelands decreased from 56,8% in 1960-’61 to 32,3% in 1971-’72, which means that they were engaged in production not only for subsistence purposes, but also for other economic purposes, which is so necessary in the Bantu homelands.

As the result of the scope of development programmes undertaken by the Government and its agents, the contribution of the public sector increased from 18,3% to 34% in the same period, and the contribution of the private market sector increased also from 26,7% to 33,7%, and this increase again can from 1970 largely be attributed to the implementation of our agency system in the industrial field, to which I referred just now, and also to the increase in mining activities, especially in the Bophuthatswana and the Lebowa areas because there are good prospects for mining entrepreneurs there. It is therefore clear that the development programmes of the Government have brought about important changes in the economic activity of the homelands and important improvements there also. The gross national income of the homelands of South Africa, i.e. of Bantu persons and non-Bantu persons resident in those homelands, increased from 1962 to 1970 from R56,76 per person to R96,45 per person, which is an increase of 71%, which can now again be compared with the other figures I gave a moment ago.

What was the date?

That was from 1962 to 1970. That is the gross national income of the homelands, and this gross national income of the homelands for 1970 was— and I say this for the special edification of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who referred to other countries and the non-viability of these Bantu homelands—with the exception of countries where local Whites contributed largely to the economic activity, much higher than in most of the countries in Africa. The hon. member can examine the figures of countries in Africa and he will find high figures where you have strong components of White populations in those countries. If you compare our figures with those of African countries near to the South African homelands, you will see that we have a very good record in this respect.

*Sir, I should still like to reply to the other aspects which the hon. member touched upon in regard to the Bantu in the White areas, but I shall do so on another occasion.

Mr. Chairman, we have listened at length to the Minister relating to us his Government’s part in the development of the homelands. He would not expect us to react to all the figures he has given us tonight.

I will give you a year’s time.

We will need a year to check them up, because these figures given by the Minister sound very much like the figures given to us by the present Minister of Sport, Dr. Koomhof, when he was Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. I remember that in criticizing our policy of allowing families to live in the urban areas, in the case of permanently urbanized workers, he gave the figures of African women and children who would flock in to the cities at once, and you will remember. Sir, that they were more than all the inhabitants of the Reserves. [Interjections.] Yes, that is right. So we get these figures and the Minister himself says that he cannot tell the hon. member for Houghton whether the figures he was giving now were the same as the figures he gave to her previously bcause he did not have the question before him, but the suggestion is that the figures may differ according to the question.

You know that questions can be asked about different categories.

Yes, and the answers can also differ. [Interjections.] What surprised me, with all the development he has told us about and the increase in the income in the homelands, is that this is not reflected in the speeches by the homeland leaders. They do not tell us this. What they complain about is the lack of employment. What did Prof. Ntswanwisi say the other day? He said: We have to exist on hand-outs from the Government; our Reserves have to exist in that way. If one goes to the Reserves, to the Transkei, one sees the people flocking out of the Transkei to get work. Although the hon. the Minister stated that the per capita income in the Reserves had increased I suggest that these incomes have in fact grown because more and more Bantu are going out of the Reserves to work. The income is greater because they are sending their money back to the Reserves. The Minister started off by telling us about the policy of separate development, about “elke volk” having “verwesenliking van sy tuisland”. When he was asked about the Coloureds he said that he could not discuss that. I think this Minister believes in a “tuisland” for the Coloureds. He supports Connie Mulder, the Minister of the Interior, and the hon. member for Waterberg. He also told us the pathetic, or should I say lucky, story about the woman and the abafazi notice. Those notices, however, have not suddenly appeared because there is a Nationalist Party in power. These notices were there before. Before the Nationalists came into power we had notices of this nature. We did not have laws to put up the notices and we did not have laws to force people to make use of them. We did without the laws. The complaint about this Government and its application of petty apartheid is the laws they have introduced to bring about the present situation.

You want apartheid without the laws?

I do not want apartheid at all but we used to have separation without laws. We lived without those laws. One does not force people to live together and to do things together. We do not advocate that and we never have. The hon. the Minister referred to this policy of differentiation, as he called it. He said it was not a question of discriminating against one person or another because he was inferior. In terms of this policy of differentiation and with the separate abafazi notices and what not, I want to know from him what happens when a person of the same colour, a South African Black man, wants to make use of facilities provided for foreigners in South Africa? How would he be treated?

What is your policy concerning that?

What is the difference? Why can foreign Blacks go to the most expensive hotels? Why can they travel in buses and not the South African Blacks?

Why have you got a Select Committee on liquor for Blacks. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Minister has told us about the efforts this Government is making to develop the Reserves. His contention is, of course, that they are preparing the homelands by way of separate development for eventual independence. They have given them a start and will prepare them for that independence. From the Prime Minister a week ago, we had the statement that the Chief Minister of the Transkei, through his Assembly, had made a request to the Government to proceed with the implementation of its policy within five years. This policy we have heard so much about was supposed to culminate in independence, but no one really expected this to come. If it was to come, it would be very far in the future. At last we are now being told that it will come in five years time. That will probably be in the lifetime of Jhis Parliament. The Prime Minister, in referring to the resolution passed by the Transkeian Assembly, read out the conditions on which they were prepared to accept independence. Of the two that concern me most, the first is that the land promised to the Transkei in terms of the 1936 legislation of the Union of South Africa be granted to the territory within a period of five years. The Prime Minister said, in replying to a question, with reference to this request, that the land promised in 1936 would be transferred within five years. I want to ask this Minister, because the hon. the Prime Minister could not answer, what land was promised to the Transkei in 1936. A quota was promised for the country as a whole and the only reference to the Transkei was in scheduled and released areas. As far as the released areas are concerned, there is no contention. The hon. the Minister nods. There is therefore no argument with the Chief Minister of the Transkei about the commonages, and the small villages in the Transkei. But we want to know what land was promised to the Transkei—and I am now not talking about the Bantu as a whole—in the 1936 Act.

It can only mean a share …

We want to know where the boundaries are, and so does the Chief Minister. The second demand of the Transkeian Assembly was that such a grant should not prejudice the right of the Transkei to the districts originally planned.

But what is the point you want to make?

This Government is now negotiating with the Transkeian Legislative Assembly for independence. When final agreement has been reached we in this House will only be presented with a fait accompli by this Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister and we will then have no say. We want to know, and we have the right to know, what this Government intends giving to the Transkei, because this is a definite condition laid down.

And you will hear that in due course.

But when will we hear it?

I have already given you an indication.

We have asked for this time and again and now it comes up pertinently because the Chief Minister of the Transkei has made this a condition of independence and we also know that the Prime Minister has said that he would get the land within five years.

Are you against that?

That hon. Minister does not know anything about it. He must keep quiet and let this Minister answer. He sees the embarrassment of the Deputy Minister beside him, because he has been taking the blame. We want the Minister to give us the answer, because this land question is a very pertinent one. The Chief Minister of the Transkei, in addressing his Assembly on this resolution, dealt only with land. He referred to a speech which he had made in the same Assembly in 1972 when they discussed a similar resolution. He then told them about the other land he wanted as well. He wanted the districts of Elliot, Maclear, Matatiele and Mt. Curry. He was given to understand, and we were given to understand by the Prime Minister and by this Minister, that he would not be given that land in the same way that he was told that he would not be given Port St. Johns. The department has made certain recommendations and we fear that this Government, in its anxiety to get Chief Minister Matanzima to ask for independence, will give him the land he wants despite their promises to the contrary. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has been chasing up a few hares. He knows that the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the only basis on which land will be granted, is that of the 1936 Act, and not on the basis of demands that are made. The hon. member asked what land in the Transkei would be granted, but now I should like to ask him whether he is in favour of more land being granted to the Transkei. He will not reply to that question. As regards the outstanding quota of land in terms of the 1936 Act, will the hon. member tell us whether he is in favour of more of that land being granted to the Transkei? Then the hon. member also revealed his complete ignorance. He asked why they would have no say. But who is going to grant that land in the end? It will be this Parliament that will grant the land and which is going to decide on it. Surely the hon. member knows this. So why does he tell the Minister that he, too, wants to have a say?

The hon. member went on embroidering on the same pattern as that of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Their theme was that apartheid, or separate development, had failed since it allegedly was discriminating. During the past session we witnessed one thing, and that was that the United Party virtually broke its back in the process of stretching out to reach the Progressive Party. Those two parties are virtually at one today and differ in respect of one point only, and that is the degree to which they discriminate against the other population groups. In this debate that lies ahead, we shall have an attempt by the United Party to tie the label to the National Party that our policy is discriminating. However, I want to tell them that our policy has the potential of eventually eliminating all discrimination and supposed discrimination by means of self-determination. But the policy of those hon. gentlemen, as well as that of the Progressive Party, does not have this potential because both are heading for perpetual discrimination or, otherwise, for the downfall and surrender of one of the population groups.

I want to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that he learnt one of the fictions he propagates from the hon. member for Edenvale. The hon. member for Edenvale said in another debate that the 1936 Act did not provide for all the political aspirations and needs of the Bantu people. On the contrary; he said that it was only in 1959 that any thought was given to that and that the attitude adopted by the Whites prior to that date was to break the political power of the Bantu peoples in the homelands. Today the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said the same thing. He has never said that before, so he has taken over one of the fictions of the hon. member for Edenvale. I want to tell the hon. member that he should study the history of his own party. Gen. Smuts said in London in 1917 that in the end the Bantu peoples would govern themselves in their own areas and that the Whites would govern themselves in their own area. Gen. Botha said that as far back as 1912. In 1948 the National Party said in one of their election pamphlets that the homelands would become the fatherlands of the Bantu peoples, in other words, they would receive political rights there. Sir, the Act of 1936 dealt with land, and surely political and economic aspirations are not described in an Act dealing with land. But that land was purchased, for the very reason that the National Party and the United Party foresaw at that stage that the political aspirations of those peoples would have to find expression in those areas.

But I want to go further, Sir, and point out to you just how fictitious this is. The hon. member for Edenvale said that it was only in 1959 that thought was first given to giving political content to these homelands. Now I want to tell you, Sir, that in the Journal of International Affairs of 1957 he wrote the following:

This is what that hon. member said.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.