Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? It has been said before that the Cabinet is very much like a board of directors of a company. In the sense that there is a close resemblance between running a business and running the business of the State, this analogy is useful to us in assessing the various portfolios. The hon. the Minister of Labour is very much in the position of a director of personnel. He is the manpower man. We here in Parliament have the opportunity once a year—and this in actual fact is the essence of Parliament— to assess the hon. the Minister’s performance against certain minimum requirements. We do not have in mind the kind of poll that was conducted by the Rand Daily Mail recently. The hon. the Minister did not shape too well in this poll but I do not wish to push that particular issue at the moment. We also realize the hon. the Prime Minister’s sensitivity in this regard. I should like to say that those of us on these benches have also developed a certain sensitivity to this kind of poll and it will probably be left to the hon. member for Sea Point to learn that whilst it is bad to have an albatross around you, it is infinitely worse to have a Pegasus around your neck. [Interjections.]

What we want to advance as our main theme in this particular debate is that the Government’s labour policy has come to the end of the road and that in view of the very dramatic advances around us it is necessary, and urgently so, that there be sweeping change. If it were necessary for us to obtain support from outside, for this view we could obtain no better support than the report which has just been published of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. In the portions of that report dealing with labour, every single thing we have said over the past five years has been fully vindicated. The question arises now, if the Government has got a high-powered body of this kind, if the Government has got an Economic Advisory Council, is the Government going to take notice of the recommendations that council makes? We have ample evidence to show that in the past the Government has not done so. It is quite clear that where one has important people devoting their time to this kind of activity, one has either to take notice of what they say or else one has to disband such a council altogether.

Drop their blinkers!

In looking at the portfolio handled by the hon. the Minister, it is clear to us that in his capacity as director of manpower, the hon. the Minister controls a vast amount of money and he has had vast powers vested in him. The Budget which we have before us provides for an amount of about R18 million for the Department of Labour. The hon. the Minister has a staff of more than 2 000 people who are permanently assigned to this department. Whilst this may be small by government standards, the body of people concerned with this particular department is very substantial by any other yardstick.

We want to discuss with the hon. the Minister in particular the function and activities of his department but before doing so, there are two smaller matters that I want to raise. The hon. the Minister also has certain administrative obligations. For example, he is in charge of certain funds which fall under the general heading of social security. Latest reports indicate that the Unemployment Insurance Fund which is administered by his department has invested an amount of R160 million with the Public Debt Commissioners. This is a vast sum of money. It is perfectly proper to have insurance in life but when one overinsures, it is either bad business or else it shows that one has qualms about one’s own chances of survival. Where the hon. the Minister has the vast sum of R160 million in his Unemployment Insurance Fund, we would like to know where he is going to draw the line. How much additional money does he want? Does he not think that if one has this kind of money in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, people might construe it as a lack of confidence in the economic future of South Africa?

There is a second fund which the hon. the Minister controls, viz. the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. According to reports, this fund has an annual income of about R32 million and the statutory reserve at the moment stands at R42 million. The same question arises in this regard. We want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he regards these reserves as adequate or whether he wants to continue to accumulate reserves and, if so, what does he have in mind to do with this money?

What we are primarily concerned with here today is to discuss with the hon. the Minister the duties and functions of his particular department. We have the distinct impression that there is uncertainty as to what these powers and duties ought to be. We would, in fact, like to get from the hon. the Minister himself his understanding of his primary tasks. As far as this activity of manpower control is concerned, it seems to us, particularly at the present time, that it is vitally important that lines of communication and areas of authority be clearly demarcated. We want to suggest that, in looking at the labour issue, there are two ways in which one can approach it generally. One can decentralize this activity altogether, in which case each Minister will handle his own labour issues individually—the hon. the Minister of Mines will look after mining labour, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture after agricultural labour and so forth—but experience elsewhere in the world has shown that in view of the importance of labour, in view of the fact that it is so closely integrated with one’s entire economic activity, it is desirable to centralize the labour activity to the greatest possible extent. In South Africa at the moment we believe that it is not at all clear where the Government stands on this issue. When we raise the question of disturbances on the mines, it is the hon. the Minister of Mines who replies not the hon. the Minister of Labour. We get the impression that the Minister of Labour feels that his area of jurisdiction does not go beyond the Industrial Conciliation Act, and in fact he does not operate unless the matter is covered by an industrial council agreement. On the other hand, the jurisdiction of the Minister of Mines is limited by the Mines and Works Act. The moment you begin to involve Black people, then it provides a temptation for the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to interfere, a temptation which he can never resist. We find at the moment, for example, that training schools for Black people are somehow under the control of the Minister of Bantu Administration. When there is talk, as there is at the moment, of designing a charter for migratory workers, then the initiative is taken by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. We regard this as a very laudatory effort and we support him fully, because we have asked for this over a long period of time. But, Sir, where does the Ministry of Labour fit into this? If it is a charter for migratory workers, one would expect the Department of Labour to take the initiative, but somehow this is not done. I want to say that there is every evidence at the moment that the Minister of Labour is being by-passed, because the great employers of labour find that some of the colleagues of the hon. the Minister are more flexible and less pedantic in their interpretation of Government policy. They find that this hon. Minister, instead of being a source of encouragement to them, is a source of harassment, and hence they tend to by-pass him. Although this may work well in practice, it means that in the Department of Labour itself, where we have a vast degree of expertise, where we have a tremendous amount of competence, this expertise, this know-how, this competence, is not available to South Africa on the widest possible front.

Sir, there is another way, too, in which one can look at this general problem. In the past we have tended to think in terms of White labour and Coloured labour and Black labour. This obviously has a relevance; it always has had and will continue to have a relevance, but every piece of research that is done nowadays suggests that the basic needs of workers are the same, and I believe that what seemed to us at one stage to be clear demarcations and boundaries will in time to come tend to become blurred. I think the sooner we can begin to think in this country in terms of workers as such, the better. But, every time we talk about labour—and I have just taken the trouble to look through the debates of the last two or three years—what we get from the hon. the Minister and those who support him on that side is that they see themselves as the campaigners for the White workers, and they say so every time; they say, “They vote for us; they have put us here, and they will always vote for us.” This is an odd assessment of the Minister’s task as Minister of Labour. Surely the hon. the Minister of Labour must cope with all labour in both the functional and in the ethnic sense. It is only when you begin to see yourself as being in control of all forms of labour and as being helpful to all forms of labour that you are discharging your function, and surely that must be the Government’s philosophy. We are told that there is going to be no discrimination in future. On this issue, too, we would like the hon. the Minister to tell us precisely how he sees his task and where he stands. If we relate this to what Dr. Norval wrote in Rapport over the weekend—and he dealt with other Government departments —then this much is clear: We have here an organizational structure in the Cabinet that has not changed fundamentally over the last 50 years. Our suggestion would be that the hon. the Prime Minister should immediately look into the whole Government organizational system, because there are quite obviously gaps and hiati and also overlaps. The whole organization must be streamlined and restructured.

Sir, as I have indicated, what we really want to discuss with the hon. the Minister today is his primary function, his primary duty, as he sees it. Whenever we have a debate, what we get from the hon. the Minister tends to be negative. He always says, “ons sal nie die sluise ooptrek nie”, or he says, “Job reservation will go over my dead body.” It is always negative. There is never anything positive from him. We have never heard the hon. the Minister say, “I am going to make it my task to increase productivity by 5% during the coming year.” We have never heard him say: “I am going to give South Africa 20 000 new artisans within the next year.” There is, in fact, never anything positive; there is always this negative approach. He never tells us what he is going to do for the country, but he always tells us what he is not going to permit.

We shall put to the hon. the Minister our approach for the labour problem and we would like him very much in this debate to spell out what his policy objectives are. We have indicated in the past that we take our stance on the following issues: We will study the labour needs and requirements of the economy and we will co-ordinate them on a nation-wide scale; we accept that Black workers in the urban areas are a permanent element of our industrial force and we will deal with them accordingly; and we recognize that it is necessary to provide statutorily for collective bargaining rights for all workers. In this connection we have said that while we accept the works committees and the liaison committees system, we see these committees as complementary to and not as a substitute for trade unions, and we have said that we recognize the right of trade unions to negotiate agreements enforceable in law. We have indicated that we are opposed to the reservation of work on the basis of a person’s skin colour, and we have indicated that we would apply realistically the principle of equal pay for equal work entailing equal responsibility. We have indicated that we would make a point of providing vocational education for workers and extend apprenticeship training to all race groups. We have said that all workers irrespective of race should enjoy the full social security benefits commensurate with their employment categories. And we said, finally, that we would implement labour policies dictated by the human and economic needs of South Africa and its people and not by ideological considerations. Sir, that is what we take our stance on. We would like to hear in this debate where the hon. the Minister disagrees with those policy issues that we have put forward. We would like to hear from him precisely what his policies are. Because, you see, Sir, there is now a new situation in South Africa. We are told that there is going to be no discrimination in future and consequently the hon. the Minister will obviously have to make major adaptations to his labour policy. I can think of no better opportunity to put these forward than precisely during this debate.

But, I will indicate where the differences lie and I want to mention just one or two aspects to show where the differences lie. An important field is that of productivity because this is one which is emphasized in the report of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. This body has indicated the steps that ought to be taken. But what is not generally realized, is that the wealth of the country in per capita terms is directly related to the productivity of its labour. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister —because he will never give us these statistics—that productivity in South Africa is at the moment at a disastrously low level. In comparison with most of the economically advanced countries of the world, the growth in our productivity is very much lower. We are, in fact, at the bottom of the league. Recently, at a symposium in Sweden, they dealt with precisely this issue, and I want to give the committee just two different indices. The first one which they used at this symposium in Sweden, was the output per unit of input, which is an ordinarily understood index in the productivity field. Here they dealt with the issue and expressed it as a percentage. They quote 12 different countries. In France it was 82%, in Belgium it was 74%, in the United Kingdom it was 54% while South Africa was way down at the bottom of the league at 23%. But this is not the kind of statistics that we will hear in this House from that side, because anything not in favour of that Government is conveniently forgotten and swept under the carpet. But let us look at the manufacturing industry, which is one of the most important sectors in productivity. I might just remind the hon. members that whilst in 1920 manufacturing was responsible for only 7% of our GNP, at the moment it is responsible for about 25%. What they used here too is an index called PLU, i.e. the production per labour unit. They made a comparison between the 17 developing countries in the world. They took 1963 as their basis with an index of 100%. They then expressed what the productivity of these countries was in 1972; which was 10 years later. For Japan it was found that the index then was 228%. This means that their productivity had more than doubled over the 10 year period. For a country like Canada the index was 142. Again, however, we find that South Africa by a significant margin is way at the bottom of the whole list. Our index is 102. What this means is that, over a period of 10 years, the increase in productivity in South Africa as expressed in the PLU index had gone up by only two points. This means that we have run very far and have worked very hard in order to stand still and to remain exactly where we were.

I think we are entitled to an explanation from the hon. the Minister of Labour. He is in charge of labour, while the whole productivity issue centres around the employment and utilization of the available human resources. I think this Committee should demand an explanation from the hon. the Minister of why these figures are so low. But the answer is, in fact, simple, We can tell the hon. the Minister why. The explanation for this low productivity figure is locked up in two little words, i.e. “Government ideology”. One of the things that gives great impetus to growth in productivity is mobility of labour. This means that labour must be able to move laterally from your less productive sectors in the economy to the more productive ones. This Government, however, is stopping what ought to be a natural movement through the application of the Physical Planning Act. Secondly, labour must be mobile in the sense that it must move vertically, from lower paid and lesser skilled jobs to higher paid and higher skilled jobs. Here, again, the Government is blocking it through the application of its job reservation procedures. What ought to give normal impetus to increased productivity is by way of deliberate Government policy, in this case being blocked.

What also leads to a low growth in productivity is poor training. Here again, it has been shown in America that the national income was increased by 22% as a result of improved and increased education and training. In this regard we know of all the difficulties we have had in the past to get the hon. the Minister to accept the need for dynamic new initiatives in training. How well we remember it, when we talked about a crash training programme, how the hon. the Minister sneered at us. Recently, however, we found that Prof. Hennie Reynders—certainly his bona fides should be acceptable to the Government—expressed himself as follows when talking about the Government’s responsibilities in this field. He said—

Does the Government still sneer at us? Prof. Sadie indicated only a few months ago that by 1980, which is only five years away, 2/3rds of the industrial work force in South Africa will be Black and they will have to provide their own substructure of managers and technicians. What is the Government doing to meet these requirements? That is what we would like to know and that is what this debate is about. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister has any idea of the magnitude of the task that faces him. If he cannot meet these requirements, it in fact amounts to sabotage of South Africa’s interests.

The Economic Development Programme, to turn to another issue, says that in order to attain this growth rate, which they have specified as being 6,4%— let us be honest about it they would have liked to set a higher one, but they cannot do it because we do not have the skilled manpower—is dependent on getting a net immigration figure of 30 000 people a year. We are not going to get anything like it, because the hon. the Minister of Immigration is so busy adjusting the Government’s sports policy that he cannot cope with immigration. Even if we did meet this net immigration of 30 000 people per year, the EDP makes it quite clear that there would still be a need for 60 000 skilled workers. Again we ask the hon. the Minister: “Where are these going to come from? Where are the schemes he has in mind at the moment to give us those skilled workers?” Unless we can get these skilled workers we do not have a chance of meeting the economic development target figure.

I turn to just one other issue. The Government has told us that they will close the wage gap in South Africa. The Prime Minister is committed to it, because he said that he would close the wage gap. What is the situation at the moment? I do not think hon. members realize what is happening. It is quite clear that the disparity is still immense. Jan Marais has given the per capita-income of the White man in South Africa today as 3 150 dollars. For the Coloureds he gives a figure of about one tenth of that, viz. 350 dollars. For the Black man he has given a figure half of that of the Coloured man, viz. 185 dollars. In manufacturing industry, which is at least that sector of the economy where there ought to be a much smaller gap, we find according to figures given recently by the FCI, that the average income for Whites is R400 per month and for Blacks R70 per month. What this means is that the gap is the equivalent of 80% of the White rate. Put differently, it means that the wages of the Blacks will have to be increased by six times in order to catch up with those of the Whites. Now, every time we hear from the Government that they are closing the gap, because when the Whites get a 10% increase the Blacks have often been given a 20% increase. This, in their arithmetic means closing the gap. Of course it does not do anything of the kind. In absolute terms it means that the gap is increasing. In fact, this is borne out by statistics which were recently released by the Department of Statistics, whereby they show that in 1969 the gap between average White and Black wages was R229 and that in 1973 it had jumped to R312. We want to know what the Government has in mind and how this Minister is going to close this gap. He is faced with a very difficult situation. Whereas in a country like America, the ratio between the earnings of skilled workers and unskilled workers is of the order of 1½:1, in South Africa the ratio between the earnings of skilled workers and unskilled workers is of the order of 8:1. What is this due to? First of all, it is due to differences in educational level between, generally speaking, White and non-White workers. Secondly, it is due to differences in job structure. Thirdly, it is due to differences in industrial bargaining procedures and, fourthly, it is due to the fact that there is unemployment among the Black people. Some people estimate that, at the moment, this unemployment figure is growing at the rate of almost 100 000 people per year. Here we have a commitment by the hon. the Prime Minister, who said that he was going to close the wage gap while the figure that I have given, point to the fact that the wage gap is, in absolute terms, in fact increasing. Again we want to know from the hon. the Minister what he is doing about it, what his policy is and what constructive steps are being taken by him to make sure that this gap will be narrowed. He cannot do this unless he completely restructures the whole of the work force. Here again, he will immediately have difficulty as far as his own ideology is concerned.

I refer just to a simple issue like job reservation. [Interjections.] I do not know why hon. members are so unhappy to hear about job reservation. The hon. the Minister has said only over his dead body will job reservation go.

We are tired of you.

The hon. member must tell us what his reactions and solutions are. Dr. Willem de Villiers—his credentials should be acceptable to the Government, because he is the managing director of General Mining—said recently that job reservation was a dead letter and that if we want to meet South Africa’s economic commitments it should go.

I refer now to the recent negotiations in the building industry, and specifically to the recommendations that have come from the tribunal, recommendations which were accepted by the Minister with alacrity. One must remember what is happening in the building industry. We do not have enough artisans and we cannot fill the skilled positions. That is why building costs are skyrocketing as they are. The Government in the meantime, to circumvent this, has introduced a new category of labour called “first-class workers”, whom they say could be Black, and who, in fact, generally would be Black, who could do all sorts of jobs previously done by Whites. The department must, of course, operate within the framework set by the Minister, and against this background the department now issues a statement about job reservation. If one can find a statement which is more confused or more indicative of the failure of Government policy, I still want to see it. This is what is said in this statement; these are the recommendations which have been accepted by the Minister—

1. (1) That work reservation must be retained, but that it ought to be applied on a more uniform basis than at present.
2. (2) That rural areas ought to be excluded from work reservation.
3. (3) That work reservation ought to be applicable to urban areas falling under the jurisdiction of Building Industrial Councils only, but then also to some other important growth points where Industrial Councils have no jurisdiction, i.e. Richards Bay, Rustenburg and Pietersburg.
4. (4) That the Industrial Council areas of Kimberley and others, where circumstances are the same as those pertaining in rural areas, must be excluded from work reservation.
5. (5) That certain work which is less skilled, and which is normally no longer being performed by skilled artisans, ought to be excluded from work reservation.
6. (6) That Coloured artisans ought to be permitted more readily to perform skilled work in the industry, even also in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, subject, however, to certain conditions and not to the detriments of Whites.

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there is an old English proverb which says “small things amuse small minds”. The hon. member obviously took great delight in the evaluation survey which the Rand Daily Mail conducted. However, I want to ask him to evaluate his party by conducting a test among the voters of South Africa. There will be no result to register. They had the opportunity last week of putting up a candidate in the Overvaal constituency and of stating their labour policy there, but they ran away. Overvaal is out and out a workers’ constituency. They should have tested their party there. During this session, the United Party have very clearly shied away from labour questions. On no occasion did they want to talk about labour matters, and therefore we are glad that we can address each other directly on this matter today. If it had not been for the motion which was introduced by the hon. member for Hercules during the session, we would not have been able to have spoken about labour until now. I shall indicate why the hon. member avoids labour matters and just refered to them obliquely during the course of this session. It is because there is labour peace in South Africa. They can only raise a hue and cry when things are going badly for South, Africa. The hon. member quoted a number of figures here, but what, however, is the real position? South Africa is one of the few countries in the world which have economic growth, and prosperity. Those are the facts talking. However, it is tragic when one listens to those hon. members, to hear that they always refer to job reservation. I am also going to deal with it in case they think that we are running away from it. Their argument is as old as the hills and is repeated here year after year. They are the people who say all day, “Remove job restrictions such as influx control and job reservation”. Section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, in other words, should be removed from the Statute Book. We have been hearing that story for the past ten years already. Even during this session, the hon. member for Maitland made a plea during the discussion of the motion of the hon. member for Hercules that the Government throw off the shackles of job reservation. I then asked him whether he meant that we should abolish job reservation in South Africa. He answered in the affirmative.

I still do.

I am pleased that the hon. member has said that he still does and that we are now getting an honest reply from that side of the House. There is a question I want to put to that hon. member. If this Government were to agree to remove section 77 from the industrial Conciliation Act and abolish job reservation, would it mean that any person, regardless of his race or colour, could do any job?

Yes.

Of course the hon. member will agree. I want to ask the hon. member for South Coast whether he agrees with that.

Yes.

I am exceedingly glad that the hon. member for South Coast also says that when we abolish job reservation in South Africa, it would mean that any man would be free to do any job without any reservations whatsoever. I want to ask the hon. members who had the courage today to answer in the affirmative on this matter whether they agree with the following words which, are recorded in Hansard, column 3141—

Yes, but on merit.

Oh, on merit! These hon. members say that we should abolish this, but the words which I have quoted here are the words of the hon. member for South Coast, which are recorded in Hansard. Now that is the ambiguity of the United Party. The one moment they say that job reservation should be abolished and that workers should be able to move freely, but the hon. member for South Coast when he was training the apprentices, said that there is no need for them to be concerned, because their job will never be threatened. He said they would always be in charge, they would always be the supervisors and the instructors. That is the credibility of that party! That is the ambiguity we are dealing with. That is also why the United Party looks like its Leader. The United Party is a sick party which is disintegrating. [Interjections.] The double talk we find on that side of the House is why they have a mere 37 seats in this House today and are weaker than they have ever been. As I have said, they are too cowardly …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “cowardly”.

Mr. Chairman, I shall withdraw the word “cowardly”, but those hon. members did not have the courage of their convictions to go and fight in a constituency such as Overvaal. It is necessary for every worker in South Africa, not only for the White workers, but for all workers, regardless of race or colour, that job reservation should be kept on the Statute Book as a protective measure. [Interjections.] For the sake of the record, I want to state once again that if it was not for job reservation in South Africa and if it was not for determinations in accordance with job reservation in the Western Province, 96% of the Coloured in the Cape would not have had a share in the furniture, shoe and clothing industries, because the Black man would have ousted the Coloured here.

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

I am sorry, the hon. member had half an hour, but I do not have as much time at my disposal. There is the proof that they speak lightly about job reservation. No, they cannot come along with those arguments. Had it not been for job reservation, the Coloureds would have been ousted from these spheres of labour today. The hon. member for Orange Grove stated very bravely here that they are going to abolish the colour bar in the mining industry. He must tell us today on whose behalf he is speaking. Is he speaking on behalf of the 85 000 Whites in the mining industry, on behalf of the 641 000 non-Whites in the mining industry or on behalf of Anglo American Corporation who he represents here? That is what the hon. member must tell us. He must tell us on whose behalf he is speaking when he makes those statements. We know that the hon. member for Hillbrow and the Progressive Party have said repeatedly —the hon. member for Hillbrow said so today again—that we should abolish influx control, that we should house the Bantu on a family basis and that we should abolish migrant labour. I want to put a very simple question to the hon. members. If the hon. members were to abolish it, are they prepared to house those 641 000 Bantu who work in the mining industry in the urban complexes on a family basis? Those hon. members know that it is the Bantu’s tradition to have one, two and sometimes three Bantu wives. Do they want to decide for the Bantu which wife he should bring to the urban areas?

You do not even want to allow one wife.

If one man has three wives, do those hon. members want us to build three houses for that man? The hon. member for Maitland is obviously prepared to decide which wife must be brought for which Bantu. If we were to concede to that, we should have to create large urban complexes for the Bantu in our metropolitan areas. That is the hind of unfounded statements we have from hon. members on the other side. They blaze these statements abroad but then they are the people who tell the world with great acclaim that South Africa discriminates against the Black man.

We know that certain exemptions are made and that there is sometimes a relaxation as far as job reservation is concerned. If representations are made for relaxation, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider applying these in our border industrial areas in the first place. It might stimulate the industries to decentralize in accordance with the policy of the National Party. In the second place I want to point out that, if we do those things, it will also mean that we shall better be able to utilize the Bantu labour. If we were to grant exemptions there, it would mean, in the third place, that we could employ the Bantu in that area on a family basis. This will mean that we shall not have to use expensive land in our urban areas or create expensive housing and infrastructure in the urban areas. What is the most important to me, is that if we were to bring about a relaxation, we would help to make the homelands viable.

Why do you not want to establish industries within the homelands?

I want to deal with the accusation I made against the Opposition.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has obviously not completed his speech and therefore I want to propose that he be given the opportunity to finish it.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my thanks for the opportunity which the Opposition offers me to proceed immediately. I accused the Opposition of avoiding labour matters recently because there is so much labour peace prevailing in South Africa. We know that over the past year or two we have had to deal with strikes sporadically. This we admit. We are not running away from that. But we also know that when strikes took place, there was sometimes a militant influence behind those strikes. Last year and the year before last when we had strikes, the hon. member for Hillbrow carried on like a real “Popeye” in this House. Even before he had eaten his spinach, he jumped up here, made muscles, showed his fist and said timeously and untimeously, “We must speak about labour in South Africa”. He introduced labour motions as matters of urgent public interest. He really acted like a General Idi Jacobs.

Better than a Col. Jood Henning at least.

Then the hon. member and other hon. members spoke about labour peace. When there was unrest, they had reason to speak about labour matters. I shall tell you why they do not discuss labour matters today. There is a very good reason for this. The reason is that they are avoiding their own policy. Since the quarrel between those hon. members and the Reformists, we have heard very little about Black trade unions. We hear no longer of Black trade unions since they quarrelled with their allies. I think it is necessary that they should spell out very clearly to us whether they are back to their policy of 1972 and whether they are standing by their policy of 1973, the “three-tier system”. The other reason why they do not speak about it, is the success which has been achieved with the implementation and introduction of the legislation appertaining to Bantu labour relations regulation. That is the reason why the hon. members raise such a hue and cry. It was the hon. Leader of the Opposition who said last year, in respect of the implementation of this Act, that it was a third rate Act. He said it did not offer the Bantu the necessary bargaining machinery. But in this short period of two years, it has been proved that the Minister was correct in introducing that Bill here and that is why we have labour peace in South Africa today. The legislation created the opportunity to establish works committees and liaison committees by means of which the Bantu could confer about his labour problems, could bargain and speak about his wages. That is why they avoided that. I shall now give you one more proof.

The hon. member for Pinelands asked how many strikes have taken place in South Africa over the past 18 months. The answer which he received was 435 strikes. Then the hon. member wanted to know in how many of those strikes works and liaison committees were involved. In only 35 cases in which there were strikes, were works and liaison committees involved and in 404 cases there were no works and liaison committees.

There were no strikes …

In other words, practice showed this to be the proper legislation and the hon. the Minister to be on the right track. It is not only the answer to the hon. member’s question which proves this. We know that the University of the Orange Free State instituted a proper investigation through the personnel research division of its Department of Industrial Psychology.

But that was in your previous speech.

They instituted an investigation into the functioning of liaison committees and their finding was— there are hon. members here who will deal with this in detail—that the legislation and the hon. the Minister are on the right track and that we should recommend to employers that they should make use of these media, because then we shall have further labour peace in our country. We know that when the legislation was implemented, there were only 43 works committees and a mere 120 liaison committees. Today we have the massive number of 1 711 liaison committees and 235 works committees, and that gives a total of 1 945. That creates the channels for 554 000 Bantu to negotiate and decide about their labour matters. That is the norm we can apply to evaluate the success of these things. We know that they always said that trade unions were the salvation and blessing, because without trade unions one cannot continue in South Africa and if the Black man does not have trade union rights, one will not have labour peace, because if one does not have Black trade unions, they will not be able to negotiate collectively in a proper way. We also have evidence as far as that is concerned. I have here an article which appeared on 29 November 1974, “Trade Unions are major stranglers of countries”, and, inter alia, reference is made in the article to the peace and prosperity we have had in South Africa over the past 50 years. They say that the world envies us our industrial conciliation legislation and that we have had strikes here from time to time. Let us consider the position in Great Britain, the once powerful and wealthy State. This is what they say—

In other words, England has degenerated to second lowest in its company. That is as a result of trade unions. Let us see what they say of Italy—

That is what trade unions have done to certain countries. Then one is grateful that a leader such as Chief Minister Kaizer Matanzima said last week on an occasion that he will not he so stupid as to allow Black trade unions immediately in his homeland. The Chief Minister said in a policy speech to industrialists in Johannesburg that it is merely common sense that trade unions are a luxury the Transkei can do without. He also said that the matter could be considered again on a subsequent occasion, but if trade unions are allowed, their powers will be properly defined. He realizes the dangers inherent in this. I wonder whether it would not be in South Africa’s interest if even the White workers were to make greater use of these works committees and liaison committees, because I think it may have greater advantages for them than some of the trade unions have for them. I am not against trade unions, Sir, but I say that trade unions could cause South Africa great misery. We are fortunate in that for the most part we deal with responsible trade unions in South Africa. Sir, what are the unemployment figures like throughout the world? The unemployment figure in South Africa is ,3%. In West Germany the unemployment figure is 2,3%, and in the United Kingdom it is 2,9%. What is the position in the mighty U.S.A.?

What about the homelands?

I want to quote to hon. members what appeared in the Business Times of the Sunday Times of 16 February; it is quite illuminating—

What is the position as far as the young people in America are concerned?—

That is the position among the young people in America, where 40,1% of them are unemployed. There it is not regarded as discrimination, but when there is unemployment among the Blacks in South Africa, where the ratio between Black and White is far bigger than it is in America, then it is due to racial discrimination. Sir, that is the ambiguity of the United Party. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark spoke for 20 minutes this time and not only for ten minutes as he usually does. I had hoped that he would have tried to reply to at least a few of the many cardinal questions put to him about the labour situation. Sir, he did not try to reply to one of these questions. All he did—one can read his previous speeches—was to put up the same old skittles and here and there a new one and then miss them one after the other.

He cannot even bowl over his own skittles.

What did the hon. member do? He came along with the argument that there was no unemployment in South Africa. If I were to ask him whether that held good for all workers, he would admit that it only concerned certain workers in South Africa. Therefore, that argument of his falls away. He then set up a new skittle, i.e. that we on this side want to abolish influx control. Sir, nobody on this side said anything of the kind. He put up this new skittle as well, but missed it altogether because nobody had said anything of the kind. But then he added a second aspect to the matter; he asked what we were going to do with the two or three wives of the Bantu worker. Sir, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. Then he came along with the other old skittle, i.e. work reservation, as a magic remedy to protect the Whites, apparently, Sir, I find it very difficult to understand. The hon. member knows and this whole House knows that the socio-economic effectiveness of work reservation is virtually nil. It plays no role in the economic life of South Africa.

Why are you crying so much about it then?

Sir, I shall come to that aspect; that hon. member must just be a little patient. I say work reservation plays no role in the economic life of South Africa. I shall be grateful, Sir, if the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark will listen now.

I am listening, although you are talking nonsense.

If I am talking nonsense, Sir, then I have to do well to be able to compete with that hon. member, for he not only talked nonsense; he also believed it. Now the hon. member should just tell me this: If work reservation is such a magic remedy to protect the Whites, how can we explain it that the Railways, the largest single employer in South Africa, does not even use section 77? The Post Office does not need section 77 to protect the Whites either. In fact, it is not even applicable to them. Why then do we need that section?

You have received the answer over and over again.

That hon. member spoke for 20 minutes and said nothing. I come to the next point. The hon. member may use work reservation as an argument, but then he should say that he foresees the time when a White person will be without work in South Africa and that he will necessarily find himself in the position where he will have to take the work of a Black man. Sir, could we imagine a situation in South Africa where the pace of the economic machine has slowed down to such a degree that a White man would be compelled to oust a Black man from his job and take over that job? Sir, what would then happen to South Africa? No, Sir, surely that is a nonsensical argument.

But that is his ambition.

For the information of the hon. member over there who shouted a question across the floor of the House, I want to tell him why I am against work reservation. Work reservation is one of the concepts which has no value other than propaganda value in South Africa today. Work reservation is one of the terms which made us the pole cat in the eyes of overseas countries. [Interjections.] I wish the hon. the member had another 20 minutes, because he speaks in such an entertaining manner. He says nothing at all. If the hon. member is so serious about work reservation I want to say to him: Retain it by all means but reply to the questions asked by the hon. member over here. He did not even try to answer the first question. Why does he, as a student of the labour position in South Africa, not get up and say: “The hon. member for Hillbrow wants to know from us what the task of the hon. the Minister of Labour is. I shall define it.” Where does the hon. Minister fit in when it comes to migratory labour? What finger does he have in that pie? Which is the position of the hon. Minister of Labour when it comes to the training of Bantu workers? And I can continue in that vein. Does the Minister of Labour have any say in the matter when it comes to mining labour? But he did not even try to reply to these questions. He was also asked another serious question, but at that time he was occupied with his own thinking: How is it possible, in the modern times we are living in, that South Africa’s production figure is so poor compared with that of other countries? And if he is unable to furnish me with an answer to this question—I take it the hon. the Minister will try to reply to it—I ask him why he does not tell us what the Government has done over 27 years to ensure that productivity has been increased by means of training? But we had no reply. But I go further and say there was still another question. You see, Sir, the hon. member has so much to say about labour peace. I have no objection; I am very grateful that this is so, but the task of the hon. Minister of Labour is not only to establish peace and order in South Africa. His task is also to provide in the labour needs of South Africa. The hon. member only has to read the Economic Development Programme and let him tell me this afternoon: If we have a growth rate of 6,4%— and I wonder whether there is any hon. members on that side of the House who is prepared to say that we are not prepared to maintain that growth rate? No reply! In other words, they accept the projection of the Economic Development Programme and this being the case, one is forced to come to the conclusion that we shall have a shortage of 60 000 White labourers.

In four years’ time.

Yes, in four years’ time and not in 25 years’ time. This will be even before the next election if that will perhaps cause hon, gentlemen to sit up and take notice. The hon. member for Vanderbijl Park is not listening to me now, but my question is the following: What is he going to do in order to bridge this gap? He has no answer whatsoever, Sir. That is the argument which is raised under this Vote year after year. We are trying to find an answer. That is why the hon. member for Hillbrow says quite correctly that the hon. the Minister, who knows what the requirements are in the labour sphere should say to us: “I accept the Economic Development Programme. As Minister of Labour, I shall see to it that the rightful labour needs of the South African economy will be provided for.” Then he should tell us at the same time how he is going to do it. But, Sir, we do not have a word from that side. They remain silent every time. Every time we are being overwhelmed with arguments which are based on colour only.

Sir, it goes much further than that. What is at issue here is the economic development of South Africa with which everyone, Black and White, is concerned. The simple fact is that unless we refuse to grow, as the economic programme tells us, those labour requirements will have to be found. But we do not get an answer anywhere. They are as silent as the grave. The argument is quite simple. I tell the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark again: If he is so fond of work reservation he better accept it if it will satisfy him. As far as influx control is concerned, there is no need for him to throw open the sluice gates. Neither do I say he should do so. But then I ask him, as a member of this hon. House: When is he going to reply to these questions concerning productivity? When is he going to reply to these questions with regard to training? When is he going to reply to these questions dealing with the labour requirements of South Africa? How does he see the picture for the next four or five years? Where should the labour come from? If the hon. member and the hon. Minister do not furnish us with those replies, they would be failing in their duty. It is as simple as that. That is what the whole debate is concerned about. It does not only concern work reservation. This is something which has become a cliché. Those hon. members are only concerned with the propaganda which can be made against us. That may be allowed to continue. But, Sir, we are concerned about the labour requirements of South Africa. Trained people have to be found, and the hon. Minister should make it his primary task to find them. The hon. Minister is not here to win elections. It is no use the hon. member telling me that they win elections. [Time expired.]

Once again, Mr. Chairman, both the hon. member for Maitland and the hon. member for Hillbrow raised the same old hackneyed stories today which they raised last year in this debate. What have they in fact said? The hon. member for Maitland made a big fuss about the fact that this Government was not doing enough to train manpower in South Africa and utilize it better. The hon. member for Hillbrow questioned the entire issue of liaison committees. He said, inter alia, that to a certain extent they were in favour of liaison and works committees, but that these should not replace Black trade unions in South Africa. The hon. member went further and said the following—

Where does the hon. member get that information? We in South Africa have peace and quiet on the labour front to the same extent as any other country in the world today. I want to ask the hon. members for Hillbrow and Maitland whether I am correct in saying that. Furthermore: It goes without saying that there must be reasons for the fact that we have peace and quiet in South Africa. I believe that the peace and quiet we have in South Africa is ascribable to the National Party’s labour policy. This is the first important fact. The second important fact is that it is ascribable to the fact that we have a Minister of Labour who controls labour matters in South Africa in an orderly fashion. Hon. members opposite can laugh at me if they wish, because when one says these things, they always make a joke of it. We in South Africa are exceptionally fortunate in having such a Minister in charge of our labour affairs. When I say this, it must be understood that I am not seeking a job from him. We have peace ana quiet in South Africa and in my opinion this is a proud achievement in view of the fact that we in South Africa have a mighty White, Bantu, Coloured and Indian labour force. That is why I say that we convey our sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister.

I now come to another matter which is, I believe, of real importance to us in South Africa and which has been questioned by the hon. member for Hillbrow and Maitland and, I am sorry to say, by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, too. I refer to the whole issue of our liaison and works committees. Since I intend dwelling on this matter, let me say very clearly that representations urging the recognition of Black trade unions in South Africa are no rarity. We know that there are appeals from time to time for the recognition of Black trade unions in South Africa. No restriction is imposed on their establishment, but let me state very clearly today that this Government is not going to recognize Black trade unions in South Africa because it believes that they are not in the best interests of South Africa and its people. Hon. members opposite can talk until they are blue in the face and plead this whole matter daily. As long as it is governing South Africa, the National Party Government will not recognize Black trade unions in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Hillbrow must give me a chance, because he himself spoke for half an hour. This Government is not like hon. members on the other side of the House who have a different labour policy every year, or every second year. We spell out our labour policy clearly so that the people of South Africa may know where they stand with this National Party Government. The Government believes that negotiation between employer and employee is essential, and consequently it was decided that liaison committees and works committees, a system that exists in many other countries as well, should be tested.

I have before me a report by the University of the Orange Free State concerning this whole matter. It is an illuminating report, a report that was not compiled by politicians but by people who investigated this entire matter impartially and scientifically and compiled a report of about 130 pages on the subject. If hon. member opposite have not read it then I must really recommend it to the hon. members for Hillbrow and Maitland.

We are aware of it.

This report was compiled by the research division of industrial psychology at the University of the Orange Free State. The hon. member states that he is aware of this report, but if he had been aware of it, his standpoint in regard to works and liaison committees would not have been the one he has held today and in the past as well. I should now like to quote what this team of scientists at the Free State University have said about liaison and works committees. Hon. members opposite would do well to listen to this. Among the most important findings was that owing to the composition of this whole system, productivity in South Africa has risen by 39,7%. It is also interesting and illuminating to find that in 82,6% of the cases, grievances were reduced, whereas in 97,4% of the cases communication improved. 82,2% of the organizations with liaison committees were satisfied with the results achieved. Furthermore: 84,7 of the organizations are of the opinion that this has led to sound communications between employers and management. Now it is interesting to note that a questionnaire concerning this matter was sent to 326 of our largest organizations. We often hear the cry that there are people, including people from these organizations, who ask that there should be Black trade unions in South Africa. Of all these organizations, only 5% are in favour of Black trade unions. The hon. member would do well to listen to the names of a few of the organizations. Some of these companies are among the biggest and the most well-known in the country. I shall mention only a few of them: AE & CI, Amcor, Anglo-Alpha Cement, Barlow Rand, Bruply, Busbodies, Cadac, Colgate Palmolive, Crystal Hope, Wispeco, Daily News and, strangely enough, The Sunday Tribune, too. Dorman Long, Dunlop and Fedmis. It is very clear from the report that these scientists are in favour of this system, and to such an extent—and this is what I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the question is asked whether we should not ensure—these are also recommendations contained in this report as a result of the comments they received—that as regards certain of these organizations we should make it obligatory for a minimum number of the workers to belong to these liaison committees. For the sake of interest I just want to mention to you what the recommendations of this report are [translation]—

We are dealing with an important matter here and therefore I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition to come to the hon. the Minister and state how this could be improved rather than to be continually raising negative and undue criticism. I quote again [translation]—

This finding, too, I want to bring to the friendly attention of the hon. the Minister. I quote again [translation]—

I believe that when we read this report we find the spirit and attitude with which we must solve the labour problems in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow, as an ex-employee of Anglo American, something interesting. Last Saturday, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, the hon. member for Virginia and I were in the fortunate position of conducting discussions with the top people of Anglo American. It would be unfair for me to mention the names here today, but I can tell this ex-employee of Anglo American that those top people in that management told me, in the presence of the hon. member for Virginia and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration—please note that we are dealing with Anglo American here—that they were by no means in favour of the recognition of Black trade unions in South Africa. I also want to tell the hon. member for Johannesburg North that the top people of Anglo American—people he knows—are not in favour of it. I want to go further and say that they told me that they were in favour of … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity of coming in immediately after the hon. member for Welkom, who while he seems to be very knowledgeable about Anglo-American, does not seem to know a great deal about the labour movement in South Africa. Both the member for Welkom and the member for Vanderbijlpark have expressed great concern about Black trade unions. The hon. member for Welkom has gone so far as to say that as long as this Government is in power, it will not recognize Black trade unions. This is very interesting. I, too, would like to quote to him from a newspaper he would perhaps like to read some time. This is a report from the newspaper of March 1975 where we read—

This newspaper is The Daily News of 22 March 1975. I would also like to quote from the Evening Post of 22 March 1975—

That is one of the few good things that has come out of this Government. I would like the hon. member for Welkom as well as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark to go and have a conversation with Mr. Botha because they have a great deal to learn from the officials who work in the Department of Labour. May I say that these officials have an unenviable task in trying to maintain the orderly relationship between management and labour against the background of a Government ideology and against the background of the kind of members who have spoken thus far from the Government benches. There is another aspect they seem to have overlooked, viz. the report of the Department of Labour for the year which ended 31 December 1973. I wonder if either of those two hon. gentlemen have ever read this report, because here, in black and white, not written by the Opposition, but written by the department itself, are some of the facts and figures relating to the labour scene in 1973. It is quite clear that there is a changing attitude within the mind of the Black worker in South Africa. This has been dramatically illustrated especially by the urban worker as well as by the migrant mineworker—a position with which I do not have the time to deal with today. However, it has been specifically expressed by the urban Black worker. The most dramatic evidence of this kind of earthquake almost which has transformed the scene in South Africa was obviously the Durban strikes in 1973. The fundamental significance of these strikes can certainly never be overstressed, not only because it was the first time for a long time that Black workers in significant numbers said “no”, but also because it unleashed a new period of labour unrest in South Africa. We are told that we are living in an era of unprecedented labour peace, but what do the figures which appear in this report indicate? Listen to these figures—

Is this labour peace? Hon. members say that that was in 1973.

Analyse it.

WE can analyse it, but when people stop work and as a result production stops, what does it mean?

A few seconds here and a few seconds there.

That is nonsense. They were out in the streets, and the hon. member knows it. If it is imagined that things have …

The Progressive Party was responsible for it.

Here we hear again that the Progressive Party was responsible for that as well because they are supposed to be responsible for so much that takes place in South Africa. In case anybody should say that this report only goes up to 1973 and that that was a very unusual year—and we admit that it was a very unusual year—let us take a look at the figures for 1974. Here I have the figures which I have received directly from the hon. the Minister of Labour himself. There were 374 strikes—I am only referring to Black labour—during 1974 involving no less than 57 656 workers. Is that labour peace? This is a scene of unrest. What is more, we have heard comparative figures of Europe, especially from Germany, England and the United States of America. But let us take a look at the figures for Africa. We all talk of being part of Africa. I have analysed those figures and I find that South Africa has had the second worse record in the whole continent of Africa in terms of labour unrest and work stoppages over the last two years. [Interjections.] Here I have the figures. Anybody can come and check the figures, if they like. They are documented by our own Government sources themselves, by the ILO and by the countries of origin. We find that the only country that has a worse record than South Africa is Morocco. South Africa is well ahead of countries like Nigeria, Kenya, Tunisia, Algeria, Zambia, Malawi, Ghana, Tanzania and Upper Volta. We have the worse record! If we have a look at these figures we shall find that once again we are in trouble and the situation in South Africa needs to be put right. I am suggesting that there is a new move …

That is an unfair comparison.

It is a very fair comparison. With what must I compare South Africa then? With the man in the moon? No, Sir, we are talking about a situation which exists. Let us take the Copper Belt and let us compare our figures with the figures recorded there. We are well below …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I am afraid I have very limited time in which I want to try to argue this case. The fact of the matter is that there is a new situation which is developing in South Africa. There is no question about it. The only reaction we are getting from that side is the question: Why do you keep on talking about Black trade unions? I notice that everybody on that side is against Black trade unions? Are they against White trade unions? Do the hon. members want us to put them out? Shall we say to the White workers’ unions “Throw them out!”? [Interjections.]

Matanzima is also against it.

So hon. members are only against Black trade unions. I am not too sure about the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. It seems to me that he came very close to saying that we must do away with all trade unions because of the danger of a repetition of what is happening in Great Britain and Italy where they have these “terrible trade unions”.

Go and read my speech.

I do not want to read it again; I have heard it once already. Please! The fact of the matter is that the present legislation as it exists is not able to contain the strike situation nor indeed is it able to get people back to work. That is what we are talking about. We are committed to labour peace, but let us not pretend that labour unrest does not exist. Let us face up to the fact, let us analyse it and then let us introduce the necessary changes in order that we can have abiding labour peace in South Africa. Let us make no mistake: Labour unrest is no good for anybody whether for the management, whether for the worker or for the Government itself. We are not interested in that and that is the problem.

When did we have the last strike?

The hon. member asks when we had the last strike.

Yes, tell us.

Last week.

Where?

At East London where 500 Blacks walked out on strike even though they have a works committee there.

And for the whole year so far?

If one answers one question then the hon. members follow it up with another. The fact of the matter is that hon. members know that we are in trouble and the only way there is is to face up to it and not to act like the ostrich. We must begin to work out a pattern so that we can solve the problem together and not pretend that it does not exist.

I want to return to work committees or liaison committees because if there is one thing the hon. member for Welkom has said that really made a great deal of sense, it is that the works committees or liaison committees ought to be compulsory and should not be left to the whim and the fancy of the employer or the work force. I agree 100% with the hon. member on that point. Indeed, I would go further and say that we should think in terms of these same committees not only for the Black workers but also for the Coloured, Asian and White workers, in fact committees should be created for the total labour force. However, such committees should never come in the place of trade unionism or collective bargaining, but should serve as a direct complement to that. If that were to come about I believe we would go a long way to meeting the kind of needs that exist at this time in South Africa.

Harry is going to flick you.

I am not concerned about anyone else; all I am concerned with is to try to work out the best possibilities for South African labour/management relationship. The Government is not helping with this at the present time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened very attentively to the speech by the hon. member for Pinelands. I cannot but think that all three of the members opposite who have taken part in this debate thus far have acted here like auctioneers selling the birthright of the White worker.

Nonsense!

As I have said. I listened very attentively to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. As did the hon. members for Hillbrow and Maitland, he harped on one subject only, namely the tremendous injustice that is supposedly being done to the Black worker in this country. I could not but get the impression that particularly that hon. member who has just resumed his seat would not mind if more unrest were to occur in the field of labour because it is in that way that they are trying to twist the arm of the Government to make concessions to the Black worker, and that simply may not happen, ever, in this country.

Before coming back, in passing, to certain aspects raised by the hon. members thus far, allow me, Mr. Chairman, to bring a single matter, in my opinion an important one, to the attention of the Minister, viz. the fact that the Afrikaans Language Festival is going to be celebrated this year and that certain groups of workers will have the opportunity of having 14 August as a holiday in order to attend the festivities, while others will be excluded. I realize that the hon. the Minister is not empowered to declare that day a public holiday, but I wonder whether he would not be prepared to make an earnest appeal to employers to give all their workers off on that day so that they may attend these festivities which are very important to us here in South Africa.

I now want to come back to the debate. I cannot but dwell, in passing, on the extremely irresponsible speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow. By implication he made an attack here on the hon. the Minister and the Department of Labour. He accused them by implication of having displayed an inability to deal with this matter. He referred to the 2 000 employees employed by that department. It is an important department and he conceded that. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and his department, the senior officials, in particular, for the contribution they have made, including their contribution in this year 1975 that is now under review, in helping to bring about peace and quiet in the field of labour. The hon. member for Pinelands told us how many work stoppages occurred during 1974. I shall come to that later. The fact remains that the action taken by the officials of the department constitute a very positive contribution towards ensuring peace and quiet in the field of labour in this country. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity this afternoon to pay tribute to them in this regard.

What has been the drift of the debate thus far as the Opposition is concerned? I think one could summarize it in two basic ideas—in the first instance that there should be increasing Black employment and that the Black worker should thereby be put on an equal footing with the Whites at all levels and, in the second instance, the plea that trade union rights be granted to the Black workers in this country. I do not have the time this afternoon to go into this in detail. What underlies the arguments of the Opposition? It must surely be that they adopt this standpoint because they believe that economic development and the tempo of economic development are dependent on the presence of large numbers of workers. That is the purport of their reasoning.

Trained workers.

We can debate on the question as to whether they are trained workers or not. However, the Opposition adopts the standpoint that we in this country have a host of workers and that they must be utilized. This raw material must be developed in order that that economic development may take place. If they were to adopt that as their premise, I should agree that that was a very positive standpoint because that is what is really involved, viz. not primarily the worker, but the economic development that must take place. However, to put it very mildly, such a premise is totally wrong. The presence of a large number of workers has, in point of fact, been a curse in South Africa up to the present instead of a blessing, because it is for that very reason that South Africa has never learned to conserve labour. Economic development depends primarily on the effective quality of one’s manpower. In turn, this quality depends on one’s manpower, on the distribution of talents, viz. the training and the way of life of the community, the people, from which that manpower is drawn. The way of life of the people or the community from which one draws one’s manpower determines whether one’s social cultural element is far more important than talents and training because economic development is in fact, a way of life and not merely a function of economic factors only. It is common knowledge in South Africa that the way of life of 75% of our manpower is not such as to give them the initiative, the perseverance, the willingness and the sense of responsibility of the entrepreneur or the executive on whom the tempo of economic development and progress depends. In savin? that, I am not casting any reflections. Those people cannot help the fact that material welfare forms part of their cultural values today or that the desire for it, when present, has not yet been adapted to the appreciation that one’s own initiative can bring about or further its realization.

Sir, productivity has been discussed here. Of course this aspect must affect productivity, but the Government takes this fully into account, and through the action it takes, makes provision for his slow evolutionary process to run its full course. That is why increasing sums of money are being spent in the homelands; that is why White skills are being sent to the homelands to train and guide those people on the basis of their cultural circumstances so as to reach the point at which they will be able to accept this responsibility to which I have referred, in the interests of their own people. Sir, improving one’s manpower requires the following: The number of entrepreneurs and executives must be increased. In this regard one need only consider the large number of projects under way in South Africa at the moment. In the second place there must be active promotion of the quality of work produced by this section of the manpower, or so much of it as already exists. In the minute that remains, I want to make a few remarks concerning one aspect of this in particular. Sir, we in South Africa have reached the point where the White man cannot afford to allow 76 000 Whites, as stated in the previous manpower survey, to be employed as operators, and I want to make an earnest appeal here this afternoon for us to adopt an imaginative method of putting a stop to the wastage of unnecessary White manpower, by enabling these 76 000 Whites to undergo training as artisans. We must not simply cram them into Westlake for two and a half years, although I have great appreciation for the work done at Westlake. We must consider how to allow these 76 000 people, or as many of them as possible, to acquire the status of artisans. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member for Hillbrow opened this debate this afternoon. In recent times, the hon. member has been promoted a great deal. He has become the United Party’s chief spokesman on labour affairs; he has become the aspirant leader of the party and in that way has also become the aspirant leader of the Opposition in this House. In the nature of the matter, the prospects offered by the latter post are rather dismal.

Last year the hon. member came to this House and gave us six of his party’s fundamental points of policy, and subsequently gave us ten objectives of his party concerning labour matters. Sir, against that background and against the background of all the promotion the hon. member has had, we had expected to be able to conduct an interesting debate here concerning the points of policy which the hon. member put to us here last year. But what did we get from the hon. member? An innocent motion concerning labour affairs. The hon. member then stated that there was one minor point to which he had to refer briefly, viz. the issue of industrial peace, and he then added that for years we have been proud of the fact that we have such a peaceful labour situation in South Africa. In fact, therefore, he has come along with a motion in which he congratulates the Government on the industrial peace in South Africa. But then the hon. member continues and mentions a few things that have to be changed. He wants the existing legislation to be amended. In other words, he wants this very legislation to which the industrial peace we have been enjoying for years may be ascribed, to be amended. This afternoon he comes along and repeats that plea, in chorus with the hon. member for Maitland, and they again referred to amendment of that legislation, those measures that have ensured industrial peace for us in years gone by.

I should like to furnish a reply to the question as to why we have industrial peace. Sir, the one reason for this is the fact that notwithstanding these problems we are faced with, the worker has felt secure throughout. It would not have been possible for us, after 27 years, starting with the gravest unrest South Africa has ever known in the field of labour, to arrive at the position where, in the words of the hon. member for Hillbrow, we have industrial peace, without there having been any reason for this. There is only one factor that could have caused this and that is the satisfaction and feeling of security of the worker in South Africa. We could ascribe that security to various things. In the first place it is owing to the vigorous and resolute actions of the hon. the Minister, supported by his department, his senior men in particular, who have adopted firm standpoints in regard to so-called labour unrest, to which the hon. member for Pinelands, too, has repeatedly referred. There are other reasons for this, too, but I do not want to go into them now. I want to deal with the reasons that derive from the workers. If the hon. member for Hillbrow himself admits that there is industrial peace, then there must be a particular reason for it, and the reason is the certainty on the part of the worker as regards his social security. After all, the worker in this country, whether White, Brown or Black, knows that this country has a strong economy and that if he gives a day’s work, he will receive a living wage for it. He knows, after all, that in these 27 years of National Party rule there has been an increase in labourers’ wages that has been far greater than the increase in the cost of living. Those are things which the people live with. Admittedly, we have heard hon. members, inter alia, the hon. member for Hillbrow, talk about equal wages for equal work and about the elimination of the wage gap. Reference has also been made here to the high cost of living. All those things have been mentioned with a view to making the worker dissatisfied and drawing his attention to his basic dissatisfaction. However, I do not know when last we had a fervent speech in this House from that side calling for higher wages for the White worker. I do not know about that. Whatever the case may be, these people receive a living wage and they are satisfied with it. Now what we have had here this afternoon is the hon. member for Pinelands singing in the same chorus as the members of the United Party. They referred to the events of 1973. We know how in 1973 the Opposition parties attempted to create the impression that those strikes which occurred at the time were the start of an enormous workers’ revolution that could even lead to an industrial revolution and which could plunge the country into economic misery and give them an outside chance of coming into power. It is for those reasons that hon. members seized on those minor disturbances of 1973. They have not come up with new data this afternoon. Last year the hon. member for Hillbrow mentioned his six-point programme in the House and the other day he moved his labour motion. On each of those two occasions he called for certain matters to be rectified.

I should like to mention two aspects of our labour legislation which concern security in particular. In the first instance there is the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which provides for a Workmen’s Compensation Fund so that people who are injured in the course of their employment may be assured of an income. The purpose of this fund is to provide security for every employee who works under dangerous working conditions. This is an old Act that dates from a long way back, and this Government has supplemented and amended that Act in order to give our people more security. For example, provision is being made for the payment of medical and funeral expenses, and for aid to the dependants of a workman should he be injured. Only employers contribute towards this fund. The employees themselves do not contribute towards it. No distinction is drawn between the colour of the workers, and the employer contributes for White. Black or Brown on the same basis. It is a fact that if there is an accident and payments are made, there is no differentiation on the basis of colour. What one does find disturbing is that on analysis, it is evident that probably about 80% of the unclaimed moneys in the fund are due to the Bantu. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Westdene has referred to the work stoppages and strikes to which I have referred as “so-called strikes”. However, if he reads this excellent report of the Department of Labour again, he will find that they take it far more seriously than he seems to do.

In the short time I had at my disposal a few minutes ago, I tried to indicate what our problem was. I stated that we had reached a new era in South Africa in the field of labour relations and that we were ignoring the change from a passive, docile Black labour force to a group of people who wanted to be directly concerned and involved in everything which affected their lives and their work. We ignore that kind of change at our peril. Black workers want to be consulted about pay, promotion, working opportunities, jobs and job evaluation. In short, they want the same consideration that other workers in South Africa have enjoyed for a very long time indeed. In many ways the Industrial Conciliation Act has served this country extremely well. The only difficulty is that it has served only a very small minority of people extremely well. What we are suggesting and what we are pleading for and urging is that the same consideration that has rightly been given to the minority, ought also to be given to the wider range of workers.

The legislative machinery which exists at the moment and tries to deal with our total labour force, is vast and there are too many aspects for me to deal with in a short ten minutes’ speech. However, one can say that there are at least four major areas what may be called “negotiation”. The first is the industrial council agreements; the second, the conciliation board agreements; the third the Wage Board determinations; and the fourth, the Bantu Labour Regulation Act orders. If one has the time to go through this legislation, one can only draw one vivid conclusion, namely that the statutory wage regulation, which determines the wages of more than a million Blacks, takes either the form of an agreement between management and White, Coloured or Asian workers organized through registered trade unions or the form of determinations recommended by a Government appointed and, incidentally, all-White board. In other words, no provision is made for Black worker representation to participate in statutory wage regulations.

The other major area is of course in plant level worker/management consultation. Here we have heard a great deal about the introduction of works and liaison committees, and there is no question that, as a direct result of the unrest in 1973, the Government itself amended its legislation in order to cope with a new situation. If one had time, one could look again at the objectives of the works committees and the liaison committees, but that is not necessary. Suffice it to say that at the end of August last year there were 182 works committees, well over 1 000 liaison committees and three co-ordinating works committees established in plants employing almost half a million Black workers. The intention of these committees is highly commendable. Furthermore, in support of the committee system, it has been argued firstly that it is in line with the trend throughout the industrialized world, especially in Europe and Scandinavia, to move towards a system of worker representation on an enterprise level; secondly, that it provides an opportunity at the plant or enterprise level for consultation and negotiation that does not even exist for White, Coloured and Asian workers; and thirdly, in respect of the liaison committees, that this is the form of a mini-industrial council. In general it is claimed that this system is capable of coping with the aspirations of Black workers.

I want to submit that this is not true and I want to argue it along the following lines. In no country in the world are works committees offered as an alternative to trade unionism. In each case they complement the trade unions which are already in existence. Secondly, no answer can be provided to the question which is put by more and more Black workers, namely that if collective bargaining is good enough for White, Asian and Coloured workers, why is it not good enough for them? The psychological answer to this demand is a very important one because it deals with the feelings of a growing number of workers in South Africa. We do not have an answer to that question. Thirdly, the establishment of works and liaison committees is not compulsory and I have made the point earlier that as a direct result of that, a bad employer—and there are bad employers—or a leaderless labour force—and there are such labour forces—are without any regulation or provision, and that is a very bad state of affairs. Fourthly, the powers of the committees are purely advisory. Most of the Western European committee systems are statutorily enforced and have specifically stated powers of information, consultation and co-determination in a series of crucial areas which affect the worker directly and intimately. Fifthly, although the word “negotiation” is used to describe one of the functions of the work committees, no provision is in fact made for real negotiation. There is no ability to legalize agreements which may be reached between the employer and the employees. A system in terms of which works and liasion committees negotiate wages, could in fact be in direct conflict with the industrial legislation which exists in our system.

To sum up, the works and liaison committee system, which aims at providing plant or enterprise management/labour interaction, I submit has neither specified nor enforceable powers of consultation and co-determination, nor is it capable of conducting wage negotiations. I would like to submit to the hon. the Minister of Labour the following conclusions in point form, and then a couple of recommendations which I would like him to respond to. Firstly, Black workers both in urban areas and in the mining industry—and I have no time to look at it now—are displaying a new desire to participate in the decision-making areas which affect their lives. This is a new dimension.

What about the labourers in the streets of Pinelands?

Secondly, wild-cat strikes at a significant level appear to be continuing into 1974 as well. The present legislation makes no provision for collective bargaining rights for Blacks, and the provisions for worker representation at an enterprise level for Blacks are hopelessly inadequate. I would like to suggest that we think again about something which I know has been looked at and which has been turned down before. As the result of this new mood, this new set of needs, it is important once again to urge that a full-scale inquiry into the industrial relations legislation be repeated. We need such a commission of inquiry to examine all the aspects of industrial relations, whether they be for Whites or Blacks. Here we could look again at the formulae for providing a measure of plant or regional wage bargaining, as well as providing this at a national or industry level. A compulsory, well-structured system of plant level worker representation with specified responsibilities and powers, recognition of Black trade unions and union membership for Blacks, the current trend in labour relations in Western Europe with specific reference to the position of immigrant workers there—they have very similar problems to these we have here—and the concept of an industrial relations court which has already been established in Kenya and is working very well and is going to be set up in Zambia also, are aspects to bear in mind. Membership of the commission must obviously be as wide as possible and must take into account not only the feelings of management, labour or Government, but also the feelings of a wide cross-section of our labour force.

Mr. Chairman, once again the hon. member for Pinelands was, as usual, the great champion of Black trade unions. He created the impression that the members of his party were the only members in this House who looked after the interests of the Black workers. However, one finds it remarkable how these people can blow hot and cold. Here we have the same hon. member, the great champion of Black trade unions and of the interests of the Black people, who is not so tolerant when it comes to the streets of Pinelands. Then he makes representations to the City Council and asks them whether they cannot do something to remove those Black people from the streets of Pinelands because they give offence to the Whites there. [Interjections.] I shall say in a moment where this double talk comes from. It is because they know that Black trade unions will pose no threat to them, the members of their party, the wealthy and those people living in Houghton and Parktown, because they can buy their apartheid. The hon. member for Welkom referred to the report published by the Department of Industrial Psychology at the University of the Orange Free State. From that report it can be seen that an investigation into the operation of the works and liaison committees at 326 of the largest organizations here in South Africa, was instituted. If the hon. member had wanted to take the trouble, he would have seen that only 5 % of all Black workers there requested bargaining machinery. That is why I want to say that this cry and this plea of theirs does not refer to anything requested by the Black worker. It is a White cry on their part. It is the cry of the hon. member for Pinelands and the other liberal elements in his party and the left wing of the United Party. I find it strange that certain members of the United Party have now suddenly joined the Progressives and the Reformists as champions of Black trade unions. I want to tell hon. members that they want them for one reason only. They do not want them in the interests of the Black workers, but they want to use them as a political weapon against the National Party.

I want to refer to the United Party’s siding with the Progressives in regard to the issue of Black trade unions. Hon. members will recall that last year, at the time of the general election, each party had the opportunity of stating its labour policy. The National Party stated that as far as they were concerned, there would not be Black trade unions. The United Party, through the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, stated that it was not in favour of Black trade unions. What is more the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that he was satisfied with the works and liaison committees because as far as he was concerned, they were working entirely effectively. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopted that standpoint during the election campaign, two of the official candidates, viz. Mr. Harry Schwarz and Dr. Anna Scheepers, stated that they were in favour of Black trade unions.

What happened after the election? When we discussed the motion of censure in the House of Assembly, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition performed a total about-face by saying that the United Party was in favour of Black trade unions. I wonder what caused that sudden change of front. We maintained that it was the result of leftist pressure exerted on them from within their own ranks. Last year I asked the hon. member for Bryanston whether it was true that it was that leftist group in their party which exercised that pressure. His words at the time were, “I could, but I shall keep it for another day.” The hon. member for Randburg is present at the moment and I wonder whether he would furnish us with a very honest reply. Was it as a result of the pressure exerted by the leftists in the United Party—that is to say, when the hon. member was still a member of it— that the United Party had a change of front in order to accept Black trade unions? The hon. member need only say “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.] The hon. member does not even have the courage to say “no”, because I think that there are still certain hon. members in the United Party who want to draw them, viz. the Reformists, towards their side. Now he does not want to tell us. Hon. members know that one always gets truth from the mouths of babes and sucklings. On Friday, 21 March 1975—in other words, not long ago—a motion concerning the training and utilization of manpower was being discussed in this House. I want to quote from Hansard, column 3127. The hon. member for Orange Grove had the floor and he stated the following—

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark then asked the following question by way of interjection—

The reply furnished by the hon. member for Orange Grove was—

Then the hon. member for Pinetown made the following interjection—

What is Anna Scheepers doing for them? The hon. member for Pinetown said it in so many words and it is of no avail now to attach any other meaning to those words. [Interjections.] It seems to me that the hon. member for Durban Central is suddenly terribly concerned about the hon. member for Pinetown now. I do not know whether the hon. member is the midwife or the godmother of the hon. member for Pinetown, who sometimes acts so irresponsibly in the House, but one can attach no other meaning whatsoever to the words of the hon. member for Pinetown than that Anna Scheepers is used by the United Party to do that inciting.

In my opinion, this admission on the part of the suckling of the United Party is a very serious admission that definitely deserves our attention. I now want to ask the rest of the United Party whether they agree with the interjection by the hon. member for Pinetown.

We agree that you are talking nonsense.

That is typical of the hon. member for Maitland: As soon as one corners him, he tries to find another way out. I have just asked him a question in a very polite and proper way. I always try to reason politely and very calmly. He must now tell me whether he agrees with the interjection by the hon. member for Pinetown.

What, then, did he say …

That’s it! I want to say that unless one of them stands up and directly contradicts or repudiates what the hon. member for Pinetown said, we shall take it that there are certain people in that party whom they are using, for their political ends, to agitate for trade unions among the Black people.

You cannot be serious.

Just like any other developing country, South Africa, too, suffers a shortage of skilled labourers. Now, the Government is often blamed for this and I want to say that this Government is not at all to blame. On the contrary, I believe that this Government, and the Department of Labour in particular, is doing its duty to the utmost as regards the establishment of educational and training facilities. I am not referring, now, to the training of artisans and apprentices.

I want to say something about the Career Services Section of the Department of Labour. This section was established with a view to bringing about the most effective utilization of our manpower by providing services in the sphere of career guidance, provision of employment, aptitude testing, rehabilitation of handicapped persons, personnel selection and manpower surveys. These services are furnished at no cost by the department. Well-qualified persons are employed at all district offices to provide those services and are available there at all times. The department also does everything in its power to bring these services to the attention of the public through the quarterly journal My Career which they publish, and by means of visits paid and brochures distributed by the department. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, today we have again heard quite a number of arguments in regard to the work reservation policy of the Government. The hon. member for Hillbrow as well as the hon. member for Maitland referred to it. He said that it is not playing any part in the socio-economic life of the country. However, the hon. Opposition always loses sight of one very important aspect of work reservation.

Its propaganda value.

That is the kind of argument which is always used, namely that it has propaganda value, but this indicates once again, and stresses the fact, that the United Party is out of touch with the heartbeat of its people. It is out of touch with the psychological needs of its people. Since I represent a constituency in which the White worker is preeminently playing his part, I want to reaffirm that the Government has the greatest appreciation for the loyalty and devotion to duty of our White workers. We have great appreciation for their disciplined conduct at all times. We are thoroughly aware that the labour peace which exists in South Africa is attributable mainly to the fact that this Government and the White worker are still on the same wavelength. In this regard the labour peace in South Africa is attributable to the very fact that the worker has the assurance that there will be no meddling with his social security. The worker and his family know that there will be no meddling with their social security because primary consideration is being given to this matter by this Government and the hon. the Minister of Labour. That is why work reservation will remain and that is also why close consultation with the trade unions and staff associations is high on our agenda.

Since I am thinking of social security, I want to make a few remarks about an important social security measure, namely the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The hon. member for Westdene referred to this Act. I just want to emphasize that although we are not a welfare State we nevertheless have measures of this nature to which constant attention is given, and which ensure that the worker and his family have peace of mind and that an incentive exists for the employer himself. Every three years merit rebates are granted to those employers whose claims payments in respect of injuries are lower than average. These e-bates are based on the ratio of an employer’s claim payments to his assessments. Great appreciation exists for the difficult and essential work which is being done in terms of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Nevertheless, there are a few anomalies in regard to this Act which I wish to bring to the kind attention of the hon. the Minister.

We are thoroughly aware that the Bill actually deals with indemnification, and not so much with damages. Factors such as pain and suffering or the loss of the pleasures of life are not covered by the concept “indemnification”. Yet the differences in compensation payable under the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act and under the Workmen’s Compensation Act are considerable, and are in fact to the disadvantage of the workmen concerned. I notice that the reserves in the statutory reserve fund amount to R45 million. The amount which is being budgeted for in respect of claims for the coming year amounts to R17½ million. It would appear therefore that the Workmen’s Compensation Fund is able to afford improved payments. I wonder whether the time has not arrived for attention to be given to the total elimination of income restrictions in the payment of claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

I also wish to dwell on a few aspects of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which could he reconsidered. I am taking as an example the case of asbestosis. If a miner contracts asbestosis in a mine or in the loading of asbestos, his case is dealt with in terms of the provisions of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act. If he contracts asbestosis in the off-loading of asbestos at a harbour, he falls under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The same applies to factories or places where asbestos pipes and containers are manufactured. For that reason I welcome in this regard the appointment of the Erasmus Commission of Inquiry into Industrial Health, and the fact that this commission has already commenced its activities. The report of this commission, which will probably eliminate anomalies of the nature I have just mentioned and will further promote the safeguarding measures which exist, is being awaited with great interest.

I want to mention other examples of aspects of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which I feel ought to receive attention. I am thinking for example of the example reported in the case Kau v. Fourie 1971 (3) S.A. 623 (T), in which it was found that an assault by an employer on an employee at his place of work and even during working hours does not constitute a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It could for example be considered whether damages for injuries incurred on the way to work in various circumstances do not sometimes prejudice the employee. I am thinking of the circumstances in the case Xakaxa v. Santam, 1967 (4) S.A. 521 (E). If the transportation is controlled by the employer and the accident occurs, the accident comes under the cadre of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. However, if he is being conveyed by his own means of transport, which is not controlled by his employer, then the case is prima facie not covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I am thinking of cases where the accident is ascribed to the negligence of the employer or certain of his co-workers. Then the workman may apply for increased damages. Usually the negligence of the employee is not relevant to the consideration of his claim for damages. This is only the case if he is guilty of serious or deliberate misconduct or other wilful act. However, when he applies for increased damages, the negligence of the employee becomes a factor. Sir, I want to offer for the consideration of the hon. the Minister that in this case the provisions of the Apportionment of Damages Act, Act No. 34 of 1956, should also be made applicable, i.e. that one does not fail completely if the immediate cause of the accident was one’s own negligence, but that the amount of the increased damages is reduced in accordance with the degree of the employee’s negligence. I am thinking of the case where an apprentice is injured in an accident and then in due course qualifies as an artisan. If he should then in due course suffer a setback as a result of that accident, he is still compensated in accordance with his scale of earnings while he was still an apprentice.

Sir, in conclusion I want to mention a matter which has already been raised in this Committee. I am referring to delays in the settlement of claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In the first place I want to testify that we have at all times received the most pleasant reaction from the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. But in these urgent times, in these times of computers and modernization, surely attention can be given to the more expeditious consideration and payment of these claims.

Sir, the hon. member for Brakpan concentrated for the most part on the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I have no fault to find with that, and perhaps I could also make a contribution in this regard. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not, at the same time consider the matter of he doctors’ accounts, as well as the hospital accounts, which have to be submitted under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for I do not think the worker is receiving his fair share. I think that an investigation would in this case serve a very good purpose.

Sir, in addition to that the hon. member for Brakpan discussed work reservation. He said that we are out of touch with the people; that there should be no meddling with the social security of the White workers. Sir, is there any White worker in South Africa today who feels that he cannot compete with a non-White? The White man does not want the insult levelled at him that he cannot compete with a non-White worker.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Sir, I listened to the speeches made by hon. members on the opposite side of this House, and not one of them replied to the arguments of the hon. member for Hillbrow or the hon. member for Maitland. All they did was refer to the miraculous industrial peace which is prevailing here in South Africa.

Is that not true?

Yes, to an extent it is true. The hon. member for Pinelands wanted to prove that it was not true, but I do not want to become involved in that argument. We have a reasonable measure of industrial peace in South Africa, and I am grateful for that.

As a result of the National Party.

Sir, it is not as result of the Nationalist Party. It is as a result of the sense of responsibility of the workers of South Africa.

Who creates that climate?

In the second place we have labour peace because we have the best industrial legislation in the world, and, as it happens, it was a United Party Government which placed that legislation on the Statute Book. Industrial peace …

Labour peace.

Very well, then, call it “labour peace”. Who is responsible for the labour disturbances?

The United Party.

If there are labour disturbances in a country, Sir, do you know who is responsible for that? If there are labour disturbances, it is always the Opposition who is responsible for that. But in this country there is labour peace, and that labour peace is due to the fact that we have a responsible Opposition in this country. Britain was mentioned here. If any of those members had known what the position in Britain is, they would have known that many people voted for the Labour Party for a specific reason. They said there was the greatest chance of labour peace if the Labour Party was in power, for then they would have a responsible Opposition which would not incite the workers. Sir, the labour peace which we are enjoying in South Africa may be attributed to this side of the House, for we have never exploited the grievances of the workers of South Africa, not for political gain nor for any other reason. That is why we have industrial peace in South Africa.

But I want to come to the heart of the matter. Labour peace has been discussed here, and everyone says we should thank the Minister for it. But surely this is not the only task of the Minister. The principal task of the hon. the Minister is to see to the labour requirements of this country. For weeks now we have been conducting a debate on détente, on defence and our national security here, but if we eliminate all these words, what emerges is one idea, and this is as plain as a pikestaff and flashes its message as clearly as a beacon, namely that our greatest bulwark in this country against a hostile world is our economic strength. [Interjections.] And our economic strength depends on whether we have the workers in South Africa. The growth potential of South Africa depends on whether or not we have the labour. But what is the position today? I am an ordinary farmer, but whether one speaks to a farmer or to the top men of the industrial sector, each one will tell you that there is a shortage of labour; his greatest bottleneck in his production process is labour. Sir, one can speak to any department—to the Post Office, the Police Service, to Interior, or the Railways—and every department will tell you that there is a shortage of labour.

And you have a shortage of United Party members.

What is strange about this matter is that there is not only a shortage of skilled workers, but also a shortage of unskilled labour. Sir, if this had been another country, one could perhaps have understood it, but surely in a country such as South Africa there is an abundance of people. Surely there should not be a shortage of workers here. What is the cause then?

But you say there is unemployment.

That hon. member was given a long time to speak, and said nothing. Now he must give someone else a chance. What is the basic cause of the shortage of skilled labour? I shall readily concede that as far as unskilled labour is concerned, it is not the fault of the Government alone. I cannot place all the blame on the Government; there are various other factors, but I shall come to them in a moment. But as far as skilled and trained labour is concerned, that side of the House has to bear the full responsibility, for in South Africa there is no shortage of people who can be trained. There is only a shortage of political and economic vision on that side of the House. What is the reason? When the history of South Africa is written and posterity comes to read it one day, they will realize that it was this Government which destroyed the immigration policy of General Smuts. Dr. Dönges said at that time: “All ad hoc machinery of the previous Government for its large-scale immigration policy is being dismantled. The policy is the maintenance of the existing structure of our White population and the protection of the State, based on a world view of matters.”

Did your M.P.C. emigrate?

In those years, when Europe was in ruins and people wanted to emigrate to South Africa, when we could have attracted the cream of Europe as immigrants, this Government destroyed that policy, and for that reason we are not able to produce as we should be producing today. To me that side of the House, that party, will always be a living monument to the tragic loss of manpower in South Africa. If our young people— the few who still vote for the Nationalist Party—had only known that it was this Government which pegged the expenditure on Bantu education at R13 million and that we are now saddled with an illiterate mass of workers, under whom there are those who probably have the lowest productivity in the world as a result of the actions of that Government, because it kept them illiterate. It could perhaps be said now that this was a previous generation of Nationalists. However, that is not the case. The hon. the Minister of Labour was in the prime of his life during those years. The hon. the Prime Minister, as well as the hon. the Minister of Defence, both sat on that side. I see that the others are not here; they probably knew what I was going to say and knew that they would have to feel ashamed.

What does the hon. member’s M.P.C. say?

The hon. member is talking about my M.P.C. He wants to harp on the matter of a young man who made a mistake. This will not be the first young man in South Africa who went off the rails. Those hon. members may say that it was a previous generation, but they bear the responsibility for that. Even during the short period I have been sitting in this Parliament, this side of the House has constantly been advocating: “Train these people. We need these labour forces in South Africa”. However, what did we get? Derogatory comments about a “crash programme” in South Africa. We ostensibly wanted to throw open the sluice gates, and plough the White man under. We did not; we wanted to develop South Africa economically so that it could assume its rightful place in the world and so that we could become the workshop of Africa. But all these are opportunities which have now been lost.

Mr. Chairman, I am really very sorry for the Opposition today, who would have liked to use the Labour Vote for launching a dramatic attack on the Government’s labour policy, sorry because they have such an extremely difficult task. To make a case on the facts today, while we do not have labour dissatisfaction, but the greatest degree of labour peace which one can desire, is certainly an extremely difficult task. For this reason I want to say that we are sorry for them, because we have full employment to a large extent and not that series of strikes which those hon. members so fervently desire. Therefore it is certainly a difficult task for them and that is certainly the reason why we have had so very little fire from Opposition side in this debate up to now. The Opposition only had a few hackneyed slogans, as was also illustrated by the last speaker’s speech. For the rest, however, there has been no substance in the attacks which have been made on the Government’s labour policy up to now.

If we had found, after the left turn of the Opposition last year when they accepted Black trade unions under the inspiration and at the insistence—as we have very clearly understood from the hon. member for Boksburg—of Senator Anna Scheepers, that there had been any appreciable insistence on Black trade unions from either Black workers or employers in this country, we should have had a completely different sort of debate in this House today. Then one would really have had fire and fervour in this debate. However, what has one had in the meantime? What have we had after that standpoint had been adopted under the inspiration and at the insistence of Dr. Anna Scheepers?

The hon. the Minister is completely wrong.

We have had the standpoint to which one of the hon. members on this side referred and which should be restated for the sake of the record and its correctness. That is the standpoint of Paramount Chief Matanzima. If he had not adopted this standpoint, but an opposite one, one would have heard a completely different story from the hon. member for Maitland. He likes such drama. Recently Paramount Chief Matanzima said the following in the Carlton Hotel in Johannesburg where he addressed industrialists and I should like to quote his precise words for the sake of the record—

If we had had a different utterance from him, we should have had a different reaction from the United Party today. However, what did we get in the meantime? We had the inquiry to which hon. members on this side referred, viz. that of the Free State University, which I do not need to deal with in detail again. This inquiry shows that employers were overwhelmingly in favour of having this system. I think it will be fair if I also refer to another university which instituted an inquiry into the same matter, viz. the University of Natal. Recently they inquired into the same matter and said, inter alia, the following in a pubication “A Study of Employers’ Attitudes towards African Worker Representation”—

That is what the University of Natal found. If we had not had these statements, we would have had a totally different attitude from the United Party. The findings which I have stated are exactly in line with what the chairman of a liaison committee wrote to the chairman of the Central Labour Board the other day. I want to read it out because it is an indication of the attitude of the Blacks in this connection. He said the following—

This is the opinion of the Black people which I am quoting here and not that of the employers to whom the University of Natal referred. This is Black opinion which comes down from Paramount Chief Matanzima to the Black workers themselves.

On 25 April 1975, we had 1 955 liaison and works committees which covered 556 000 Black workers. Surely that is an indication that we have a system here which is growing and that the system has viability. Where the United Party, and sometimes their fellow travellers, the Progressives, continually want to create the impression here that the non-recognition of Black trade unions means that we do not give the Black worker proper opportunities for communication, they allege that we are actually giving them something inferior in this system of committees. That is an impression one gains when one listens to the speeches of Opposition members. In countries such as France and the Netherlands, their works institutions were really of special interest to me—whether the industrial councils in the Netherlands or the works councils as they are called in France. It was of interest to me to see that one finds in those countries another communication system alongside the trade unions, a system which is playing an ever growing role in the workers relations in those European countries and which the worker is appreciating more and more. In the same way there are also 70 000 so-called “company unions” in Japan which are comparable with our works committees.

Yes, but they are trade unions.

Yes, they are trade unions, but they are comparable with our works committees because these “company unions” are just like these industrial councils and works councils to which I have just referred. They are based on enterprise level, as they call it, i.e. things are dealt with on factory floor level. I am glad the hon. member for Pinelands is nodding his head, because I understand Anglo-American sent him overseas some time ago to study things there. For a change he could tell us about the positive things in that direction which he saw when he went there on behalf of Anglo-American. I found his tracks in those countries, to which he had also gone to investigate things. Obviously things did not suit his book and consequently we hear very little from the hon. member for Pinelands. If we look at our own system in comparison with those which exist in Europe and Japan, I think that this liaison committee system of ours is the most ideal system for South Africa, a system which amounts to one being able to get one’s Black workers together around a table, normally once a month, to discuss matters—whether wages, uniforms, or bus fares. There are a few facets in those other systems from which we can learn something, but in general the system which we have developed here in South Africa, as the inquiries of the University of the Orange Free State and the University of Natal show, is surely the most effective we can have for our own country. After all, this liaison committee system is going to be tested in South Africa against one major basic requirement: To what extent does it contribute to bringing about labour peace in this country? That is actually going to be the crucial test to which this committee system will be put. One also finds that in respect of 92% of the 435 strikes which took place in 1973 and 1974 and in which Black workers were involved, there were no works or liaison committees. Only in respect of 8% of these 435 strikes, in other words in respect of 35 of the strikes, was there a committee, whether a liaison committee or a works committee. The fact that at 92% of the places where strikes took place, there were no channels of communication surely proves, I think, the necessity of our employers establishing these channels of communication. It does not help to despair about the necessity of communication at symposiums. Nor does it help to advocate the recognition of Black trade unions indirectly at symposiums and then not be prepared, the next day when one is back in one’s own factory where one holds the reins, to establish or to promote the most elementary form of communication there. Moving pleas of that nature do not help us at all. Therefore, I want to say that we expect our employers to do their duty.

A plea was made by the hon. member for Welkom that we make these works and liaison committees compulsory. There is much sense in that. One does not want to do everything which one has to do in this country by means of prohibition, obligation and legislation but one does at least want to give one’s people the honour of being enterprising enough to do things themselves. That is why I want to ask our employers, since they have now seen on the grounds of all these findings that this system of committees is the most effective system for our country, that they should really do their part in introducing a system of communication immediately into their enterprises. One of the reasons why they have not yet done so, is because a great number of them have been sitting on the fence up to now. They have been influenced by the propaganda they have been hearing from the opposite side of this House. Many of them have been sitting on the fence awaiting developments. I want to tell hon. members, and through them, the country, that the Government believes that the system of committees is the most effective and that it is the system which is best able to serve the interests of the Black workers in South Africa. Therefore it is the intention of the Government to continue propagating this system, developing it and allowing it to succeed fully in achieving the fine object for which it has been established. Since this is the case, our employers may safely start doing their part in this connection.

In the course of his speech, the hon. member for Pinelands made the quotation which should be rectified, in my opinion. The hon. member referred to the Deputy Secretary of the department, Mr. Botha, who supposedly said, “Black unions are on their way in.” The hon. member said that Mr. Botha actually knows far better than the Government, better than the Minister and better than everyone, what the true position is. The article to which he referred, appeared in The Star on 22 March. However, I am surprised that the hon. member only saw that newspaper. Surely he reads all the newspapers, does he not? Then did he not read that same Star of 24 March? That read, “Denial: Unions surprised.” Did the hon. member not read what the hon. the Deputy Secretary said? I quote, “Mr. Botha described these claims as totally untrue.” Perhaps it suits the hon. member’s book just as little to inform us of that as it suited his book to inform us of what he saw the position was with the committee systems overseas? The hon. member’s record shows that he is a priest and when he has a quotation to make, he can exercise his priestliness fully in this House by providing the facts correctly at all times. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Hillbrow, who was the main speaker on the United Party side asked me how I saw my task as the Minister charged with manpower affairs. He wanted to know in what direction I was heading and said that it seemed to him as if I was being purely negative in saying that this was not allowed and that that was not allowed.

He said I was doing nothing to encourage productivity, that “Government policy” was obstructing productivity. As we all know, that is the greatest United Party nonsense which one can find, because what has happened in the sphere of the utilization of Black labour, has really been something phenomenal. In recent years we have had such a reclassification of jobs in all our large industries and in all major industrial council areas, that Black workers today are doing parts of the jobs of artisans which, five years ago or further back, were done by White artisans. This process is a continual one. With the announcement of wages recently, it was announced in the engineering profession.

Since I have been taken to task about wages, I want to say something about that so as to be fair. I have been asked what the Government’s wage policy is in respect of Black workers. I want to give it to hon. members with reference to the engineers’ agreement, which has not yet been officially considered or approved. However, since this matter has been raised in this debate, I think it is suitable to reply. I have been asked what the Government’s policy is with regard to increasing Black wages. Here in my hand I have a document in which the increases in wages made from 1968 to 1974, are given. Up to 1970 the annual increases in wages in the case of Whites exceeded those of Coloureds or Bantu. However, in 1971, as a result of the attitude of this Government that ratio pattern was changed. In 1971 the Whites received an increase of 11,5% and the Blacks an increase of 12,3%. Let me mention the very latest figures now. In 1974 the Whites received a wage increase of 8,7%, while the Blacks received a wage increase of 28,5%. It is true that a large difference between the wages of the Whites and the Blacks still exists, but as far as the attitude of the Government is concerned, about which I was questioned, I think that this figure is an indication of What the Government is doing in that sphere.

I have also been questioned about the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is true that we revise that Act from time to time. I can announce that a special committee has been appointed by the Unemployment Insurance Board, to study the whole Act and to come forward with further proposals in connection with the improvement or restructuring thereof.

Then I have been questioned about the training of all groups of workers. The hon. member for Maitland wanted to know what the Government was doing in this regard. The things we are doing in this field are legion. What is being done in the field of training schemes for Black workers, can be argued fully during the discussion of the Vote of my colleague the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. What is being done to train Coloureds as motor mechanics can also be argued with the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations. A tremendous amount is also being done by the Department of National Education in the way of technical training for non-Whites. Therefore I shall not dwell on that. As well as these, there are also the numerous training funds which were established by legislation by this side of the House. There is a whole series of industrial councils. I am not going to list them here, because from time to time questions about them are answered in this House—which establish training funds in their various industries so as to be able to train non-Whites more effectively and more expeditiously in that way.

The hon. member for Springs made a plea in this connection that we give the White workers the opportunity to make use of this process of retraining. The hon. member spoke of 76 000 unskilled White workers. I can just tell the hon. member that the Government has decided that this should be done. We have just established a committee which is to consist of the Departments of Labour, National Education, Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations, Indian Affairs and Industries as well as employers’ organizations and trade unions. That committee has been established to inquire into the training and retraining requirements of industry in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Asians and to come forward with proposals.

There is something else which I want to say in connection with the question of training. Over the past years, the Government has often been criticized here for doing too little in connection with training. The Government has now proceeded to establish the centres to which I referred in brief and which can be fully discussed under the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. As far as that is concerned, it is really disappointing, after these steps have been taken, to have to read reports such as this one which appeared the other day in The Star under the heading “Industry slow on training scheme”. In the report it is said that it is a pity that the industrialists, who have pleaded for better training opportunities and facilities for so long do not make full use of these now that they have been established. The same opinion is also expressed in an article in the Financial News. I really want to express the hope that our employers will play their part now that they have received the State’s contribution for which they pleaded for so long.

The hon. member for Springs raised another important matter, viz. the day of 14 August, on which the Language Festival is to be celebrated. The Government has declared 14 August a public holiday to commemorate the coming into being of the Afrikaans language. Because it has been declared a public holiday, this means that people who work in shops and offices will automatically get that day as a paid public holiday in terms of the Shops and Offices Act and also under certain wage determinations m terms of the Wage Act. The people who work in factories and who fall under certain industrial agreements, do not get it. The hon. member for Springs made a plea in this connection. He is supported by representations from the Iron and Steel Workers’ Association, in which they thank the Government and everyone in this House for the declaration of that day as a public holiday. In all fairness towards everyone who is gathered here, I shall read it. The writer says (translation)—

They proceeded to advocate that since the shop assistants and office workers would get that day as a paid holiday and would therefore be in a position to attend the Language Festival celebrations, the people falling under the wage agreements should get it as well. The position in this connection is that in terms of the wage agreements, this should have been negotiated a year ago. The Government has no power to intervene in these wage agreements or to insert any provision. However, I want to make use of the opportunity to appeal to our employers, on behalf of the Government, that they give their workers the opportunity on that day, 14 August, to enjoy that day as a paid holiday. The Afrikaans language means a great deal to us. It is the language which is used by 60% of us in this country and a language which all of us, whether we are Afrikaans-or English-speaking, appreciate and respect. I think it is fitting that it be commemorated in such a way, and I trust that the employers will give attention to this.

With that I conclude my first entry into the debate under this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to what was said by the hon. the Minister. I should rather leave it to my Leader … [Interjections.] … the Leader of my group, the hon. member for Hillbrow to reply to that.

†Mr. Chairman, I should like, however, to reply to what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark had to say. He quoted from the speech I made in this House last year in which I was supposed to have said that the young White man in South Africa had nothing to fear if job reservation in South Africa was removed. I still stand by what I said then and I want to assure the hon. member that he has nothing to fear either. I maintain that this is so unless the hon. member himself believes that we are incapable of retaining the lead and the start that we as parents have given to our young people and that they need the protection of the law to enable them to maintain that start and that lead. He is wrong. I am confident that the White youth of today will become the leaders of tomorrow and that they will always retain that position. I do not see why they need to be protected by any law.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about the powers of this Department of Labour and its activities in regard to the protection of the workers. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Brakpan referring to this subject. I know that there is existing legislation to give this department strict control over the places of work and the conditions of work and the protection of the workers by the exercise of strict control and periodic inspections of the machinery and methods at these places of work. There is also legislation controlling the use of certain processes which affect the health of the employee. We are grateful for the regulations that exist, and particularly, the ones which come into effect on, I think, 1 October of this year dealing with noise in industry. In terms of these regulations steps will have to be taken to combat noise and to prevent the hearing of workers exposed to such noise being detrimentally affected I see that a great deal has also been done in the department in connection with atmospheric tests with the object of combating industrial diseases. I am also aware that such diseases are scheduled in Schedule II of the Act and that if a disease which is mentioned in that Schedule is contracted, such persons will be covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

I wish to speak particularly about the diseases that are included in the Schedule to the Act and about which I am deeply concerned. I refer here to the diseases contracted by workers in the asbestos and lead industries. The hon. member for Brakpan referred to asbestosis but he only referred to it in passing in relation to its being contracted by workers away from the mines. I know that mineworkers are very well protected as far as asbestosis is concerned. I am more interested in those workers who are not covered by the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act. I know that the hon. member referred to the appointment of the Erasmus commission which is investigating the asbestos industry but I should like to ask whether something cannot be done for those who have been affected by asbestosis in the past. I know that asbestos is used to a very large extent in industry. I wonder just how many people are aware of the extent to which asbestos is used in industry. For instance, virtually all roofing today is made from asbestos cement. A great deal of piping is made from asbestos cement. Asbestos is used as an insulator, as lagging in the covering of steam pipes. It is also used in the manufacture of brake linings. Wherever men work with it, and saw it or drill it, they are exposed to the asbestos dust which causes the dreadful disease of asbestosis. There has been very little control in regard to the elimination of this dust or the monitoring of the effects of the dust on the workers themselves. We should at least try something in the meantime to prevent the contamination of men’s lungs by asbestos dust until such time as the findings of the Erasmus commission are made known. I would like to say that the Medical Research Council has done a great deal in regard to the investigation of the effects of asbestos, as has the Department of Mines. It is interesting to read what Prof. Webster has to say in the Asbestosis Research Project of 1970 which was apparently financed by the Department of Mines. Professor Webster states—

This is from a report to the Department of Mines. Having been involved in working with asbestos, I know how men who have worked with asbestos have been out of those jobs for 20 years or more and have only then developed cancer of the lungs as result of having worked with asbestos. I had a case very recently where a gentleman who worked on the railways as fitter and who must have got asbestos into his lungs at some stage from the lagging on steam boilers, contracted the cancer only after he had been on pension for three of four years and then died a most terrible death as a result of lung cancer. Mr. Chairman, I ask what we can do for these people and whether it is not possible for the hon. the Minister to enforce precautionary measures such as the compulsory fitting of exhaust systems in places where asbestos-cement is being used or where the asbestos cement is being mixed, and whether monitoring systems cannot be installed whereby men who are working with asbestos or in areas near asbestos plants can be tested regularly to see whether they have contracted asbestosis. I was told by a doctor from the Medical Research Institute that they had discovered at Kuruman or O’Kiep, where the big asbestos mines are, that the wives and children of the miners were contracting asbestosis and that they were only getting it because of the presence of asbestos dust in the air in that particular area. Sir, this is a deadly thing and I do not think that the employers are aware of the danger which results from the use of dry asbestos mixed with other materials such as sand or cement.

Mr. Chairman, I would like also to touch on the use of lead in industry. This is one of the oldest methods of industrial poisoning known to man. It is on record that as far back as the days of the Roman Empire, people developed lead poisoning as a result of the use of lead piping in plumbing. It is amazing to read in this report of the Medical Research Institute how easily lead poisoning can be contracted. We read here, for instance, that a group of 40 employees exposed to lead in a motor assembly plant, where they installed the batteries, contracted lead poisoning. It is reported here that a schoolboy of 11 contracted lead poisoning in a very serious degree through storing his airgun pellets in his mouth. It has also been proved that a builder developed lead poisoning through storing his home-made wine in an old domestic bath with a high percentage of lead in the solder. Sir, this is a very common disease. At the beginning, of course, it is not dangerous, but it can develop into a very dangerous disease once it attacks the kidneys. Then, of course, it becomes fatal. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to give the hon. member for South Coast my sincere support in the plea which he made here for the protection of workers in various industries in which asbestos is handled. If something could be done in this regard, it would be greatly appreciated by hon. members on both sides of this House. I think that this matter could also be discussed very beneficially under the Mines Vote.

Sir, this afternoon I want to associate myself with those who congratulated the hon. the Minister, who is in charge of this honourable portfolio of labour. I want to deviate a little from the general discussion which has taken place here this afternoon, and say a few words about the concept of labour. One of God’s commands to mankind when the world was created was: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.” From that day on, throughout the centuries, it has always been regarded as an honour and a privilege to work. Since we in this fine country are advocating every day that productivity should be increased, we cannot omit to make an appeal once again to everyone to work harder. There is a tendency among many people today to keep on demanding more remuneration for less work. This afternoon I want to make a plea to all our people to work harder. If this nation wants to make the grade, then all of us will have to do more and more work. All of us believe that facilities should be created for the various races to increase their productivity; this is necessary, but it is the duty of each one of us to make his own contribution. I have already told you, Sir, that when God created the world he said to mankind: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.” But the word also tells me: “Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways and be wise.” Sir, it is clear from the Bible that the Creator had no time for a sluggard. He regarded it as a privilege for every person that has been placed on this planet to be able to work. Anyone who knows his history will tell you that it is a privilege to work. Sir, what happened during the depression years? I am not reproaching anyone, but in those years it frequently happened that a work-seeker said to an employer: “Please give me work; I am prepared to work these two hands of mine to the bone so that my wife and children may eat.” Sir, are our people still prepared today to work these two hands which God gave us, to the bone? No, all we hear today is criticism from all over. People do not ask themselves whether they are really earning the remuneration they received every day. I feel ashamed when I visit various offices and workshops and see how people, who should have started working at 8 o’clock in the morning, only walk into the office or workshop at 8 o’clock and then only begin to place the files on the desk or unpack their tools. If you walk into the office at four thirty or quarter to five in the afternoon, you find that the desk has been cleared and that they are sitting there, waiting for the clock to strike five. Sir, go and visit certain departments in Pretoria at 5 o’clock in the afternoon and see what happens there. You are afraid you might be killed in the stampede for the doors, or along the passage, as they storm out there when the clock strikes five. It is time this message went out to the people of South Africa: If we want to utilize the potential, the wealth which we have here, if we want to retain the privileges which we have here, then we shall have to do more and more work every day. If I do this, Sir, then I, as labourer, am worthy of my hire, as the Word says, but if I do not do this, then I am put to shame. I have already quoted to you, Sir, that Solomon said that we should go to the ant, consider her ways and be wise. We can also learn a lesson from the bee. Who of you here has ever sat down next to a beehive and watched the bees at work. The scientists tell us that the lifespan of the bee is only two to three weeks. What does it die of? That bee works itself to death within two or three weeks. I have never yet heard of any person, White or non-White, who worked himself to death.

They eat themselves to death.

Yes, the cemeteries are full of people who ate themselves to death. Sir, one morning I stood watching two swallows building a nest. From early in the morning, when it became light, the female and the male swallows fetched clay from a nearby pan. From there they fetched the clay piece by piece and built their nest. That evening the nest was not yet large enough for them to sleep in, and they spent the night on an old beam. That was the first time that day that the two birds had stopped to rest, when it became dark and they were no longer able to mix the clay and the water. They spent 2½ days building that nest, and when the third day dawned that nest had been completed, and they were able to sleep in it. Sir, let that be a lesson to us Whites. Mankind, whom God created best of all His creatures—the product which He was proud of having made—will be held accountable for the fact that he keeps on demanding more remuneration today for less work. I think it is time we told the Whites and also the non-Whites, and particularly the Bantu, for whom so many pleas were made here today, that the time for holding out cupped hands is past; and if I may make an appeal to the leaders of our homelands, then I want to tell them that the primary necessity is that the people of a country must learn to work. And if I may address a message in this House this afternoon, I say to those homeland leaders: “Let your people work.” I say to Lesotho: “Do not allow your people to go on strike and cause revolutions; you will starve in Lesotho; teach your people to work.” Then they can return and show their country what they earned. Then they can feed their wives and children, for when hunger pangs gnaw at the stomach and the time arrives again, as it arrived in 1933 to 1939, when people queued up for work and many people asked for work and said that they were prepared to work their fingers to the bone —I hope we never experience times like that again—then I can only say to the hon. the Minister: “You have an honourable position; you have charge of this major task. Thank the Lord you are meeting the needs, and I believe that in your time it will not be necessary for us to queue up for work again.” For I want to say this, Sir, if one has experienced this, one can appreciate the word “work”.

In the early hours of the morning of 1 November 1974 this hon. House passed the Second General Law Amendment Act, 1974. In terms of certain provisions of that Act, the Master and Servants Acts, which dated from the previous century, were removed from the Statute Book. At this stage we all said it was a step in the right direction and something on which the National Party and therefore the present Government should be congratulated. You will remember, Sir, that in terms of the provisions of the Masters and Servants Act, it was a criminal offence for a farm labourer or a domestic servant to abscond from service. There were, however, also provisions to the effect that the servant could receive medical treatment and care at the expense of the employer or master. On 19 April this year, our hon. State President pointed out so correctly and strikingly that all people in South Africa should realize once more that the quid pro quo for our rights is obligations. This probably finds no more effective application than especially in the field of the law of contracts in South Africa. The position is that when I purchase a house and the written agreement is drawn up, I may not claim that house in terms of my rights under the contract before I have fulfilled my obligation, viz. the obligation to pay the purchase price or to provide security that it will be paid. The essentials of the contract of purchase and sale we also find in the contract service. The contract of service may be somewhat more sophisticated, but in short it also amounts primarily to my services being sold at a certain price or salary to a particular person or body corporate. The feature of the contract of service today in terms of our modern labour legislation or industrial legislation is that it is put in writing, so that the contract together with the conditions of service constitute the contract of service with the employer, so that I as employee and the employer may know exactly where we stand in relation to one another; that we may know what the rights of the employee and of the employer are, and, on the other hand, what the obligations of the employee and of the employer are.

In the light of what I have just said, I have asked myself the question whether the time has not arrived for serious consideration to be given to entering into written contracts of service in respect of our farm labourers as well as domestic servants and to specifying in writing what conditions of service apply in respect of these workers. Sir, has the time not arrived when we should see these people not only in the light of human dignity, so that they may be able to lead a dignified life, but also in the light of their contractual ability— and please note, I am not saying their ability to enter into treaties—and as people with whom we can indeed enter into a written contract? Sir, today our Coloured people and Black people in South Africa are all learning to read and write. We are proud of that; the Government is proud of that. In many cases the White taxpayers are subsidizing this education to a large extent. But is it wrong then to enter into written contracts with them? Is it not by doing precisely this that we shall be giving recognition to their human dignity? I think the time has arrived when bodies such as the S.A. Agricultural Union should take the initiative to have a simple, yet comprehensive, contract drawn up, to have it printed and circulated through the agency of the provincial agricultural unions, through the agency of our agricultural co-operative societies and through the agency of our farmers’ unions, a contract which can be applicable to those labourers, particularly on farms, whose periods of service have a certain degree of permanence, a contract which will embody certain essential things, inter alia, the type of work to be done, whether it is to be general farm work, that of a tractor driver or lorry driver or a combination of one or two or all three of them; in the second place, working hours and working days, and the wages for the work, and not only R2 or R3 per day, but an actual salary scale, so that this labourer may also know that if he performs his duties to the best of his ability, he has the prospect of receiving an increment after a certain period of time, and may also know what the increment will be; and also as far as accommodation is concerned, whether it will be in single quarters or on the basis of family housing; leave and sick leave, medical services and medical care, insurance and workman’s compensation benefits. Especially here in the Cape where the Coloured is becoming more rare as a farm labourer, I think it is essential for our farmers to give more and more consideration to the contract of service and the conditions of service, and what is more, to what they are offering and to what other bodies and persons are offering as well as to fringe benefits and incentives. We know that as far as fringe benefits are concerned, our farmers number among the employers in South Africa who provide the largest number of fringe benefits. Just think of rations such as flour and meat, vegetables and fruit, which are provided at low prices or even free of charge, free accommodation and free transport. But the time has arrived when we should also consider, as far as our domestic servants and farm labourers, are concerned, matters such as pension funds, medical funds, group life insurance schemes, and so forth. There are agricultural bodies which are considering these things and have it on their agendas year after year. Perhaps the time has arrived for us to give this matter more active attention. The repeal of the Masters and Servants Acts in South Africa has created a vacuum for those employees and employers, who fell under these Acts. A fine opportunity has been created for them to organize and regulate their own service relations civilly. Somebody should just take the initiative and I believe that the initiative should be taken by the employer.

Next I should like to dwell briefly on another aspect, and that is the utilization of manpower in South Africa. I want to dwell on a single aspect of this only, viz. the hundreds, if not thousands, of boards, committees, commissions, congresses, conferences, foundations, and, I think I may also add, judicial enquiries, which we have in South Africa. We complain of having limited manpower and we hold symposiums to decide in what way we may utilize our manpower to the optimum potential. Then we go ahead and appoint of our best brain power, of our most productive people, to committees, commissions and boards which overlap each other and some of which are not even necessary. If we want to look at one aspect of manpower utilization, we find that we have a Dairy Board on the one hand and a Milk Board on the other hand. In addition to these we have a Fresh Milk Producers’ Union and before long we shall probably have a Curdled Milk Board as well. If the price of fresh milk were to rise, we should probably have an Anti-Milk Board as well. Have we not reached the stage where we should combine some of these overlapping boards, committees and commissions in order to derive the best from our manpower potential? Is it necessary to establish a Bantu Affairs Administration Board consisting of 34 members? And then such a board still has an executive committee! Has the day not arrived when we should utilize our brain power potential to a larger extent and more effectively? Then there also are the incessent congresses and conferences. Is it necessary for our institutes and other large bodies to hold a national congress or conference every year or every second year? I know of no reason why any body or institute should meet more often than once every five years. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria East made fun of farmers, but I shall not follow him in that.

†I would rather continue to speak about lead poisoning, something I spoke about earlier. As far as lead poisoning is concerned, a shameful practice has taken place in South Africa and has been brought to my attention. Lead poisoning occurs most frequently in factories where the workers work with batteries or the extraction of lead from scrap. When labourers or workers contract lead poisoning they often go off sick without consulting a medical doctor or a district surgeon. They go off sick and stay off sick suffering from initial lead poisoning, perhaps, or even advanced lead poisoning. Then they go back to their jobs and they continue their work because the laying-off period helps to “cure” them. After repeated sessions of being sick, however, they are, of course, paid off by their employers. The worker is not aware of the fact that the illness he has contracted has been as a result of his work and he goes away to his home where he either recovers or dies from this lead poisoning. I feel that something should be done to see to it that these people are protected by some system of monitoring the places where they work. These workers should be examined regularly to see whether they have contracted lead poisoning or not.

It is interesting to see that the National Research Institute for Occupational Diseases undertook such an examination scheme or monitoring scheme in 1970-’72. They examined 181 workers in four factories involved in the handling of lead. They did full clinical tests, blood and urine, to look for all the symptoms of lead poisoning. They found that the quantity of lead absorbed by 37% of these 181 men would have resulted in their suspension from work had the prescribed safety levels of the chief medical adviser of the Department of Labour in Britain been followed. At least 35% would have been notifiable under Schedule 2 of our Act. They also found that under our present set-up in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act only 18 of the 181 cases would have been notifiable as against 35%, or roughly 60, if the British standards had been applied. In terms of the standards suggested by the British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 44% would actually have been classified, and the position would have been even worse. The most interesting fact which emerged from this entire survey was that 31 cases were discovered at these factories which were notifiable under normal circumstances. This is a very high figure when one thinks that over the past five years in South Africa only three cases per year have been notified as suffering from lead poisoning. In these four factories the medical research team found 31 cases. In other words, the people themselves are not aware that they are suffering from lead poisoning, their employers are not aware of it and nothing is done about it. In their report the research team came to this conclusion:

Furthermore, they recommend that there should be a much more intense investigation into the incidence of lead poisoning in factories. They also recommend that in all factories where people work with lead adequate ventilation systems should be used to clean the air regularly. They also recommend that all people working with lead should be medically examined. As a matter of fact, one of the biggest lead manufacturers in South Africa approached this institute and asked for their advice on how to install such a system. They employ a full-time medical sister to examine the men working with lead regularly once a week. If it is discovered that someone is suffering from lead poisoning he is immediately moved to another section of the plant. Those who suffer from lead poisoning to a more serious degree are treated clinically. In this particular factory the production rate has gone up, while the sickness rate and the loss of man-hours have come down markedly. The employer is benefiting from this as is the health of his employees. I would like the hon. the Minister to consider how these methods can be enforced on firms who are using lead or which are involved in the making of batteries. It would help prevent the further poisoning of people who work with lead. I realize, of course, that there are certain provisions in the Workmen’s Compensation Act dealing with this matter, but these provisions are not being observed or enforced. I suppose it is not possible for the department to enforce them as well as they would like to enforce them. If lead manufacturers and asbestos manufacturers were made aware of the production time lost and if the workers themselves were made aware of what they are being subjected to or being exposed to, we would definitely get a bigger reaction, both from the workers and from their employers. More co-operation would then be obtained from industries working with these two elements.

I would now like to come back to my favourite subject, namely productivity. The hon. the Minister has not answered the hon. member for Hillbrow’s charges about the standards of productivity in South Africa. There is no doubt about it that productivity in South Africa is poor. It is probably good among certain sections of the working force, but the average is brought down considerably through the lack of productivity or the poor productivity at the other extreme where one has the so-called cheap labour. This labour is usually considered to be cheap labour but it is not. It is expensive labour, because it does not produce. We are reaching the unfortunate stage in South Africa today where we are being forced to pay higher and higher wages for less and less productivity. We are forced economically, and in the interests of social and industrial peace, to pay higher wages, but we are not getting extra productivity in return from the very people who are getting these wages. It is this problem that is worrying everybody—every employer, exporter and manufacturer in South Africa. What is the answer of the hon. the Minister to this problem? Are we just going to continue increasing wages without getting increased productivity?

Mr. Chairman, I now move—

I am moving this motion in order to give the Prime Minister the opportunity of making a statement.

Motion agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I have to inform this House that an armed man or armed persons gained access to the consular offices of the Israeli Government last night or this morning, on the fourth or fifth floor of a building in Fox Street, Johannesburg. The person or persons are armed with an automatic rifle or rifles. It would appear that they are holding four to six persons as hostages in the offices. It appears further that no one was aware of this position before about 1 o’clock this afternoon, when shots were fired from a window at passers-by in the street and, according to my information, subsequently at the crowds which had gathered there in spite of warnings. According to the information so far, it would appear that 32 people were wounded in this way and that two persons, one White and one Bantu, were killed. It would also appear that some of the persons inside the offices may be wounded or even seriously wounded. It is not known who the armed person or persons are, and up to now no demands have been received from these persons. However I wish to make it clear that under no circumstances will any demands be met.

Hear, hear!

Both the Israeli Ambassador and the Minister of Justice are on their way from Cape Town to Johannesburg. I wish to give this House the assurance that everything that is necessary is being done, and that high-ranking officers of all the departments concerned with such matters are on the scene. Access cannot be gained to the offices because of reinforced doors which are bolted from the inside. However, it is expected that this matter will be cleared up in the course of the night Hon. members will understand that I cannot elaborate at this stage on the methods because these people are in radio contact, and if the news were to be broadcast at any time this would of course defeat all efforts in this regard. However, I can express the hope that the matter, as I have already said, will be cleared up tonight.

On behalf of the Government and the House I should like to express my deepest sympathy to the next-of-kin of the persons who were killed, as well as to the innocent passers-by who were wounded and injured in this process. Since the task of the people dealing with this matter is being made extremely difficult by crowds that gather and do not want to go home, I want, in this way, to address an appeal to them to leave the central city area. Tomorrow, when I have more and better information at my disposal, I shall inform the House more fully in regard to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to associate ourselves with the words of sympathy which have just been expressed by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.