Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half hour.

Since this Vote was discussed last year, a number of changes have been made, the most important of which is that a new Minister has taken over. We congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment and since we are aware of the importance of this Vote, we also wish him every success in the difficult task which lies ahead of him.

I think I may say that the Labour Vote has often been approached in a pedantic and stereotyped way in the past. A new insight, a new approach to the problems is undoubtedly necessary. We believe that this is probably the main reason why this portfolio has been entrusted to the hon. the Minister. We hope that we will get this new insight and approach from him.

There is no doubt about the fact that his predecessor compromised himself so deeply in respect of most matters of policy that he left himself virtually no room for manoeuvre. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why he has received a kind of Irish promotion. I believe that what is necessary is a flexible approach and a new insight which we hope to get from the hon. the Minister.

We had initially decided not to launch a direct attack on the hon. the Minister and to give him the opportunity to find his feet in the new position. For this reason I must say that I find it a pity that he deemed it necessary a short while ago to express himself on certain policy aspects outside this House in a way which we regard as highly controversial. Nevertheless, in an attempt to be constructive, we should like to state our view of some of the labour problems with which the hon. the Minister is faced and to suggest to him how we believe he should tackle those problems. It is a pity that labour has so often become a political playball in the past and that more attention has been given to the number of votes which could be gained than to the economic interests of South Africa. Had this not been the case we would have progressed much further in this connection by now than is the case at the moment.

We on this side believe that there are certain background factors which will dominate the labour scene in the next few years. Let me refer to a few of them. In the first place, the manpower dynamics in South Africa are naturally complicated as well as fluid. They are complicated because there is a shortage of entrepreneur types, especially among our Black people. At any rate, this is the position at the moment. There are groups in our country at the same time which show an extremely high and an extremely low profile of economic development. There is a diversity of concepts and value systems. This complicates the matter. Nevertheless, it is fluid as well, for no matter what is provided by law, a factual situation is developing which is completely outside the law. To indicate what I mean, I should like to refer to a survey which was recently made by Prof. Nieuwenhuizen of RAU. In his survey he refers to a particular industry in which 500 people are employed, and industry which seems to play an important strategic role in South Africa. He tells us that in this organization, all the administrative tasks are performed by White women, while all the technical tasks of production and distribution are performed by Black men. In the whole organization of 500 people, scarcely half a dozen White men are employed. So irrespective of what may be provided by law in connection with job reservation, etc., we have the situation here that structural changes are taking place in the work context, changes we cannot ignore and for which we must indeed make provision.

In the second place, there is the question of the number of new workers for whom job opportunities have to be created. As regards provision for our potential economic population, I should like to mention a figure—I assume that the figure is correct—which has not been mentioned here before. If we want to create job opportunities for all races in South Africa, we shall have to create 300 000 new jobs a year over the next ten years. This amounts to almost 1 000 a day. I wonder whether we have any idea of what is at stake. Let me explain how I arrive at that figure. Just the natural increase of our population will give us 2,5 million new workers over the next ten years. If we take it that there are 500 000 people at the moment who are not being properly utilized, economically speaking, this means that we shall have to provide for 3 million new people over the next ten years. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister, in the first place, what arrangements he is going to make to provide for these requirements. Secondly, we should like to know how he is going to reconcile it with the present labour policy of the Government.

In the third place, there is the massive training programme which will be required by this kind of situation. In the USA, only 8% of the workers are considered to be unskilled at the moment. To be able to compete with them and with other countries, we shall have to work in the same direction. This gives us an idea of the enormous training programme that we have to undertake. In addition, we must remember that the Whites, as well as the Coloureds and the Indians, are withdrawing from the so-called blue collar jobs. From this we may conclude that within 20 years, most of the highly skilled work in South Africa will have to be done by Black people. The attempts at training which are being made at the moment in order to cope with this matter are quite inadequate and futile, of course. I also refer, in this connection, to the importance of education, for education has to be incorporated into such a training programme. It is generally accepted today that there is a direct connection between the money spent on education and the value of the national product. As regards training, including university training, for our Whites in particular, there are many experts who believe that we have already passed the saturation point. If one accepts this, there must, of course, be strong misgivings about the present policy for educational expenditure in South Africa.

Furthermore, I want to point out that we shall have to act against a completely different socio-economic background, which is going to change radically our approach to the labour problem. There are homelands which are going to become independent within the next five years. Indeed, one of them is already on the eve of independence. This is going to give a new dimension to the whole bargaining process. Bargaining is now going to become multilateral. In the future, bargaining will not only be concerned with the price of labour. It will be concerned with satisfying the aspirations of workers, both in the economic and in the political field. We have not the slightest indication that the Government has any idea of what is at stake here and that they are making any attempts to cope with the situation.

Finally, there are the conflicts which are going to arise from the expanding role of the authorities. Here I think in particular of the form of macro-management by the Government, of the requirements of the Government, which often clash with the interests of micro-management, i.e. the interests of the entrepreneurs themselves. These are only a few facets of the new development in this field, and we should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what his programme entails, what his view is in this connection and what he is going to do to cope with these matters.

†Mr. Chairman, if you view the labour problem in this light—and I have tried to indicate the broad panorama against which we must view it—then it seems to me that certain questions immediately arise. Perhaps I can raise these under the headings of what should be done, who should do these things and how should they be done. I shall indicate to the hon. the Minister how we on this side of the House view these matters. We trust that he will seek every opportunity and take every advantage of the opportunity to indicate to us whether he agrees with our views or not.

First of all, what should be done? What should be the basic objective in South Africa at the present time? A primary aim in our view is sustained economic growth, not as an end in itself, but as a means to create new jobs and in order to raise the standards of living of all our people. A second main objective is that we would accept the complete interdependence of all the races in the economic advancement of South Africa. Thirdly, we would aim at creating a trained work force which would be capable of meeting the technological needs of our time and of our society. Fourthly, and concurrently with this, we would accept as a commitment that one should equalize as soon as possible the employment opportunities and the training facilities in South Africa for all our workers. In the last instance, we on this side of the House would implement a labour policy which is dictated by the human and the economic needs of our society and not by ideological considerations. Those are the aims as we see them and, as I have said, we will be anxious to hear whether the hon. the Minister also accepts them, or whether he rejects them, and if so, why.

If we have decided that these things are our aims, then the next thing we must decide is who must carry them out. Here our view has been consistent and clear for years, namely that labour is indivisible. It makes no difference whether the hands that do the work are Black, White or Brown. They must either build together, or else they might well destroy what has already been built. Therefore we would be opposed to the fragmentation of the labour function. At the moment in this country it is fragmented, first of all on colour lines, because the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs deals with all Black labour issues. Similarly, other hon. Ministers deal with Coloured and Indian labour, and it would seem as if this hon. the Minister confines himself virtually to White workers. Secondly, the labour function in this country is also fragmented on functional lines. Each and every department seems to have a finger in the pie, for example the Department of Mines, the Department of Agriculture, etc. That is the reason why the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut recently said, almost on a note of despair, that if one deals with labour issues in South Africa, there are more than 10 different Government departments and agencies involved. We believe that this creates a totally impossible situation. All labour matters should be correlated and co-ordinated by this hon. the Minister. We feel it is an obligation which he dare not shirk, and any steps he might take in order to persuade the hon. the Prime Minister to rearrange the functional set-up to ensure that labour issues are co-ordinated and put under the umbrella of his portfolio, we will support.

I have indicated what ought to be done and who ought to do it. We now come to the important issue of how it should be done. With the limited time at my disposal, I can merely refer to a few of these aspects. In the first place, we regard it as essential for South Africa that there should be a defined and co-ordinated manpower strategy for the whole country. This means that the labour needs of our country should be studied, correlated and co-ordinated on a nation-wide basis. In order to do this, one obviously requires a national manpower planning agency. In the past we have advocated this frequently, but the Government has never reacted to it. I believe that the FCI has made similar overtures to the Government and we understand, from Press reports, that these have been sympathetically considered by the Government. We do not mind where the advice comes from. It is sound advice wherever it comes from and we can assure the hon. the Minister that if he were to accept it or work in that direction, we would give him our full support.

Particularly in a country like South Africa with its diverse and plural community, certain rights of workers should be accepted by all of us. I believe there are four fundamental rights of workers, rights which are universally accepted throughout the world. I shall indicate them to the hon. the Minister and we shall be pleased if he could indicate whether he accepts them or not. A fundamental right of every worker is to be trained to his full potential. Secondly, there is the right of equal pay for equal work and endeavour. Thirdly, there is the right all workers should have to organize themselves for collective bargaining. Fourthly, a worker should have the right to be protected by legislation against exploitation and abuse of the other rights I have mentioned.

Concurrent with this, I wish to mention the permanence of the Black worker in our industrial set-up. We can no longer shy away from this. Yet we cannot find a single hon. member on that side of the House who is prepared to stand up and say that he accepts that the Black workers are here for all time. The moment their permanence is accepted, it means that the discrimination, which is prevalent at present, is no longer tenable. It means that one should work rapidly towards equal pay for equal work. The Government is committed to this and the hon. the Prime Minister has told us that the policy of his Government is to close the pay gap. As a matter of fact, we have promised it to the United Nations. However, what is in fact happening? The most recent statistics produced by the Department of Statistics for the manufacturing sector show that the gap in pay between White and Black in 1969 was R225. In December 1974—I do not have statistics available for any period after that—the gap was R393. In other words, over a period of practically five years the gap was not narrowed, but actually increased. As a matter of fact, it almost doubled itself. It is quite clear why this is happening. It is no good the Government telling us, as they often do, that our Black workers here do better than the Blacks elsewhere in Africa. The Black man who works in South Africa is not interested in what the man earns who works in Kampala. He is interested in what the White workers who work side by side with him earn.

The moment one accepts the permanence of the Black worker, one comes to the issue of his bargaining procedures. What a strange history we have in this regard! It is universally accepted throughout the world that workers can organize themselves into unions so that they can bargain. In this country this is apparently in order for Whites and for Coloureds and for Indians, but by some strange method of reasoning it is not in order for Black workers. Look at the history of this. When we said it, and we saw it as inevitable when we said that Black workers should be unionized, we were attacked viciously from the other side. We were, in fact, told that all we wanted to do was that we wanted the Blacks to strike. To my mind this shows the strange understanding of the role of trade unions, because obviously their role is not to facilitate strikes, but to obviate them. However, what happened in any event two or three years ago? Thousands of Black workers struck. These strikes were illegal and the Blacks should all have been gaoled. Did the Government gaol them? No. They changed the procedures and they changed the law and said that the Black could strike in future. However, they are still denying them trade union rights. This does not make any sense. We have nothing against works and liaison committees, but they can at best be complementary to trade unionism and not a substitute for it. The danger of the present situation is that Black unions are being formed and are operating outside the parameters of the law. There is yet a further danger that follows from the Government’s present policy, and that is that Black unions are developing separately. Anybody who has any understanding of what happened in a place like Zambia, for example, will try to avoid this at all costs. In Rhodesia they have accepted the principle of integrated unions, and this is the one field in which they have never had any problems.

Your speech is very stereotyped.

The hon. member may also take part. We shall be very happy to listen to his contribution.

This brings us to job reservation, on which the hon. the Minister recently had all sorts of things to say when he spoke outside this House. Can hon. members imagine: Here is the hon. the Prime Minister due to meet Dr. Kissinger. Dr. Kissinger will most probably say to the hon. the Prime Minister that we discriminate in South Africa. The Prime Minister will answer that we are not and that we are moving away from discrimination. Dr. Kissinger will then say: But what about job reservation? This puts us in a completely untenable situation. The Government says it applies to only 2,8% of the work force. If that were the case and this was the whole story, then I think there is very good reason why it should be done away with immediately.

We also have the problem of training. When we mentioned a few years ago the need for accelerated training, think of the sneers that came from that side of the House. “All you want to do is to open the sluice gates for non-Whites to come in”, they told us. However, this happened years ago already. They are here and they must be trained. When I say that job opportunities for some 300 000 people must be created in South Africa every year, it gives indication of the massive training effort that is required. Why can’t they be trained? Because there are not the understrutting technical college facilities. There is Mr. Drummond of Seifsa, whom the Minister’s colleague and predecessor often quoted with such approval. Mr. Drummond recently said we cannot do the training properly because we do not have the technical college facilities here in White South Africa. The Government has decided that they should be trained in the homelands, but the homelands have not got the jobs. They account for 2% of South Africa’s economic activities. How long can we continue with this kind of absurdity? South Africa is suffering in the process because of the way the Government is handling this issue.

And as the result of all these things, look at the effects on productivity. I want to quote figures which I quoted last time, because the Minister’s predecessor never took any notice of them. All he told us was how many liaison committees he had constituted. Sir, if we do what Prof. Reynders and others do and express productivity as an output ratio per unit of input—he took some 12 developing countries—we will find that France is 82%; Belgium, 74%; the UK, 54%; and South Africa, 23%. How do you explain that? The Minister cannot just grumble about it, but must give us an explanation and say what is going to be done to rectify this. One can express it in a different way, according to the PLU index, the production per labour unit. They took 17 developing countries and an index of 100 in 1963. On that basis they found that Japan at present was on 229—in other words, they had more than doubled it—Holland was on 193 and South Africa on 102. In other words, over a period of 10 years we had advanced by two points. One of the most recent issues of the Financial Mail expressed it differently. They produced a graph and this again shows South Africa at the bottom of the league, because on an index of 100 all these other countries are ahead of us: Australia, USA, Canada, UK, Western Germany, Switzerland, France and Japan, the latter with an index of 594. Sir, these are figures which speak volumes. That is why we have inflation; that is why we have balance of trade problems. One of the major reasons therefore is the low productivity in South Africa. The hon. the Minister is new to this Vote. He has just taken on this important assignment. Yet he must now tell us what he is going to do about it. The reasons for it are quite obvious. There is an increase in productivity if there is mobility of labour both in the vertical and in the lateral field, but in both cases the Government prohibits this, the first by way of job reservation and the second by way of the Physical Planning Act. Sir, it is unbelievable that the Government could react in this way.

Many years ago I happened to be at Witrand, an institute for the feeble-minded at Potchefstroom. There were about 100 of these people working away. Half of them were building benches around the sports field, and they were happy about it. They were laughing and thinking they were doing a constructive job. But behind them came the other half and they were breaking all these benches down again. Both groups were entirely happy; both were doing a job. The Government to my mind is doing precisely the same sort of thing, because while some Ministers are building, others are breaking down. It is unbelievable. Here we have a situation where, as I read recently, 350 Koreans were permitted by this Government to come and help erect an oil refinery outside Cape Town. Now, I have nothing against Koreans, but we have a history. Do you remember, Mr. Chairman how we brought in Chinese to work on the gold mines and how we brought in Indians to work on the sugar farms? But here we have thousands upon thousands of our own Coloured people and thousands of our own Black people who are clamouring for opportunities to do higher skilled work, yet the Government sanctions the importation of 350 Koreans from the other side of the world. Sir, it is unbelievable.

Sir, my time has virtually run out. I still want to make brief reference also to the migratory labour in South Africa. I have no doubt that we do need foreign workers in South Africa, but at the moment it is estimated that we have nearly 2 million migratory workers in South Africa, one in three of our labour force, and if the Government’s separate development and separate freedoms policy were to be fully put into effect, 80% of the workers in South Africa will be foreign and migratory. Lots of things stem from this. One important thing that we overlook too is that the average work life of a migratory worker is at best 20 years, half what it is for a normal worker. Have we any idea of the loss in manpower sustained purely through this? We were interested too recently to see that the Department of Bantu Administration, Deputy Minister Punt Janson when he was still there and was doing valuable work before he was put out on pension, was at least thinking in terms of a charter for migratory workers. We on this side of the House believe that is a function of this department, of this hon. Minister. His labour force is of a migratory nature and is bigger than any such force in existence in the world. He should think in terms of a charter for them and what their rights are, what they can do and what they are not permitted to do.

There are so many other issues to which one would wish to refer, but I cannot do so now. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that our view on this side of the House is that he is new in the job and that he has an excellent opportunity to remove all the cobwebs which exist at the moment. He should do what ought to be done, namely to put South Africa’s labour on a more rational and more advanced footing, because in the long term it is only through economic strength that we will be able to defend ourselves, and this can only be done if labour is put on a sound footing.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to pay tribute to the former Minister of Labour, at present the President of the Senate. Hon. members know that ex-Minister Marais Viljoen was for many years attached, and very closely attached, to the Department of Labour, initially—from 1958 to 1966—in the capacity of Deputy Minister and subsequently as Minister of this department, from 1966 until the beginning of 1976. If memory does not fail me, I think that this is the longest term that any Minister of Labour has served in that portfolio in the Republic of South Africa. Looking back over that time it is clear that the former Minister, the present President of the Senate, succeeded in managing this vital portfolio with great success.

Certain beacons were established by ex-Minister Marais Viljoen during this period, beacons one cannot fail to see, and I want to refer to a few of them. In the first place I want to refer to the amendment of the Industrial Conciliation Act. He made possible the establishment of training schemes, since the training of workers in South Africa was a subject very near to his heart. In the second place I want to refer to the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Act, by means of which he created the opportunity, and made it compulsory, for the trade union membership fees of the workers of South Africa to be deducted from their wages by employers on a monthly basis. In the early days this was a delicate and sore issue among the workers. However, I am of the opinion that the outstanding Act placed on the Statute Book over the past few years is the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act. By means of that legislation the hon. the Minister created opportunities for negotiation for the Black man with regard to wages, working conditions and conditions of service. Those are the outstanding characteristics. However, over the years he has also devoted his energies to effecting various improvements to the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act. These are the beacons he has established in his term as Minister of Labour. We want to wish him success and all of the best in his new post. I should also like to avail myself of the opportunity to extend a special welcome to the present Minister of Labour in the post he occupies today. Over the years he has shown himself to be an extremely capable and hard-working man who has devoted his full attention to the portfolios he has occupied in the past and has made a great success of them. We are all aware of his characteristics of humility, humanity and integrity, and also perseverance. On behalf of this side of the House I want to convey my cordial congratulations on his appointment to this portfolio. We know that he is going to make an outstanding success of the important task of labour, too. Furthermore, he will have the loyalty and the support of this side of the House and it is in that spirit, too, that we approach the discussion of this debate.

Now I want to come to the hon. member who had just resumed his seat. When this hon. member starts talking, he is captivated by the sound of his own voice, just like a nightingale singing to itself. Then he gets lyrical, and as he goes on he tends to put both feet into a trap. I want to refer to this. Over the past few years, in his short political career, the hon. member has committed the most monumental blunders, blunders he later regretted. I don’t know whether he did so on purpose.

Prove it!

Yes, I shall prove it. The first case was a few years ago when he referred to Malawi as a small country which was not worth South Africa’s while to befriend.

Of course I did not say that.

He said it was a backward country. Last year, during the Budget debate, while the Organization for African Unity was sitting in Dar-es-Salaam, he made snide references to the budget and to the amount of R1 000 million for defence.

Recently, during the visit to Israel, in a newspaper comment he made a number of snide remarks about the interview and discussions which took place between our hon. Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Israel. During the debate on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote he referred to a previous debate in which he had spoken about discrimination. What is the hon. member doing? On 22 April he told the hon. the Prime Minister that he and the South African Ambassador had said that they were moving away from discrimination. However, he asked what exactly they were doing. He used this example, which I regard as a reprehensible one.

Why?

I shall tell the hon. member why. That was just where he put his foot in it, and the hon. member is doing the same, too. The hon. member pointed out that the burial allowance paid in respect of a Black man in South Africa was only half of that paid in respect of a White. That is quite correct.

Of course!

Good. At this stage there is a Bill on the bench of the hon. member—who is chairman of the labour group of the United Party—amending that very clause so as to equalize the burial allowance for White and Black. Why, then, does the hon. member use that as an example? Why did the hon. member not use that amendment to thank the hon. the Prime Minister? The hon. the Prime Minister is keeping his word, he is eliminating discriminatory measures where possible. Now I shall tell hon. members why he is doing so. He has no reason for doing so. He is doing so in order to take a back-handed swipe at his own fatherland, and then they take it amiss of one when one questions their bona fides, when their patriotism is the point at issue. Then we question it. However, I want to leave the hon. member at that. The hon. member raised a few points in this debate—I cannot deal with all of them—to which I shall reply in the course of my speech. I took the trouble to look up what this Government has been charged with this year in regard to the labour policy. In the sources to which I referred, I saw what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said in the no-confidence debate. I wonder what their chief spokesman on finance, the hon. member for Constantia, had to say? I saw what the hon. member for Hillbrow had to say, during the discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote. They have consistently accused this side of the House of just one thing, and that is the acts passed that discrimination against Blacks, and our ideological labour policy. That was their finding and subsequently they accused us of having a low productivity as a result of those Acts and also of causing inflation thereby. Once again, this is exactly what he said again in this debate today. He added nothing new. He said exactly what those hon. members had said before. The steps suggested by the hon. member were that we should do away with job preservation. That is what he said today. He went on to say that we should do away with influx control.

I never said that.

The hon. member referred to the freedom of movement of the Black man. This, too, has been raised consistently in the debates conducted here this year. He said that we should change the definition of “employer” because a Black man is supposedly unable to negotiate for his rights.

Employee, not employer.

Yes, employee. Thank you for the correction. He said that we should give the workers better training and that we should also narrow the wage gap. Those are the accusations they made. We should also amend the Physical Planning Act because aspects of that legislation, they say, give rise to lower productivity and inflation. However, let us now be honest. That hon. member says that we should do away with job reservation, but is the UP really in earnest when they say that we should do away with job reservation?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

They all say “yes”. Good. I now want to refer to an article in the Financial Mail of 20 September 1970. It is about the Post Office debate which took place when the late Minister Basie van Rensburg asked Mr. Etienne Malan: Are you people prepared to train the Black people as Post Office workers and telephonists? What did the Financial Mail find then? They said that to date, no reply had been received from Mr. Etienne Malan, and as a result of that the Financial Mail said “Speak up, United Party!”

It is 1976 now.

It is 1976 now, is it? However, when the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications wanted to appoint three people at Peddie six years later, what happened? The hon. member for Albany objected to the appointment of non-White telephonists because he said that they were incapable and their presence gave rise to insecurity. They do not want them there. They asked how the hon. the Minister could appoint Black people at that small place to serve White people. [Time expired.]

Now you are talking nonsense.

The issue is far more complicated than that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Whip for the opportunity to continue. With reference to this I feel that the Financial Mail now has the fullest right to write another article like this and ask: Speak up, United Party! They must stand up and state where they stand now in respect of job reservation. That hon. member asked where we were going to find the people and the employment opportunities. However, they are aware of the projects such as a second Sasol, a third and fourth expansion of Iscor and the nuclear installation at Koeberg. Surely those projects create employment opportunities. We on this side of the House, as the National Party, are therefore not ashamed to say that we shall make better use of the Black people. We shall utilize them better, and that is what we are doing.

Where?

Where? Sir, did the hon. member not listen to the radio the night before last when Mr. Roos said that 18 000 people were now occupying posts on the Railways previously occupied by Whites? We find the same thing in the Post Office and in industry. However, we are doing so on a different basis because there are historical reasons for this. They want to turn South Africa upside down, and in that way cause chaos. However, we are doing so in an orderly way. We are doing so in the closest cooperation with the trade unions. It can only be done on that basis, of course. It can only be done if one has the co-operation of the trade unions.

However, they are asking for the abolition of the job reservation provision. I say that that provision in particular must remain on the Statute Book to afford protection to the White man in the event of his employers wanting to eject him from his traditional employment to make place for the Black man. Mr. J. P. Coetzee said that job reservation had to be abolished, but he did not say that it should be totally abolished. He clearly emphasized that the whole issue had a historical background. He even warned the industrialist that it could be dangerous to his industry if he allowed influx to occur unchecked. I have the speech by Mr. J. P. Coetzee, the General Manager of Iscor. Articles about this appeared in the newspapers too, of course. The newspapers maintained that he had said that job reservation should be abolished. However, what did he say? He said that we should have to switch over more rapidly in certain categories of employment. The other day I said in this House—and I say it again without hesitation—that if it is necessary, and if there are shortages in certain categories of work as a result of the expansion which is taking place in South Africa, we shall have to make more use of the services of the Black man. It would be a foolish Government which spent millions on the training of Black people and did not subsequently make better use of their labour. Is the hon. member perhaps under the impression that we are fools? After all, the White worker of South Africa does not lack sense, nor are the trade unions unreasonable, and if the employers consult with them and co-operate with them properly, then we shall be able to utilize these people better.

Are you going to pay the same wage for the same work?

The hon. member wants to know whether we shall pay the same wage for the same work, but I want to point out to him that there is no provision in our laws that a wage should be determined in accordance with the colour of a worker’s skin. The hon. member would do well to wake up. He ought to know that a wage is determined according to the job that has to be done and not according to the colour of the worker’s skin.

Hear, hear!

This has always been the case and the hon. fool should have—I apologize and withdraw the word “fool”. The hon. member should have known it, but apparently he does not know any better. I think he should rather go and play marbles, because possibly that is the only thing he knows something about.

The hon. member for Hillbrow said that we should give the Black worker the right to negotiate. Surely it has been stated repeatedly in debates of this nature what the policy of the NP is with regard to Black trade unions. That is why we introduced legislation to regulate the labour relations of Black workers. By means of that legislation we made it possible to establish works and liaison committees. We also created the channels through which those committees could act. How many of those committees did we have in the year that the legislation was placed on the Statute Book? A mere 162. However, today we have more than 2 400 liaison and works committees by means of which almost 650 000 people are afforded the right to negotiate.

The hon. member for Hillbrow added that we were discriminating against the Black man in that the Black worker was not regarded as a worker in terms of the definition of “employee” in the Industrial Conciliation Act. He said that if the Black worker was defined as such, he would be able to enjoy trade union rights. The hon. member accused the hon. the Prime Minister of discriminating against the Black people in that they did not have the right to be members of trade unions, but I now want to ask the hon. member whether a Black man can become a member of his party.

No, he cannot. Your Act does not permit of that.

But surely, then, the UP, too, is discriminating against Black people. [Interjections.] Of course it amounts to discrimination, because the hon. members maintain, after all, that we are discriminating against Black people because we do not allow them to belong to trade unions. We also have the testimony of Chief Buthelezi, who said that in the young, developing Transkei he would not allow Black trade unions since this could pose a threat to him.

But what has Chief Buthelezi to do with the Transkei?

The hon. member for Hillbrow states that the Black man would be better off if a trade union could negotiate on his behalf, but does he not remember the “Laundry Traders and Dry Cleaners” trade union on the Witwatersrand? That trade union negotiated with the Industrial Council, and one of the companies of which the hon. member is chairman of the board of directors, served on the Industrial Council. What happened in regard to the negotiation by that unrecognized trade union? The wages proposed were so low that the Bantu Labour Council was not prepared to accept them. The Black workers concerned would simply have been exploited if the Labour Council had acceded to the representations made by the “Laundry Traders” trade union. There is another example, too. I refer to the “Liquor and Catering Trades” on the Natal south coast. There were negotiations on their behalf, too, but in their case it also happened that the wages proposed were so low that the Labour Council was unable to accept them. However, the hon. member creates the impression that Bantu membership of trade unions is the alpha and the omega as regards the solution of our problems.

The hon. member also referred to productivity. He said that our productivity was too low, and in order to support his statement he whisked through a whole series of statistics relating to other countries. However, he forgets that these are the statistics of established industrial countries. He cannot compare South Africa with such countries. Thousands of our workers are not yet productive enough; we are, in fact, a developing country.

I was referring to the growth in productivity.

The hon. member referred to our low productivity. He said that one of the reasons was the wide wage gap. Surely my hon. friend knows that the wage gap was narrowed substantially in 1974 when the White workers were awarded an increase of 11% or 12%—I do not have the exact figure—whereas the Black workers were awarded an increase of more than 28%, with the specific aim of narrowing that gap. Hon. members opposite must not come up with the kind of rot they have been speaking today. They also referred once again to the training of the Black man. How much is the State not spending on the training centres that are being created to train the Black people properly so that they can be better utilized! In conclusion I just want to mention an example: At the end of 1972 we had 6 000 Bantu construction workers, but at the end of 1975 there were more than 9 000 of them. Of course we are making more use of the Black man, but I want to stress that we are doing so in an orderly way in co-operation with our trade unions. Our trade unions consist of reasonable people, and when it is necessary and when categories of work are available, we shall certainly accelerate the pace.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to claim the privilege of the second half hour. I should like to associate myself with the remarks made already by the two previous speakers in wishing the new Minister of Labour well in the work he has now been given to do. Reference has also been made to his predecessor. Certainly, he served as Minister of Labour for a long time and during that time some very important legislation was placed before the House. Mr. Chairman, the whole question of labour is a very vital factor in any nation’s economy. Therefore, not only do we congratulate the hon. the Minister but we also wish him well with this very difficult job.

Labour has, I believe, direct relevance to the problem of inflation and to the possibilities of increased productivity, and therefore it is doubly significant. Before I try to sketch in the background of the four major areas in which I believe labour and economy are so vital, I wish to reply briefly to the hon. member who has just sat down. Firstly, I regret very much his remarks about the necessity for the maintenance of job reservation. We strongly differ with him on that point, as we have done consistently. In the second place, I want to say that he did make noises about the better use of Black labour which seemed to me to be highly encouraging. Who knows, it may be that that is the first signal we are getting from the other side that job reservation in the final analysis will have to disappear. Further, I just want to put the hon. member right on two points he made. Firstly, he referred to Chief Buthelezi as having said that he would not allow trade unions. That of course is quite incorrect. It was Chief Minister Matanzima who said that and not Chief Buthelezi.

Sorry. Thank you for correcting me.

I am prepared to help at any time. Secondly, by asking the hon. members of the Opposition whether or not they would allow a Black man to join their party and by his saying that this was an act of discrimination, he showed a singular lack of knowledge of the legislation governing improper interference which, of course, forbids that taking place. It is very distressing to notice this kind of ignorance.

The first point I want to make in order to sketch in the background is that the South African economy is indivisible. Thus the prosperity of one group will be dependent on the prosperity of any other group in South Africa. We can no longer pretend that there is separation. As one man put it, you can have separation into separate States if the Government believes that this is right and they have the power to implement that; you may even be able to have separation into separate nationhoods, but you can only have one labour force in South Africa. A fact of life which must be accepted by any who seek to build up our economy is that that economy is a single, integrated economy.

The second point I want to make is that a very high percentage of the labour force working in the industrial areas is Black. Figures have already been quoted in the House in this connection. I believe it is necessary for them to be quoted again. In 1932 and 1933 the percentage in respect of Black labour was 57%. By 1972 it had risen to 75%. I believe that in 1976 that percentage of Black workers is reaching a figure of nearly 80%. The point I want to stress is that the number of economically active Blacks is increasing at a higher rate than that of Whites. This, too, is a fact of life which we must come to terms with when we talk about the harnessing of the productive potential of our total labour force.

The third point I want to make, by way of background, is that most of our industrial development is, and will remain for some time, in the urban areas. Because Blacks form such a vital and integral part of our labour force, we must face up to the fact that they are a permanent part of South Africa. Whether we like it or not, our cities are not White. We have built this country together and not separately, and the economy and the future of our country will depend on our ability to work in partnership for the future. This inevitably will bring about a heavy emphasis on the need for transport, housing and education for our Black labour force.

The fourth and final point, by way of background, is that our economic growth rate must increase. We are all agreed on this. It has been stated again and again during this session. We cannot, to put it at its strongest, defend South Africa unless our economy is strong, and unless we take the facts already mentioned into account, we will not be able to achieve a stable and growing economy.

With these four facts having been sketched out very briefly, I want to address myself to two crucial facts relating to our labour force, which mitigate against economic growth and long-term industrial peace. I have only chosen two, because I believe that these two are the major matters which must get the attention of this House. I hope they will receive the immediate and urgent attention of the new hon. Minister. The first is in the area of labour representation. Because of the facts of our economy, it is self-destroying to separate the labour force as we are doing, in terms of their normal aspirations. I refer now to the right of workers to negotiate, to engage in collective bargaining on an organized basis. The hon. the Minister of Community Development, when he was still in the Opposition benches, had this to say (Hansard, 1973, col. 1050)—

Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister of Community Development believes that still, and I believe that it is absolutely essential to do exactly that and to do it without delay. But this Government, despite the addition to their ranks of that hon. Minister, persists in splitting the labour force in half. It is true that Black unions are not illegal, but they are of course unregistered, and in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, a Black worker is not an employee. This creates confusion. I believe it is creating tension at a growing and alarming rate amongst Black workers. Of course, it also creates tension and confusion in management. Instead of the Government being an enabling force, it is divisive. An example of this is the recent events at Heinemann Electric, events which emphasizes the tension which exists just below the surface in South Africa. The disturbances which took place at that industry were not about wage demands, but rather as a result of the refusal of the management to recognize that 75% of their Black labour force had joined a Black union—I want to stress that this is not illegal—and they wanted the management to recognize this union rather than the liaison committee which existed. I believe that this incident and other incidents of labour unrest should act as an alarm bell in order to awaken the Government from its slumbers. The Federated Chamber of Industries, which can hardly be described as a radical organization, states in its labour policy for the 1970s that—

The report states further—

The FCI acknowledges that the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Amendment Act, 1973, has created new opportunities for Blacks, but stresses that despite this—

The FCI concludes with the following—

From which report are you reading?

This is a report by the FCI entitled “A Manpower Planning for the 1970s”. I have the report here if the hon. the Minister would like to see it. Of course, it is quite clear that the Government itself, including the previous Minister of Labour, was well aware of that situation. That is why a draft Bill was circulated during 1975, a draft Bill amending the Bantu Labour Relations Regulations Act of 1953. This was sent out about seven or eight months ago, and some of us expected to see it on the Order Paper this session. I can well understand that we have a new hon. Minister of Labour and perhaps he wanted to familiarize himself directly with the problems before introducing the measure, but we note that the FCI and many other people have expressed the need for urgent action. When one looks at the draft legislation, although it is a matter of regret that we are not to have the legislation this session, when one sees it as an ad hoc piecemeal amendment of only one part of the industrial relations legislative system, one is grateful that the Bill has not come before us yet. However, one assumes that further legislation is going to be introduced in order to overcome these shortcomings.

The second major area to which I wish to make reference this morning—the hon. member for Hillbrow referred to it towards the end of his speech—is the fact that the overwhelmingly large percentage of our total labour force is migratory. In order not to waste any time, I want to concede immediately that migrant labour is not confined to South Africa and also that migrant labour has been a factor in South African economy since the discovery of diamonds. It was aggravated by the discovery of gold as well as by South Africa’s rapid industrial development. Let me also make it clear to the hon. the Minister that I am concerned, in this debate, not with migrant workers coming from foreign territories, although this itself has many wide-ranging complications, but with migrant labourers from the Republic of South Africa to their place of work. In this connection I, in this session, have requested to have sight of two reports, one of which deals directly with a study on migrant labour by the Department of Labour and the other dealing with a commission of inquiry into disturbances on our mines. In both instances this was refused, and one can only surmise that both reports offer very strong criticism of the migratory character of our labour force. People from many walks of life have criticized our widespread dependence on migrant labour. For example, the then Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions said: “Migratory labour is a bad thing”. I assume that if he indeed said this, he meant it. And if he meant it, it should be done away with. One cannot simply make a statement and describe something as bad unless one then attempts to try to remedy the situation.

The majority of churches in South Africa have raised their voices against this system. It is well known that the Cape Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church summed it up perhaps best and most powerfully when it described migrant labour “as a cancer which rages in the life of the African population” and we must give urgent attention to what the Synod went on to say when it stated—

However, it is not only the churchmen and politicians who are expressing their concern, but management itself is beginning to change its perspective. There is already an increasing questioning in the mining industry, not merely on moral grounds, not only because of certain international pressures, but because of hostile confrontations and of mass walkouts from our mines. It is interesting and encouraging to see management questioning very much more than they did before the wisdom of the migrant labour system which previously was taken as a fact of life which was going to be with us for ever. Furthermore, with the increase in wages, with the shortages of skilled White labour and with Blacks moving into more skilled positions, there is an accompanying resolution that where we are paying higher wages, there is obviously the need to increase productivity, and to achieve this the workers have got to be able to do, on a systematic basis, more skilled work. I submit that they can only do this if we have a stable work force.

Much has been said about the consequences which flow from migrant labour, and it is salutary to note the position of the migrant labourer before the law. This is something which is not always borne in mind. All African workers who do not qualify for permanent residence rights must, on turning 15, or on becoming unemployed, register as a work seeker with their tribal labour bureau. At these labour bureaux they will be given a work category. They must then wait in the tribal area to be recruited by a licensed recruiting officer. When recruited, such migrant labourers enter into a service contract with a maximum duration of 12 months. At the end of this period his passbook must be signed off and I emphasize this. He must then return to his tribal area for at least 28 days. He can never be a tenant in a township house, he can never change the work category he was assigned to when he first registered as a work-seeker, he cannot bring his wife or children into a prescribed area where he is working, and as all migrant workers can only work for a continuous period of up to 12 months at a time, he can never qualify for permanent citizenship under section 10(1)(b) or (d). He must therefore—and this is the important point—remain a migrant worker all his working life.

Sir, it is hardly necessary for me to rehearse all the effects of migrant labour on family life. There can be little doubt, however, that migrant labour contributes to problems like separation, informal bigamy, marital alienation, prostitution, homosexuality, excessive use of alcohol—and that is to say nothing of the effect this has on successive generations of children who are deprived of their father and very often of their mother as well. There can surely be no argument that we must unite in condemning a system which can destroy the moral fibre of the majority of human beings living in South Africa. When one realizes the extent of this, the solution of this problem becomes urgent. It has been recently estimated that 59% of the economically active men in the so-called White areas are migrant workers, and if we exclude the agricultural sector, that proportion shoots up to 85%. One economist points out that “half the adult males in the homelands and in rural areas are absent from their homes for the greater part of their working life, and among the better educated echelons this absentee rate reaches nearly 90%”. Sir, this system, I submit, divides the Black man in half: on the one hand a labour unit and on the other hand a person with a family. These two are rigidly separated. What we have in South Africa is that Whites in large measure have control of the capital, of the entrepreneurship skills and the property, while the majority of Blacks are labour units. Now what does this really all add up to? Sir, what we have in South Africa is a modem system of economic feudalism, with landlords on the one hand and vassals on the other.

What we have is a classic situation which must lead to a confrontation unless changes are made. Management cannot possibly know its Black labour force, because for a variety of reasons, not least of which are political and legal factors, the labour force represents what is called in economic and sociological terms a “stranger” group. The migrant worker is employed in a society which does not offer him status, recognition, housing, security, education for his children, ego rewards, diversion or opportunity. The migrant worker knows no mobility. Anyone who knows anything at all about industrialization, knows that it requires a broad mobilization and motivation of those who are participating in it. We can only conclude that South Africa’s industrial giant has a soft underbelly, because we are pursuing the task of economic development with a labour force of which the vast majority cannot really be expected to extend a moral commitment to the social system which the economy serves. In short, the migrant labour system puts at risk the very fabric of our society. If we have a problem of security in South Africa, it is due to this system. Sir, there is only one attitude we can adopt to this system, that we ourselves must accept responsibility for our economic system and for our values. Reading past debates over this whole area which have taken place in this House, I have read with interest comments made by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, and I am sure that he will maintain that position, and that is when he said: “In order to achieve the high standard of living we need the labour of Black men, and if we build our prosperity and our well-being on a wicked system, we should pay whatever it costs to get rid of that wicked system or do without that labour. It is as simple as that.”

I believe that hon. the Minister is absolutely right. It is not an easy, simple way, and there is no well-fashioned blueprint before us, but until such time as we accept responsibility for our own value system, until such time as we accept responsibility for our migrant labour system as a central factor in our labour economy, we will go on, perhaps here and now bemoaning and bewailing the effects of this, but never ever coming to terms with it. The hon. the Minister continued and I quote again—

I believe that he meant that and I believe that he still means it today. I want to underline it. Change must come, and while one appreciates that the process of change will be difficult and very complex, the very complexity must not be used to avoid the issue or to procrastinate about beginning immediately to eliminate the dehumanizing effects of a system which demeans us all. Migrant labour is morally indefensible, economically wasteful and fundamentally dangerous to all of us.

I want to make a few suggestions as to what I believe can be done to tackle this vast problem, a problem which leaves none of us untouched. It is important that neither employers nor the Government wait on each other to initiate action. Both sectors, the employer and the Government, need to do different things and must, of course, work in close co-operation. An example of what can be done is what is taking place in Kimberley. The diamond mines, where the migrant labour first began, have now made it possible for many hostels in the compounds to be closed down and are making use of local labour living in the townships at Kimberley. This is a very significant step and has only been taking place during the last few years. Hundreds of men are now working under perfectly normal conditions because the will to make the change is there.

Of course it is not as simple and easy as that in every area in South Africa, but that is an example of what can be done. I am aware of the costs involved, but I believe that employers can be encouraged through tax incentives to stabilize their work force and to assist with housing. This is a long-term solution and there is much that can be done by employers in the meantime to alleviate the effects of the system until such time as the major changes can be made. Such measures are intermediate long weekends, subsidized transport so that migrants can visit their families, the provision of visiting accommodation for wives and children, the humanizing, as far as possible, of existing hostels and, in particular, in the planning of new hostels. It is distressing that large firms with large Black labour forces are building new hostels perpetuating the system of double bunking and having 15 men to a small room. A final measure is the construction of a better communication system between the place of work and the home area.

Concern and debate are not sufficient. I have raised with the hon. the Minister the two major areas of concern in our labour economy, the first being representation for all workers and the second the question of migrant labour. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to appoint a commission and to appoint it as soon as possible, to take a long look at these far-reaching problems. I believe there must be adequate representation from management, from labour and from the Government, to assist not only in ensuring industrial peace, but to ensure the prevention of confrontation in our South African society. These two problems could be looked at, and I believe there are hon. members on that side of the House as well as on this side of the House who have both the experience and the training and the insight into the nature of these two problems. There are many people in management and in labour who are desperately concerned about these problems, and during the recess there will be a wonderful opportunity for a commission to do a piece of work which can only result in better labour relations in South Africa and to the growth of our economy.

Mindful of the fact that there are 4 728 109 economically active people in this country—this is the amount according to the 1973 survey of labour force—it is good and right that we should have the opportunity from time to time to speak about this very important matter of labour. Year after year we listen in this House to the standpoints of the UP and the PRP in order to determine to what extent their approach to this problem has become more profound. There can be no doubt that this is indeed a problem.

To our great disappointment we find that the same old story is dished up to us year after year. We also find that there is still a lack of proper perspective among these two parties. It is important that the voters outside should take note of this. The UP creates the impression that it is the alternative government and the PRP alleges that it is just a short head behind the UP. This morning it happened again that the UP’s speaker on this matter dished up the old story, but I do not want to go into this matter again. The hon. member had half an hour at his disposal and I have only ten minutes. In these ten minutes I want to try and react to the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands, the PRP speaker on labour. I should like to react to him because in my opinion he at least tried to approach this matter seriously. Now, one must start at the beginning, when one looks at their standpoint. We heard this beginning again from the hon. member for Pinelands. They approach it from one point of view only, namely that the economy and the economic progress and development are the alpha and the omega of the whole matter. If this is accepted and we plan accordingly, this country would ostensibly be a Utopia. I do not have the time to go into this in any depth, but I want to quote the following to you. Years ago Dr. Jooste, director of Sabra, said that—and I do not want to go into details—the second great deficiency in this approach is that it is determined economically. It also sets economic goals and he also believed that economic laws will presently put an end to apartheid. This is their approach and this a totally wrong approach. It is a totally wrong approach because, and I quote further—

With their approach they want to bedevil those sound relations which have existed over the past 28 years in this country, thanks to a National Government. This morning the hon. member once again advocated his standpoint here in connection with trade unions for Black workers. What is the question as far as trade unions are concerned? Here we have that one of the leaders of the trade union movement in South Africa, Mr. Nieuwoudt, had the following to say—

He refers to the plan of the Federated Chamber of Industries. He says it is dishonest and he gives his reasons. He gives his reasons why it is dishonest and why it will not work. However, if one forces the Black trade union system down the throats of the White workers—something I shall refer to again later on—what will the consequences be? The people who have to carry the economy in this country, will, after all, revolt. Then one would be destroying the co-existence and sound relations in this country which are responsible for our being able to maintain our economic growth rate which we have been able to maintain so far. In other words, for an intelligent member like the hon. member for Pinelands … [Interjections.] … it ought to be clear that if one comes along with something which is not acceptable to all the workers in this country, one is going to experience problems.

What did Tucsa say?

With a view to the difficulties which may arise, why do those members return every time to the question of trade unions? The answer comes from various quarters. There are naturally political motives involved. [Interjections.] I quote—

This is the point. I want to ask the PRP to rid itself of this standpoint of trying to take political capital out of this situation. There is too much at stake for South Africa. After all, there are the proper channels. I wish I had more time this morning to speak on this subject, but I emphasize that the proper channels do exist. The system works excellently. Has the time not arrived for us in South Africa—and now I am speaking of all responsible trade unionists, the Government and everyone who has an interest in this matter—once again to consider the whole question of trade unions in general? What we have in South Africa today, is a system which we inherited from England and it does not suit the conditions we have in South Africa at all. Therefore, many of our people today are not very fond of the trade union movement, and it is an unhealthy situation in itself.

Albert Hertzog is.

I am definitely not pleading for the abolition of trade unions, but we must consider the matter again in order to see whether we should not make adjustments in connection with the existing channels through which representations may be made.

You find them all over the world.

Should we not start a similar enquiry to the one which resulted in the works committees which have proved their effectiveness in practice? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to proceed with his speech.

My time is running out, but in conclusion I just want to refer to the establishment of an Institute for Labour Relations at Unisa earlier this year. When announcing it, the hon. the Minister had the following to say:

This is what the hon. the Minister said at the establishment of this Institute for Labour Relations, and I support what he said. I think I am speaking on behalf of all of us here when I say that we heartily congratulate Unisa on the establishment of this institute and that we also wish them the best of luck for the future, because that institute may lay down very clear guide-lines which we in this country may follow. I hope that one of the matters they will consider, will be the whole question of the trade union movement in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Springs must pardon me if I do not react to his speech, because I should like to express a few thoughts on a matter which concerns in another sphere.

I represent a constituency of which the voters are predominantly factory workers. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and wish him everything of the best on behalf of those voters. They are convinced that the right man was appointed at the right time. We wish the hon. the Minister well for the task which lies ahead.

Hon. members said many interesting things. They spoke about the Black man, the Black labourer, productivity and the so-called “wage gap”. I immediately want to point out that these are important matters and add that the Government realize that the non-White labour question in South Africa is a difficult one, but that the Government—we in these benches—are doing our utmost to comply with the requirements of the Black labourer as well. Apparently the impression has been created that the Government is doing nothing for the Black labourer. No, a great deal is being done and I shall return to this later.

Very little has been said about White labour, about the White factory worker. I trust that during the course of the debate we shall also hear a plea on the part of the Opposition in favour of the White labourer, the White factory worker. We must never lose sight of the fact that these people also have needs in our civilization. It is the duty of the Government to protect White identity and pride at all times. The White labourer, the White worker today constitutes the most valuable means of production in the South African economy and at all times we must strive towards developing and utilizing his talents and abilities to their utmost. The White man as a great responsibility and we appreciate this.

If one looks at the world, one realizes that one of the greatest challenges in the whole world is not technical or financial implications, but it is largely the problem of human relations, and to be more specific, labour relations. In South Africa we have peace and order in the labour sphere and we are grateful that the Government brings about peace and order, because no country in the world can afford to have unrest and problems in the sphere of labour relations.

As I have already pointed out, the Government realizes that the Black worker—this is what I want to discuss—also has a great task and responsibility in our labour set-up. I should like to quote from the Suid-Afrikaanse Werker of March/April this year—

Figures prove the great responsibility the Government has towards the Black labourer.

Reference has also been made to the worker. I immediately want to say that it is not only the Government which has a duty in this respect, but the Black labourer as well. If the Black labourer wants to earn more, he will have to realize that he simply will have to work more and work harder. He also has a responsibility in this connection. A great deal has been said about productivity and about “closing the wage gap”. We are in favour of this, but the figures I have here, are alarming and therefore I want to emphasize even more that a large responsibility also rests upon the non-White labourer himself. The annual increase in remuneration to Black male unskilled labourers increased from 7% in 1972 to 18% in 1973, 28% in 1974 and 22% in 1975 while the labour productivity, excluding agriculture, amounted to only 2,3% in 1973 and increased by 3,9% in 1974. I should like to quote from the magazine People and Profits in which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs, Mr. Cruywagen, is quoted as follows—

These are true words. The article in question goes on to say—

These are important words. The Government is doing everything in its power to increase productivity. I should like to refer hon. members to the tax concessions which were granted in this connection. If one looks at section 11 sept of the Income Tax Act of 1962, one sees that in practice it amounts to the fact that in the case of a company undertaking such training, 82% of the training costs are subsidized and that the actual costs therefore amount to only 18% of the total costs incurred. Any industrialist who is prepared to have his non-White labourers trained, is entitled to this concession. Tribute should also be paid on the part of the Government to the various in-service training centres which have been established for Bantu.

In this connection there is not only an obligation on the part of the Government or on the part of the worker himself, but also upon the employer towards the non-White labourer whom he employs. I should like to quote from “Die Benutting van Nieblanke Arbeid”, a study undertaken at the University of the Orange Free State by Van Breda and Langenhoven. They have the following to say—

Every employer must make a thorough study of the tribal traditions of the Bantu which will include his customs, Bantu law as well as the personal outlook on life of the various ethnic groups. The Bantu all differ from one another. A Bantu is a strange person, Sir; he always clings to his tribal traditions, and if an employer does not consider these matters concerning a labourer, he will not understand him, and he will not be able to get the maximum productivity from that employee. That employee must be understood; the employer must know the heart-beat of his employee. I am convinced that should greater efficiency be brought about, it will compensate for the actual training of the Black labourers over and over again. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one naturally does not mind being attacked for one’s standpoint during any debate but one at least hopes that one’s standpoint will be correctly expounded. During labour debate afer labour debate we have struggled with exactly the same misrepresentations about the UP’s standpoint. I do not want to say now that hon. members are doing this deliberately, Sir, but really, these misrepresentations of the facts with respect to our standpoint are not conducive to the debate. This debate concerns an extremely important matter. What happened here this morning? The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark spoke for 20 minutes and raised extremely contentious matters, and now he is nowhere to be seen. In any event, what he said, is probably said by most of the speakers on the other side who are going to participate in this debate. What was his first point? He said we wanted to abolish influx control.

Correct. [Interjections.]

It has been put to this hon. House countless times that this is not the standpoint of the UP at all. After all, this is the brainchild of the UP. If the hon. member persists in that standpoint, we are at cross purposes.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

No, I do not have time to answer questions now. Influx control is a measure which was introduced by the UP, and we have never said that it must be done away with. What we did say, is that job reservation should be done away with. We said this repeatedly for the simple reason that it has no sense at all and no socio-economic value in South Africa. The tragedy of the matter—and everyone agrees with me on this—is that job reservation has become a label which does not do the name of South Africa any good. Since this is so, and since we are all speaking in the interests of South Africa here, we simply say this: Do away with it. We shall lose nothing by doing so. The Whites will not succumb. All that will happen is that South Africa’s good name will be restored in one sphere at least.

But what did the hon. member for Springs have to say? He said that we want to force trade unions down the throats of the labourers. Sir, who has ever alleged this? Even if this were possible—and I do not think it is—the hon. member is basing his whole argument on this wrong premise. How can one argue upon that basis? What we say, is that there are already a few dozen trade unions to which thousands of Black labourers belong.

80 000.

My information is that it is approximately 50 000 but I know that no one can tell me this. Now I want to know how many Black trade unions there are. I am not referring to trade unions which are accepted in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. How many Black trade unions already exist, and how many member belong to those trade unions? We say that we are dealing with a fact here, and the question which occurs to me, is the following: We must either abolish these trade unions or bring about a situation in which this developing phenomenon in the labour sphere in South Africa can be controlled in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. This is our standpoint.

The hon. member for Overvaal levelled the same accusation. He said that we create the impression that nothing is being done for the Blacks: Who has ever alleged this? The hon. member went further and suggested that in this connection there is a great responsibility and obligation upon the Blacks. I now want to ask the hon. member what he will do if a Black man comes to him and asks for vocational training?

He will get it, as you know.

No, the hon. member will tell him that he cannot get it because he is in White South Africa. The hon. member may perhaps tell him to undergo vocational training in his own homeland, where the Blacks know that there is no labour available to them. [Interjections.] Who has the opportunities there? The Blacks ask for the opportunities but there is nobody who wants to give it to them. To return to the reality of the situation, I should like to quote to hon. members a passage from Volkshandel of April 1976. I do not even have to deal with the testimony of this book. I quote the following from page 13—

The hon. member for Hillbrow said this and it is also the first statement I want to make in this connection. On the same page the following is said—

[Interjections.] I do not want to make a mockery of this statement, because it is simply economic development which has taken place and these people are here. This is a fact and we can all accept it for the purposes of this debate. Allow me to read the following extract—

We have argued about this term for years. The NP said that such a thing does not exist, but now Volkshandel comes along and says the following—

Now hon. members must listen carefully because the following is important—

Here we are dealing with facts which are often denied.

I should now like to raise a few matters in this connection. As has been said by the hon. member for Pinelands, labour is indivisible and to me this is the prime requirement, i.e. that the hon. the Minister of Labour should be in control of the overall labour situation in South Africa. If I want to know how many mechanics are being trained at the institute for Coloured mechanics in Bellville, I do not want to approach the Department of Coloured Affairs to ascertain this. In my humble opinion it is the duty of the hon. the Minister of Labour to have a finger upon every labour facet in South Africa.

Your opinion does not count at all.

Of course: that hon. member’s opinion counts even less, but I shall leave it at that.

The second point which flows from this statement made by Volkshandel is that the moment one accepts that economic integration is irrevocably the order of the day, it is said that the Bantu are here to stay. This necessarily means improved training and improved accommodation for him, as well as all the other social facilities. This also means labour organization for him, because one cannot bring about a state of affairs in South Africa in which people are being trained for ever higher posts with ever higher salaries, unless facilities are offered to them which are commensurate with those incomes. I do not even want to discuss politics, but want to confine myself exclusively to the economic aspect of the matter. Should the Government do this and should we have a state of affairs where the Black worker in White South Africa were to become more and more sophisticated, we would also have to create a situation in which there is no difference between the labour organization of the Whites and the labour organization of the Blacks. The same pattern will simply have to be affected.

Although I support the standpoint of my hon. friend for Hillbrow, namely that the liaison committees and works committees offer an excellent transitional stage, it is no use our staring ourselves blind on the fact that we have a final answer to this. We shall have to think ahead, because we realize that a situation is going to develop where the White labourer and the Black labourer will appear on the same labour scene, a situation in which they are going to have the same feelings, the same approach to life, the same facilities and the same training. They will necessarily have to be given the same kind of organization. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maitland, on behalf of the UP, has taken up a standpoint in respect of job reservation. In the course of my speech I want to state the standpoint of this side of the House in contrast to this. Up to now we have listened to the criticism of the hon. members for Hillbrow, Maitland and Pinelands. The hon. members may criticize the labour policy of the NP until the cows come home. The fact of the matter is that the interests of the workers in South Africa, White and non-White, have always been of primary importance to the NP. The record of the NP since 1948 is irrefutable proof of the fact that the party has in fact looked after the interests of the White worker as well as the interests of the non-White worker in South Africa. What a unique achievement this is for South Africa, seen in the light of the labour set-up in this country! Many countries in the world envy South Africa because, despite our labour set-up, we have had peace and quiet and order in the labour sphere in South Africa under the NP Government.

Hon. members also referred to wage adjustments today. In this regard, too, I believe South Africa’s is a unique achievement. I can prove this in no better way than to quote briefly from what the former Minister of Labour said. I quote from col. 4958 of Hansard, 28 April 1975—

But what is significant, is that we find that the Whites, as a result of the policy of the Government, received an increase of 8,7% in 1974 as against an increase of 28,5% received by the Blacks. This is clear proof of the fact that the Government is making a sincere attempt to narrow the so-called wage gap in South Africa. I want to say, so as to state the standpoint of the Government consistently and clearly, that it has always been the policy, of the NP to eliminate racial friction in South Africa. I want to ask hon. members on the opposite side to say whether or not they support the attempt of the NP Government. If they do not want to tell me this now, the next opposition speaker may do so.

I say once again that we are eliminating racial friction in South Africa and that we are restricting the mixing of Whites and Blacks in trade unions. I want to put it very clearly that this is the unequivocal standpoint of this side of the House, and I should like to know what the reaction of hon. members opposite is to this. I should like to know what the standpoint of hon. members opposite is in respect of the practice of placing the management of mixed trade unions in White hands and in respect of imposing a prohibition on the appointment of Bantu to industrial councils and conciliation boards.

Provision has been made in the Factories Act and in the Shops and Offices Act for the various races to be separated at their places of employment. Now what is the standpoint of hon. members on the opposite side, as clearly stated by the hon. member for Maitland? I quote very briefly from a speech by the hon. member for Hillbrow of April 1975 (Hansard, col. 491, 28 April 1975)—

I want to ask the hon. member why he said this. I shall tell hon. members why the hon. member said this. The reason is to have increased Black employment which will result in Black workers being assimilated with Whites at all levels. I want to ask the hon. member: Does he agree with this?

I also want to quote what the hon. member for Maitland said on 28 April 1975. (Hansard, col. 4921)—

Now I want to come to the hon. member for South Coast, and in referring to him I just want to say that we are very good friends, because he is an ex-resident of Welkom. While he was living in Welkom, however, he was under my wing. At that time he was still on the right road but the day he crossed the Drakensberg—I am sorry to say this—he went completely astray. What does he say?—

What a scandalous remark, Sir! The latest phenomenal development under the National Government, is that the unemployment rate in South Africa is a mere 0,6%. This situation will therefore be a good breeding ground for the integration plans of the UP. Years ago, we know, the United Party pinned its hopes to come into power on unemployment which did not exist. With job reservation out of the way, and with the UP’s battlecry of full employment, its integration plans in the sphere of labour and elsewhere will be given substance. After all, we know that the UP has irrevocably taken up the standpoint that we must utilize all our available sources of labour. If not, according to the hon. member for Hillbrow, South Africa will go to rack and ruin. Now I want to ask you, Sir, what is behind this unfounded allegation? One thing only and that is to persuade the Government to throw open the doors and sluice-gates to uncontrolled Black labour in our White areas. This is the fact of the matter.

The hon. member for Hillbrow spoke about the lack of training for our Whites and non-Whites. Unfortunately I do not have time to dwell on this for any length of time, but I shall simply furnish a few figures. In 1946 there were 65 000 White students—expressed in round figures—in South Africa. In 1965 they numbered 102 000. The number of indentured apprentices increased over the past ten years from 28 000 to 36 000. Since 1948 the number of industrial workers has increased from 115 000 to 373 000. The number of non-White workers has increased as well, but what is of cardinal importance in terms of the policy and standpoint of this Government, is that between 1965 and 1976 the percentage of Bantu in our factories has increased from 53,2 to 54,38 only. I can quote further figures in this regard, but unfortunately my time has virtually expired. I want to put it very clearly that the NP has never hesitated to put its policy relating to the employment of non-Whites honestly and frankly to the Whites of South Africa. We reaffirm—and I want to state this here today—that it is the Government’s policy to protect the White worker, because the White worker with his high standard of living is, indeed entitled to such protection. The Government relentlessly maintains four basic requirements which I want to mention in brief outline. They are that a White may not be replaced by a non-White, that the White may not work shoulder to shoulder in the same employment circumstances with a non-White, that a White shall not work under the authority of a non-White and that a White may not become involved in mixed trade unions. The labour policy of the NP has been determined by congress resolutions from year to year. Our labour policy has been determined since 1948 from one election to the next; time without number … [Interjections.] If the present labour policy of this National Government has to be changed, it can only be done by means of the ballot box and I want to assure you that I believe that this will not happen for many years to come. The UP on the other hand, and the phenomenon of these hon. members who are sitting very close to me over here—perhaps too close—is that the PRP want to try and sweep away all restrictions imposed in South Africa with a view to maintaining order. I believe that these hon. members to my right and those hon. members who are sitting there are simply allergic to order in South Africa.

The NP will continue to implement its labour policy. This is the undertaking of the NP to the White workers of South Africa. This is the NP’s undertaking to the Black workers of South Africa, and in this regard we are prepared to fight to the bitter end.

Mr. Chairman, one’s life is chiefly—indeed, almost exclusively—taken up by four things, viz. working, eating, sleeping and relaxing. A year consists of 8 760 hours, or 365 days. Of these 8 760 hours 730 hours, or 30½ days, i.e. one months in a year, is taken up by eating. This represents 8% of the year. Of the 8 760 hours in a year, 2 537 hours, or 3½ months, are devoted to relaxation. This represents 29% of the year. Of the 365 days, or 8 760 hours, 3 285 hours, i.e. 4½ months, are devoted to sleeping. This represents 37% of one’s time. I now come to the most important activity in the 8 760 hours, namely that only 2 208 hours of the years are devoted to working. This is equal to 92 days of 24 hours each. This is equal to 3 months and 2 days in a year and represents 26% of the year.

A person who works from the age of 20 up to the age of 60, will be in employment for a period of 40 years. These 40 years consist of 14 600 days, of which he spends 1 168 days, or 3¼ years, in eating, and 14,8 years in sleeping. This man may perhaps work himself to death, because 40 working years is a long time. It consists of 14 600 days, or 350 400 hours. Therefore he also has to relax. If the working man relaxes from 5 o’clock to 9 o’clock in the evening, as well as on Saturdays and Sundays, and his annual leave as well as public holidays are added to this, he will relax for 11½ of the 40 years. Of the 40 years 26%, i.e. 10,4 years, is spent in working.

I am not going to say that our people work too little, that the 10,4 years out 40 years are too few. Nor am I going to say that our people eat too much, or that they sleep too much, or relax too much. However, I do want to say: Let our people work with the gusto with which they eat; let our people work with the pleasure with which they go to sleep, and let us work with the enthusiasm with which we relax. If we do this, there will be no need for us to call for a longer working week, because the man who works five days a week and is dutiful, enthusiastic and dedicated in his work, does a great deal more than he who loafs at work for seven days.

I want to express the hope today that in the economic situation prevailing in South Africa and the world today, a new spirit will develop between the employer and the employee, something which cannot be laid down in legislation. That something is a mutual trust and loyalty between employer and employee. The employer of the employee who gives of his best, will look after him because he will realize that he cannot lose a good worker. I do not say these things without reason, because there is reason for concern and reason for serious concern in South Africa. A very knowledgeable man, an authority on economies and labour affairs recently said the following—

That is quite correct.

It is not the Government’s fault. It is due to the lack of productivity and labour achievement amongst our workers. These must increase. This man went on to say—

Therefore I want to sound this warning; our authorities as well as our employers should guard against unrealistic wage increases, wage increases which outstrip the contribution made by the workers. No employee can expect his employer to remain in business if he, the worker, demands more from the business, than he, the worker, is prepared to put back into it by means of productivity and work achievement. If he loafs at work, the spark which must provide the fire for the machine will become weaker and weaker until the machine eventually stops. This will not be good for anyone, not for the employer, not for the employee, nor for the State. If workers demand unrealistic wage increases, employers will have to mechanize and automatize as much as possible. In this way the worker is going to price himself out of employment. I therefore want to address an appeal to labour leaders to act in a responsible manner and, in the first place, to realize that their objective should be full employment for their people and not an unrealistic wage for certain people which may result in unemployment for others. Full employment and a reasonable wage for everyone must be the motto.

If we compare our position with that in the rest of the world, we have every reason to be grateful. We can say to our Black workers: Compare your position with that of your brothers in Africa, and you will realize that in comparison with many of them you are at the fleshpots of Egypt. We should like to provide employment for as many Blacks as possible, but as a result of unrealistically high wages mechanization will take the place of many Black workers. Therefore, our objective must be full employment at a realistic wage, rather than high wages with half employment. I am not alone in holding this view. From an American from Washington we have the warning that unrealistic pressure to effect drastic increases to the wages of Black workers in South Africa, will give rise to unemployment, not only in South Africa, but also in other countries of Africa.

In conclusion I want to convey my wishes and the wishes of the people in my constituency, of whom many are workers, to the hon. the Minister and say that we are confident that he will make as great a success of this portfolio as he made of the Water Affairs portfolio. Our good wishes accompany him.

Mr. Chairman, we agree wholeheartedly, of course, with a great deal of what the hon. member for Meyerton has said. He was the first one to show a realistic approach to our problems. I do not agree, however, with his feeling that the Black people should compare their position here in South Africa to that of the Black people in the rest of Africa. They should rather compare their productivity to that of the Whites. In that way they will be able to increase their productivity.

I should just like to say how surprised and disappointed I was about the speech of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. As a man with a wide knowledge and experience of labour activities in South Africa he has really said nothing positive today. Most of his allegations about what the hon. member for Hillbrow had said were not true, and the allegations of the hon. member for Welkom were not true either.

However, I should like to stress what the hon. member for Meyerton said. He said that productivity was hampered by working hours, and he was quite correct. My productivity, too, is greatly hampered by time in this speech. Therefore I am unable to reply fully to all the allegations hon. members have made.

†I am perfectly right in saying, however, that job reservation protects the lazy White man, and I will not withdraw that statement under any circumstances. Job reservation protects the lazy White man in the sense that he will not work harder—in fact, he will not work at all—because he knows he cannot be fired. It is not because he is a White man but because he is protected by his colour. All the hon. members in this House know how the White men work in the garages to which they take their motorcars. They know who does the actual work on their motorcars. It is therefore untrue to say there is no protection for the lazy White man. Apart from the lazy White man, job reservation also protects a certain evil in the industry. White employers are exploiting the Black man because of job reservation.

I now want to come to our new hon. Minister. We have the greatest hope and faith in our new hon. Minister who has proved himself so capable in his previous portfolios. He has made himself highly competent and has fully informed himself of the problems relating to irrigation and forestry in South Africa, and I am sure he is going to do the same in this new department of his. We therefore look to him with great hope and faith.

I do not want to speak disrespectfully of absent friends, so I will not refer to the past. I do hope, however, that the new hon. Minister will not simply be satisfied with playing Nelson and turn a blind eye to infringements of job reservation legislation. I hope he will rather try to amend—or better still repeal—this legislation which is regarded by many as stupid and unnecessary. Notwithstanding news reports to the effect that the hon. the Minister is opposed to the removal of job reservation, I am sure he will change his attitude in time.

I just want to quote briefly from Public Opinion, a paper published many years ago, probably even before the hon. the Minister was born. I quote—

This is in the building industry. The report goes on—

This was printed on 16 January 1914. One can see that the trend was to keep manual labour in the building industry for the Coloured man, but that policy has failed completely because the Black man has been moved upwards. Now in the building industry we are trying to keep manual labour jobs for the Black man, but in the same way that policy is doomed to failure because economic circumstances demand a change. Now we are simply trying to limit the Black man, instead of the Coloured man, to unskilled work. I know the hon. the Minister will say that the Blacks do work in their own areas, and also do certain jobs in White areas by exemption. Although the trade unions claim to protect the White worker, however, the Blacks are doing more and more work. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark says that any changes in connection with labour are done in consultation with the White trade unions. If he has such great faith that the White trade unions will protect the White worker, why is it necessary to retain job reservation? We have the greatest faith in the trade unions.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before the suspension of proceedings I told the hon. the Minister that I should like to tell him why I thought that job reservation protected an evil and I should now like to continue. First of all, notwithstanding job reservation, I am certain that no hon. member here can argue that he has not seen job reservation being more observed in the breach thereof than in its implementation. For instance, on any building site one can see Black people laying bricks, plastering, installing doors, pulling up comers, doing brick work, laying conduits, working with reinforced steel and so on without anything being done about it. Somebody has said that legislation usually trails behind facts to the extent of about two years, but we have all taken advantage of this. Not one of us in this House has not at some time or other taken advantage of this and has not used Blacks to do a little plastering, brick laying or similar jobs because we find it cheaper to have a Black man doing those jobs. Furthermore, we also had those jobs done immediately without having had to wait some time. I therefore say that blind eyes are being turned all the time except perhaps on non-residential buildings or on work constructed by the Department of Public Works because they can afford to pay more to have the work done by Whites. On all other sites and even on the occasional Department of Public Works site have I from time to time seen that job reservation is not being observed. I have no complaint about this, but this illegality—I say this advisdedly since of late I have not seen any prosecutions because of the breaking of job reservation regulations or because of exploiting—gives rise to employers exploiting Blacks.

When one can get a Black man to do the job of a White man, one does not have to pay him the same rate of pay. On the other hand, the Black man cannot object because he is doing a job that he is not supposed to do. Therefore hundreds of employers are exploiting the Blacks today. They are not employing Whites, but they are exploiting the Blacks because they pay the Blacks less than they should pay them. Employers are profiteering.

And they are undermining the position of the White worker.

This is why I say that job reservation is not fulfilling a need and should be scrapped immediately. It has been said that job reservation is necessary in order to protect the White man, but the hon. the Minister cannot advance that argument any more, since it is becoming more and more obvious that we cannot get White people to enter into the building industry. In 1973, for instance, out of approximately 1 600 applications for apprenticeships in the building industry, only 600 were from White youths. Since 1973 the number of applications received from Whites has dropped each year. The obvious role of the Whites in the building industry is that of supervisor or manager. Mr. Lindeque, Secretary for Labour, said a year ago that a fund had been established especially to guarantee the future of the White worker in the building industry. The White’s future, he said, should lie in supervisory or managerial work. The Master Builders’ Association started a course for this very purpose—they wanted to train Whites to become supervisors and managers—but notwithstanding the wonderful pay they offered during the training period—a successful applicant undergoes this extensive training over seven months—they could not get a sufficient number of applicants and after the first course the whole scheme collapsed. There were not enough Whites interested to enroll for this course. I may point out that the members of the Master Builders’ Association were prepared to contribute by way of a levy towards defraying the costs involved with such a course.

What is more, more and more Whites are leaving the building industry. We find this particularly today as a result of the recession in the building industry, a recession largely caused by Government policy. However, we are not supposed to discuss this at the moment. All these people are leaving the industry and I doubt whether they will ever come back. Once a man has found a job outside the building industry, he is not going to come back to an industry which is plagued by recessions and subject to bad weather and adverse working conditions. Therefore, those people who have left the industry will stick where they are and we will find less and less Whites who are prepared to come in to the building industry. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to begin with I just want to congratulate the Tukkies very sincerely on their hard, dedicated work which was rewarded so well last Saturday.

Hear, hear!

If the hon. member for South Coast thinks that I am going to support his argument about work reservation, he is making a big mistake, especially if he says that work reservation is only there to protect the lazy White man. Work reservation is there to guarantee the prosperity and progress of all our people in South Africa. By applying work reservation, the Government regulates labour in an orderly manner and develops it in an evolutionary manner in order to maintain the peace which exists in the labour and industrial spheres. The hon. member simply has to look at history.

These days, everybody is talking and complaining about the problem of inflation with which we are faced. Inflation cannot only be solved by action on the part of the Government. This would be an impossible task for any Government, especially under a democratic system, to solve inflation by its own action. Every citizen, White, Black and Coloured, must make his contribution. Every citizen in South Africa will have to make his sacrifices in order to solve this problem. There are many ways in which it can be solved. I only want to refer to a few which concern labour. All of us realize that it is a great privilege to be able to work and to be allowed to work. I do not expect the younger generation to understand this, because it has been decades, especially under this Government, since we have experienced anything like unemployment in South Africa. It is true that the increase in the production of our manpower in South Africa is amongst the lowest in the world, but if we do away with work reservation, it will be even lower. For the promotion of productivity, peace in the industrial and labour spheres as well as healthy co-operation and interaction between labour and capital, is essential. I am of the opinion that there should be a far more intimate understanding between labour and capital.

As far as the employer is concerned, better and more effective training should be provided. In this connection we are faced with a problem—I do not know why hon. members of the Opposition have not yet referred to it. I am referring to the industrial training of the Whites in South Africa, which leaves much to be desired. On page 19 of the latest annual report of the Department of Labour, mention is made of the fact that of the total number of apprentices tested at Olifantsfontein, only 3 941 passed in 1972, 4 275 in 1973 and 4 688 in 1974. Expressed as a percentage, 42,61% passed in 1972, 43,79% in 1973 and 42,64% in 1974. After I had received certain complaints, I went to discuss the matter with the authorities concerned. I was informed that these apprentices do not fail because they are stupid, but because they are not placed in the work for which they want to be trained and also because they do not receive the necessary training. After complaints had been lodged with various large business concerns, however, the position did improve. There must also be better utilization and more effective application of labour and there must be an appreciation of labour.

The employee himself must do his work more effectively, he must work harder and must be compelled to work for longer hours. I said that capital and labour should co-operate in order to serve the country in the economic sphere. Furthermore, workers should change their jobs less often, because it takes time and money to train people. Furthermore, the worker in South Africa should not demand a higher wage than that which he really deserves.

South Africa asks every inhabitant and every citizen to discipline himself, so that he can work for the welfare of himself and of his country and its people. As I said, he ought to work harder and even for longer hours. Great powers and mighty kingdoms have perished as a result of indolence. Here I am thinking of one of the most powerful empires which the world has ever known, namely the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire came to its downfall and destruction as a result of indolence. The slaves looked after the children while the citizens of the country visited the arenas. They indulged in sport more than they were interested in work. Indolence eventually leads to suffering. We in South Africa—and when I say this, I mean all the inhabitants of South Africa—will have to reflect very seriously about the 4½-day working week in some sectors. In the annual report we find that the total number of persons employed in factories alone amount to 1 598 076. If all these people only work 4½days, the country is losing an immense number of man-hours. We cannot afford these unrealistic luxuries, and in these times we may not allow it ourselves.

Apart from the man-hours which have been lost, we also have increased spending, because every weekend is turned into a long weekend, and together with these long weekends, we have various problems in connection with the spending of leisure time. For instance, people travel unnecessarily by car to remote places. One simply has to look at the traffic on our roads in order to realize this. I am especially referring to a 4½-day working week, because I believe that there is not one hon. member in this House who has not yet noticed that in many sectors one has many people who no longer work on Friday afternoons. One does not have to go any further than having a house built in order to realize this. After lunch time on Friday one simply does not see these people at work any longer. I realize that there are people in some sectors who work six days and even seven days per week, but I say nevertheless that the time has arrived for all of us to think about working harder and for longer hours. We shall also have to think very seriously about considering Saturday morning a working day once again. Hon. members know that in the past people were rather sluggish on Saturday mornings. Once that same feeling is transferred to Friday afternoons, I think that we are losing valuable man-hours. I therefore want to make a very earnest plea to managements as well as workers to consider returning to the position as it was in the past when Saturdays were working days.

Mr. Chairman, in congratulating the new Minister of Labour on assuming office, I should like to say that I hope he pays some attention to the very constructive and, I think, most objective address of the hon. member for Hillbrow, who spoke first in this debate. I make bold to say, Sir, that the hon. member divorced this matter entirely from the political field. Particularly in a year which I think is an entirely different year from what has been our experience in past years, I think we have to approach the whole question of labour from a completely fresh point of view. We should not be haunted by some of the ills, slogans and adages of the past. I should like to add one point to what the hon. member for South Coast said with regard to job reservation. Just recently, the managing director of Iscor, Mr. Coetzee, himself stated at a congress of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut that the days of overall job protection for Whites were past. I think that contains a great deal of common sense and a great deal of import of which the hon. the Minister should take note.

Have you read his whole speech?

I have read a great deal of his speech and I know what appeal he has made to the trade unions. Our main concern in South Africa today is industrial peace, because we are facing an entirely new industrial picture in our country. According to the survey that was made at the end of 1973, we are dependent on Black labour to the extend of 56,6% of our labour force. It has probably since increased by another 10% to 15%. I think the hon. the Minister must be aware of the importance of paying attention to this entirely new picture in the whole of the South African economy. I think that the very fine record of industrial peace which we have maintained over the years, has had certain ripples during the last year or two. Although we shall overcome them, I think we must take serious notice of them. We are aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister intends bringing a Bill to the House in order to amend the Bantu Labour Regulation Act. The Bill has been in circulation amongst various persons and various organizations for their comment. It has been spelt out, in clear detail, by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor in an address to the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council in September of last year. Therefore we more or less have some idea of what the hon. the Minister has in mind. Secondly, we are also conscious of the provisions that have been made for in-service training.

I feel we must take note of what is happening in our labour society today. Our whole economic structure has taken enormous strides during the last decade or two. The economy has modernized itself in every field, even in respect of the most menial occupations. In my opinion, this requires us to improve and modernize our labour relationship with all workers, more particularly the Black workers, and to have an entirely different concept of the training and skills that are required to adapt ourselves to a more modem stage of the economy. I too regret the fact that the hon. the Minister has given utterances and assurances to a certain section of organized labour. Therefore I feel that in his reply to this debate, the hon. the Minister is in duty bound to make a statement to this House regarding his policy. As mentioned, a new institute for industrial relations was recently born to enable management and labour to find a common forum to exchange their thoughts and to expand opportunities for communication and co-operation. They will find many opportunities to assist both participating forces, to learn and to understand the various aspects of conciliation in consultation with each other. One can only hope that all sections of labour—I underline the term “all”—will eventually be encompassed within the purview and scope of the activity of this institute.

I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to another interesting research that took place regarding the question of productivity of Black workers in South Africa. This was undertaken by Prof. Open of the Cape Town University. He states, amongst other things, that the answer lies not only in raising wages—which is, of course, a very laudable purpose—but it also calls for a planned form of action which is to be embarked upon almost immediately. One of the few issues he raises is improving the poorest Black worker’s wages to above subsistence level, regardless of his productivity—in other words, to bring it to a minimum subsistence level. I have pleaded for this during past years. He also advocates equal pay for equal work and responsibility in respect of all professionals and technically qualified workers. I think the hon. the Minister must pay attention to this step immediately. He also proposes a narrowing of the wage gap by judicious increases at all levels, raising the standard of productivity, not only by in-service training and other methods, but also by training which will raise the skills and efficiency of Black workers, leading to their qualification as skilled workers. To stress that point, I should like to say that it is accepted that at the moment we are short of 20 000 or more skilled labourers in our various skilled trades and undertakings. It is being projected by experts, of whom the hon. the Minister cannot fail to take notice, that the greatest shortage in the future in this country is going to be skilled labour. We have the most remarkable pool of labour available, and I think the time has come for us to get away from the attitude of not wanting to train Black people to be skilled workers. Whether we use the apprenticeship system or the system of technical training colleges—whatever method we use—it has become vitally important that we must train the Black worker to the stage of a skilled worker and no longer satisfy ourselves with what we call the semi-skilled or operating type of worker.

He also needs better opportunities, and this follows on the research work that has been done for wage negotiation and labour conciliation studies aimed at bringing about better understanding and, above all, improved methods of communication.

If we are to maintain our rate of growth, if we are to generate capital, if we are to continue producing wealth, we will be obliged to make the fullest use of our entire labour potential comprising all sections and all race groups. I feel this is one of the fundamental issues we have to face. I think it might be interesting to note how Black people react to the situation today and to look at the statements made by a Johannesburg personnel consultant, a Black man himself, at the “Paypower” convention which was held by the Institute of Personnel Management in Johannesburg recently. I have merely a few of the quotations, and these are very interesting indeed. He says, for instance—

This is a Black man’s attitude. He continues—

By that he means the whole industrial society in our country—

He goes further—

This comes from a Black personnel officer, trained in the field. I believe we have to face the situation in our country much more realistically, because irrespective of whether we believe that the Black man is here permanently or not, irrespective of whether he is a citizen of another country, we are going to have many millions of workers in the country who will, by law, be foreigners in the country and who will, in numbers, completely outnumber the White workers of the country, but who will be necessary, vital and important in the entire industrial labour structure of the country. For that reason we have got to take note not only of the weak viewpoint of persons who wish to enjoy being entrenched within the affluent society in which we live, but also of those who have to make their contributions and who wish to play their part. I say this in the interest of our own White community. Even if one concedes the Government’s attitude with regard to the preservation of certain political structures in the country, we nevertheless cannot run away from the fact that, despite that, it is completely dependent on the whole labour pool that exists in this country, whether it be foreign or whether it will be indigenous. As far as we are concerned, we look upon it as labour which is found within the confines of the country and which must be used in order not only to generate wealth for the country itself, but to give them a better standard of living, to provide improved conditions and, above all, to maintain the growing industrial strength of our country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this debate is an interesting one. There was no recognition on the part of the Official Opposition, as well as on that of the PRP, for the White labourer in South Africa. The White labourer was not even mentioned in any of the speeches. I should like to know who these hon. members are representing in this House. The hon. member for Jeppe comes from a workers’ constituency and I tell him and the hon. members of the United Party today—I do not even want to speak about the Progref Party—that they do not represent the workers of South Africa. I tell you, Sir, that no word of recognition has been given to the White workers of South Africa. In the sixties, a whole decade, the growth rate in South Africa, the real growth, was more than 6%—higher than in any other country in the world. Now I want to ask hon. members whether this was practically possible if we did not have a sound labour corps in South Africa? No, it is clear what the whole set-up in the Official Opposition as well as in the Progressive is. They have one consideration only, and this is that the Black workers must have trade unions and that job reservation should be abolished. The Blacks in South Africa must have trade unions. The Official Opposition does not realize what they are doing, but the Progs know what they are doing, and I make the statement today with the greatest responsibility, namely that the Black trade unions are seen by the PRP as a platform for their political ends. [Interjections.] Sir, they may say that this is nonsense, “but the lady protested too much”, and sometimes the hon. member for Pinelands looks just like a lady. [Interjections.]

Let me put it very clearly that the PRP sees the Black trade unions as a political platform in South Africa. There is only one member of the PRP—unfortunately he is not here now—namely the hon. member for Yeoville who, if I interpret things correctly—and I predicted that he would leave the UP—will disappear from the Prog Party for the simple reason that he has a sense of responsibility towards South Africa, something which the rest of the party is lacking. [Interjections.] Black trade unions are an intricate set-up. [Interjections.] I do not even want to talk to the hon. member for Hillbrow because he moves on a level which does not impress me in the least. [Interjections.] Let us consider the Black trade unions. It is not only the NP that says that they are undesirable. When the UP was in power, they undertook an inquiry and found that it would not be advantageous for the Black workers. After 1948 the NP Government appointed a commission of inquiry, a commission which found that it would not be advantageous. It was not the NP alone who thought so; the NP is in good company. After all, these people like the international set-up and the international arena. They think, after all, that this is the level at which they ought to move. What did they say? The International Labour Organization, in a report prepared for their African regional conference held in Lagos in December 1960, said the following—

Trade unions are used as instruments by certain political organizations. We have had this in South Africa too. There was a trade union which tried to embarrass the Government, but they had close links with the ANC, close links with those people to whom the Terrorism Act applies. Indeed, many of them were arrested. This is the danger. The Opposition must realize this.

Black trade unions are not conducive to the Blacks, because the Industrial Conciliation legislation is sophisticated legislation, which is difficult to interpret. It is instrumental in our industrial tribunals. It is the instrument in the Government’s whole attempt to create improved working conditions. If it is not tackled in the right way, it is to the detriment of the workers. It is sophisticated legislation.

Black trade unions will not be conducive to the Blacks. However, the PRP sees matters in a completely different light because they see it as a platform. However, I do not want to associate this party with the ANC. Nevertheless, I want to allege that they intend using the Blacks in South Africa for their political ends. Why is there no recognition today for the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act? Why are those people not prepared to admit that this Act, which was amended and improved in 1973, resulted in there being 2 400 works committees in South Africa today? The University of the Orange Free State undertook research and investigated the functioning of these works committees. An inquiry was made into 326 of the largest industries in South Africa. It was found that in 97,4% of the cases there was improved communication and that in more than 30% of the cases an improvement in production could be seen. Is it not evident that those works committees were a success and that the liaison committees in South Africa are functioning excellently? Those committees represent 648 000 Black workers, i.e. almost three quarters of a million Black workers are being represented on the works committees and the liaison committees.

Why is the Official Opposition not prepared to admit that these committees are conducive to labour peace in South Africa? South Africa is faced with major threats from outside, and what is our basic duty in this country today? Our basic duty is to bring about capital formation, to utilize mineral and natural resources and to utilize labour as effectively and productively as possible. We must stop saying that no work is being done in South Africa. I want to put it the other way round by saying that, in order to create efficiency and increased production, the initiative must come from the management level. The workers must be given recognition and they must be told: You must participate in this challenge in order to make South Africa economically viable against threats from outside. The workers must also be told: We are going to support you; we are going to show you from the management level how to act more effectively. Then production in South Africa would increase. I have no doubt about it. If what the Opposition and the PRP are asking is done we would be creating labour unrest in South Africa. This will happen if one abolishes job reservation and establishes Black trade unions to serve as platforms for frustrated politicians who know that they can never impress the Whites in South Africa and never govern the country; people who just want to exploit the Blacks in South Africa. If this happens the country will experience economic problems. South Africa has a great future; we must be proud of the labour peace which prevails in this country. Hon. members would do as well to visit other countries in order to see what labour unrest is. South Africa will have isolated cases of labour unrest, but there is labour peace in South Africa, something of which we may be proud. This Government represents most of the White workers in South Africa, and the White workers in South Africa know that they are dealing with a responsible government and that they do not have to live in fear as far as their working conditions are concerned. In the process we are also training the Blacks. The hon. Opposition forgets that the workers of the homelands must also be taken into consideration. It is within the reach of the homelands eventually to establish trade unions for the Blacks in their own areas—if they want this. However, the homelands will have to think carefully and establish a Black trade union system which will fit in with their traditions and the set-up in their own states. However, this is their own affair, and I ask myself why the Official Opposition does not support the decentralization of industries. In this way they would assist the Blacks in their own area.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to become involved in long arguments with the hon. member for Rustenburg. However, he does not seem to realize that we, the White people, just do not have enough skilled workers to do the work for the Blacks and the Whites. If I read to the hon. member what Mr. Zurich, who, as hon. members know, is the president of the Artisans’ Staff Association, said, perhaps he may get a clearer picture of the situation. He said—

What is wrong with that? If people talk along those lines and we agree does it mean to say that we, on this side of the House, do not have the interests of the White workers at heart? But I do not wish to elaborate further on this matter.

I want to deal particularly with one or two aspects of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and its present relationship to accidents and occupational disease. The Workmen’s Compensation Act would appear to me to be almost purely accident orientated. Over the years it has been a measure which has concerned itself particularly with accidents which take place suddenly, during working hours, and are treated as emergencies. After that the workers are further treated depending on the severity of the disease. There are two schedules that have been drawn up by the hon. the Minister, namely schedules A and B. Schedule A deals with accidents only. In this schedule there is ample provision for the types of injuries that are compensated for and the percentage disability that is allowed. This is quite a comprehensive schedule, but it does leave out one or two other conditions which I shall deal with presently.

I am more concerned at the moment with occupational disease which is not a condition which comes on suddenly, but is an insidious condition which develops over a large number of years. Whereas the man who has an accident is compensated as soon after the accident as possible, the man who is suffering from an occupational disease may continue working while his condition is deteriorating. That is the important aspect I want to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister. No compensation is given to the worker during this period when his condition is deteriorating, and he continues to work in the atmosphere or with the materials that are the cause of his disease. When we look at what happens to the underground worker, the mineworker, during the period of his work underground, we know that by law this man must be examined periodically. If any deterioration in his condition is found during his working days, he is warned that if he continues to work at that occupation, there is a strong possibility of his condition deteriorating even further. This does not happen under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The first thing that I do not like of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is that it has a wage ceiling up. People earning more than that sum are not covered. Any person earning more than R7 260 is excluded from insurance. He cannot get it. And yet he may be working with the most dangerous material. He may be a worker working in a factory dealing with nuclear energy. He may earn far more than R7 000, but he is not covered and therefore has to take out his own insurance. That is totally wrong. I ask the hon. the Minister to do away with the ceiling. Let every person contribute and let every employer contribute. The Government must also do its share in the matter as well. Let me come back, however, to persons suffering from occupational diseases. In the schedule I find about 15 different conditions accounted for, and there is a description of what each condition is. Let me, however, quote to the hon. the Minister what section 89 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act states in this connection—

Look how far the man has got to deteriorate before he gets compensation. In the few minutes at my disposal I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that in my opinion the law as it stands at present is inadequate. I think the hon. the Minister must now consider whether it is not advisable to bring in new regulations—or even to amend the Act or to introduce a new Act if necessary—containing provisions making it imperative for those people who are working with materials or under conditions injurious to their health to be examined before they are allowed to do the work that they apply for.

Let me give an example. A man may be highly sensitive to a certain resin or to a certain plastic material, but he is not examined beforehand to test his sensitivity. He is simply put to work and may then, at a later stage, show signs of sensitivity or reaction to the materials with which he is working. However, a man who goes underground on the mines is examined thoroughly before he goes underground. His height and weight are measured and his lungs are examined etc.

I wonder how many young girls and women have been examined before they are employed to stand behind counters in shops. How many of those young girls or women—especially those who have already had babies—are not already suffering from varicose veins? However, they do not get any compensation for a common condition like that, which can be aggravated by the standing job they are doing. A simple matter like that is not covered by this Act. No mention is made of it, but it is important because there are hundreds of thousands of girls standing behind counters today. What compensation do they get, however? They get nothing at all. I therefore say that they must be examined thoroughly, and after the initial examination I maintain that these people should be examined at least every six to nine months. Every factory worker should have a regular examination to determine whether he is suffering from the effects of the …

Is this to be applicable to the whole labour force?

To the whole labour force, yes. I know it is going to entail a lot of work, but if one wants to have a proper, healthy labour force and reduce compensation—in other words, if one does not want to spend R22 million a year in compensation—one must have a preventative team of people who will sort out those who are able to do the job from those who are not able to do the job. However, someone who is unable to do one type of work will be able to do another type of work. This hon. Minister, who is new to his post, must now start the ball rolling. He must give the worker—I say White worker and Black worker if it pleases the hon. member for Rustenburg—a new and fresh deal. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rosettenville discussed the Workmens Compensation Act and requested that certain adjustments to it be effected. In my opinion, our economic development in South Africa and the working conditions under which people have to render their services probably makes it necessary for the amendment of the Act to be considered from time to time. I want to agree with the hon. member that one should not be static in one’s approach to the Workmens Compensation Act and the compensation paid to people in accordance therewith. However, the matter of occupational diseases is a very complicated problem, and the hon. member, who is himself a medical practitioner, will agree with me that it is very difficult to determine whether a person’s disease results from the work he does. However, in the past the Government has shown that as far as occupational disease in mining are concerned, it has effected the necessary amendments to our pneumoconiosis legislation from time to time as the need arose. In my opinion the workers of South Africa display the greatest confidence in the sympathy the Government has for them in this regard.

I should like to come back to another aspect of the debate. Every year that this Vote is discussed, attacks are made by the Opposition on the traditional labour pattern we have in South Africa. One of the Opposition’s points of attack is that our traditional labour pattern discriminates against the Black worker. The Opposition casts suspicion, in the eyes of the outside world, on our labour pattern in South Africa, one that has developed over the years.

In 1973 the British Labour Party decided that they wanted to investigate the conduct of the employers of British companies towards Black workers in South Africa. They allowed the British Trade Union Congress to pay a visit to South Africa. Negotiations were conducted with some of the so-called Black trade unions and consultations also took place with representatives of the biggest industrial enterprises. What is interesting is that before the five-man commission the TUC returned to Britain, one of the members, Mr. Jack Jones, made a statement to the Rand Daily Mail on 7 November 1973, in the course of which he said the following—

I quote further from the report—

Mr. Jones then came to the conclusion—

These people admit, therefore, that our existing legislation in South Africa has been drafted in such a way that we can look after the rights of the Black worker in South Africa, too, and that their interests can be looked after in terms of the existing legislation which applies to them and in terms of the multi-racial and multi-national pattern followed in South Africa. This also means that it does not necessarily follow that we should implement the TUC system in South Africa. However, these people would naturally like the Black trade unions to be treated on the same basis as the White trade unions.

I have already said that the Opposition launches an annual attack on our traditional labour pattern. One aspect of the traditional labour pattern which has developed in South Africa is nothing but job reservation. Job reservation has to be seen against the background of our special circumstances in South Africa. The principle contained in section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act is aimed at ensuring that due protection will be afforded to the White, the Asiatic, the Coloured and the Bantu worker. A situation in which one group outstrips another group in the labour sphere by way of inter-race competition, must be prevented.

The fact that there is only about 2,9% of statutory job reservation in South Africa, cannot be advanced as an argument in favour of the abolition of job reservation. Job reservation is only the legal confirmation of the traditional labour pattern in South Africa. When one race group feels threatened, it can fall back on the section of the Act in question. It is pointless to discuss this matter in high-flown language—one has to come down to the level of the worker. Let me give an example. A few years ago, certain experiments were carried out in the samplers’ category, when the Chamber of Mines decided to replace the White workers who had always done that job, with Black workers. In my constituency I could see the frustration which was caused as a result of the impairment of the security of the White workers within that community—to such an extent that for two years we had an unhappy community as a result of a small group of workers whose security was effected by this experiment. As a result of the fact that there was only a small group of them within the larger employers’ organization, viz. the Underground Mine Officials Association, and they did not, therefore, have a very strong negotiating position, they fell back on this provision in the Act. After an industrial court had been appointed in terms of the Act, it was decided that this work should be reserved for Whites. Since then there has been peace and quiet among both the Whites and the Blacks in the mining industry. In other words, this is a very important measure in this legislation.

I want to quote further evidence in this connection. I refer here to a book entitled The Black Worker of South Africa, which was compiled by Dr. G. E. M. Leistner and Dr. W. J. Breytenbach in connection with job reservation. Let me quote a paragraph from it—

There is no better evidence for the value of, and necessity for, the provision relating to job reservation, as the traditional labour pattern, in our legislation. The fact that Black workers are constantly entering fields previously occupied by Whites, cannot be advanced as a reason for abolishing job reservation. Job reservation exists, more than anything else, in order to ensure that the various categories of work are grouped in an orderly fashion in accordance with the requirements of the various races. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, right at the outset I want to associate myself with the congratulations conveyed to the hon. the Minister by various hon. members on the acceptance of this important portfolio. It is my considered opinion that in view of his personal traits, and the enthusiasm and the dedication with which he is prepared to carry out his task, the Department of Labour is going to be happy under his leadership.

Sir, I want to associate myself with what has been said by various speakers, inter alia, by the hon. member for Rustenburg, and make an appeal to hon. members in both parties opposite to bear the White worker, too, specifically in mind when considering the employment situation in South Africa. Another appeal I want to address to the hon. members of the Opposition is that they should at least be consistent in the standpoint they adopt from year to year. The hon. member referred to “stereotyped conduct”. He is at least consistent in his attitude from year to year, because year after year he makes the same speech in a stereotyped way. Year after year he asks for the same concessions. He, too, referred to job reservation as the inexorable or unyielding measure which has already caused industrial unrest in South Africa, and will continue to cause it to an increasing extent. Then again we get the hon. member for Maitland who maintains that job reservation has no socio-economic effect in South Africa. In today’s debate, too, the hon. member for Maitland said that it had no socio-economic effect in South Africa.

That is correct.

Sir, how is it then that members of the same party can differ so much about a specific measure. The one regards it as a measure which causes industrial unrest, and the other maintains that it has no socio-economic effect. In other words, what the hon. member for Maitland says is that it is not only the economy that is not affected; it has no effect whatsoever on the worker within the economy either. The main question that occurs to me is: Why, then should it be abolished? How can those members be so inconsistent about an issue? But, Sir, let me leave the hon. members at that. I want to refer to what has been said by hon. members of the PRP. In the first place, I want to quote what was said by the hon. member for Orange Grove, or, as the hon. member for Kimberley South calls him, the farmer from Lemoenfontein. On 16 September 1974 he said the following (Hansard, Vol. 51, col. 3046)—

Only the following year the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who is usually just as fiery an advocate for the so-called oppressed, made the following statement (Hansard, Vol. 57, col. 8304)—

That hon. member comes along and says exactly what the Government says and advocates, after the hon. member for Orange Grove objected to job reservation. The question I want to ask them now is: How can they be so inconsistent? How is the White worker to be protected other than by means of a certain, specific measure? After all, one does not protect people by means of vacuums. Surely there must be measures in accordance with which these matters are regulated. This is precisely in accordance with the policy of the NP. We agree with them that non-Whites should progress to higher categories of work, and that this is necessary for our industrial growth and for the maintenance of our standard of living. After all, this is exactly what we are doing. I again want to ask those hon. members: Are they not living in the South Africa of 1976, in which these measures are in fact being implemented? However, they are being implemented in an orderly fashion, so that the fiasco they caused in this country in 1922 will not occur again.

Sir, I want to go further. I said that these things were in fact being done in the South Africa of today. However, the Opposition is always coming up with the cry, and the moan, I am tempted to call it, about the improved training of workers, and non-White workers in particular. When one considers the training of workers, one should really start at the scholastic level. In the first place, one has to be sure that there is a place for those workers where they can achieve work fulfilment with the training of theirs. We are a developing country and we are not already a developed country with unlimited employment opportunities. If these people had been trained 20 years ago, where should we have accommodated them? At the moment we are doing so in a way which will not bring us industrial unrest, but instead, industrial growth. Furthermore, this will eventually result in greater fulfilment for the Bantu. In order to achieve this one has to begin at the scholastic level. I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House, in all fairness, to be constructive sometimes as well, and grant recognition when the Government progresses dramatically in certain directions. I want to make the statement with regard to trade and technical training, that dramatic progress has in fact been made as far as the Bantu are concerned. Apart from this, we passed legislation recently which put it beyond question that in-service training could be carried out in an orderly and organized manner, but in such a way as not to get out of hand. In this respect, too, dramatic progress has already been made. Thousands of people have already been trained, and thousands are to be trained next year and later. Apart from this we have the system of differentiation in education for the White child today, which is calculated to achieve this very aim of developing the talents of each of them to the maximum. If we see it in this light, then the cry of the Opposition that nothing is being done in regard to the training of workers in South Africa is surely a hollow one and one without any significance whatsoever.

Who said that?

That hon. member himself has said it repeatedly. All the speakers on the Opposition side have, too. The Government’s present policy is permitting the Bantu to qualify themselves for higher categories of work. This Government is practical, realistic and has both feet on the ground. The Government knows, too, that they must allow these people, with their higher training, to come into their own in higher categories of work, because if they do not do so then this will create the most extreme frustration and these people will not be able to reap the fruits of work fulfilment and happiness in their work. This very year, all possible efforts are being made to ensure that these people may be permitted to enter higher categories of work and this is happening over and over again.

As I have already said, it is being done in an orderly and ordered fashion. The labour councils in which Whites are involved, do in fact have a say with regard to the degree of progress and the rate at which the progress is made as regards permitting these people to enter higher categories of employment. Particular emphasis is laid on higher categories of work in our border industries. This proves two things beyond all doubt: Firstly, that the Government is determined to continue to protect the White worker within the White area, and furthermore that they are sympathetic towards the Black worker and his aspirations. In the course of time the NP has proved that it has an understanding of its peoples’ aspirations in the labour sphere, and in other spheres too, including the political sphere. To our White workers I want to say this afternoon that through my personal contact with them—I represent what is largely a workers’ constituency—I have developed a great deal of respect for their realism with regard to this specific matter. I have no doubt whatsoever about this. To a large extent they have been guided to this stage by the Nationalist Government and its policy because they have confidence in the Government. This afternoon I want to express the hope that their realism will triumph in the future and that they will take further note of the needs of the Black man and the Black worker as he progresses. I want to give them the assurance that they can consider these matters with realism and that they can consider them without fear. I have also come to know the fears of these people, their fear that they will be ousted from their employment. However, I want to give them the assurance this afternoon—they already know this—that they can consider without fear allowing the Black man to come into his own in the White area, because the Government will continue to protect the White worker within the White area to the extent that he needs protection. Within a short time it will probably no longer be necessary. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in his speech the hon. member for Sasolburg talked about the 1922 strike and, regrettable to say, the attitudes which he expressed come right from that time. It is more than 50 years ago; so it does not seem as if it has progressed at all during the ensuing period. He states his party’s policy as being protection for the White worker in the White areas. This might be so, but as long as job reservation is in existence, it is a discriminatory policy and the Government’s claim to be moving away from discrimination therefore becomes absolutely meaningless. I say it again as I did in 1974: As long as job reservation persists, South Africa will be seen to be discriminating. There is no room for it now and we must get away from it. It is not in the best interests of the Whites either, because it bedevils race relations. Could I tell the hon. member that if he really wants to improve race relationship between White and Black workers in the best interest of the White worker, he should allow the Black workers to join trade unions, because it is only when Blacks can come into trade unions together with Whites as the labour representatives of one industry, that we will get anywhere?

That will be the day.

The hon. member says that that will be the day. I sometimes wonder whether hon. members on the other side want trade unions at all. In fact, I am glad to see one hon. member has changed his tune today. When I asked the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark for his views on this, it was only with a great deal of reluctance that he admitted that he was in favour of trade unions for Whites. I am certain there are hon. members in the benches to the left of me who are just not interested at all in any trade unions, White or Black.

There is another matter I should like to raise this afternoon. I believe it is a matter of considerable importance. This has to do with the question of wage determination. I believe the procedures for wage determination are too lengthy and too cumbersome and that they take far too long. At a time when we are faced with inflation and a rapidly rising cost of living, wage determinations are often out of date by the time they are made. Wages, and certainly minimum wages, tend to lag behind a realistic figure in terms of the cost of living. I believe the hon. the Minister must review the whole machinery in regard to wage determination and revise this machinery to allow for more rapid decisions to be made. Under the present system minimum wages never keep up, but are always behind. By the time a determination is made, it is already out of date, and the process for yet another determination becomes necessary, so that one gets an ever-extending chain which never stops. Somehow or other a system must be devised which will enable wage increases to be realistic rather than always in arrears.

Perhaps I could ask the hon. the Minister a question at this stage. How far does a Wage Board in its determination allow for future inflation? Does it project for future inflation at all? I think clarity on this point would be of considerable interest, because I believe that the policy is not clear at the moment. As a matter of fact, as far as I know, it never has been made clear.

Reverting to the question of delays, I know that the department has already taken certain steps to streamline the process in that in certain instances the Wage Board has merely changed the clauses relating to wage increases rather than reviewing a whole determination. Reviewing and revising a whole determination is, of course, a tremendously lengthy process. I must say to the hon. the Minister that this shortcut is a step to be welcomed. Regrettably, although there has been some improvement, the situation is still not satisfactory, because it still may take from six to eight months to make a determination. I think it might be worthwhile to examine the whole process. Firstly, the Minister is requested to call a Wage Board hearing, and this can sometimes be a lengthy process in itself. Indeed, I heard of a case the other day where a wage for Black workers determined in 1972 at R3,90 per week, is only now in the process of review in spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister was petitioned to allow a determination on three separate occasions over a period of two years. I realize that it was not this hon. Minister. After this a Wage Board is called together. This is gazetted, representations having to be made round about a month later. Approximately a further month goes by before the Wage Board sits and thereafter a six to eight-week period elapses before a report goes to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister then gazettes the findings and calls for the lodging of any objections, usually within a further period of one month. There could then be a further oral hearing a month or so after the lodging of objections and it then usually takes up to two or three months before the final determination is gazetted.

As I have said, it takes up to eight months for the whole process to be completed, and during that period the cost of living is going up all the time and workers’ interests are thereby prejudiced. I believe this is a most unsatisfactory position and that the whole machinery must be re-examined with a view to improvement. A case could well be made out for an increase in wages without a full inquiry. I realize there could be great difficulties in the way, because the Wage Board has to take into consideration the general profitability of an industry and has to give a full hearing to the employers. But I believe that a brief process of interim consultation could take its place and that an interim increase could be granted if it appears reasonable. The procedure of a full determination could then follow. What is reasonable can be assessed in part from the official cost-of-living figures, for example. I would ask the hon. the Minister to institute an inquiry into the ways and means of speeding up the whole process of wage determinations, especially in regard to minimum wages, because I believe that this is a very sore point at the moment with the unions. They are not happy about it.

Another matter concerning the operation of the Wage Board which comes to my notice is the allegation that Wage Boards are frequently inconsistent in their rulings. More specifically, this has to do with the assessment of minimum wages for Black labourers. I am told that negotiations conducted for various industries in the same area on behalf of Black workers by the Central Bantu Labour Board vary tremendously in what is asked for. Determinations may vary with regard to the classification of, for example, general labourers. In the same area there are sometimes different representations by the Central Bantu Labour Board, between say R15 and R21 per week, while there are negotiated agreements for a minimum of as much as R28. I know it is difficult, because in every industry the classification of general labourer means something different, and also that skills vary. But the point I am making is that I believe there is a case for laying down a consistent minimum wage policy. We in these benches would like a statutory minimum wage to be laid down, if only on an area basis.

One point on the question of Wage Board hearings is that it has been known in the past for the chairman of a Wage Board to refuse to accept evidence from a Black trade union. Now, Black trade unions may well not be recognized, but there is nothing in any law that I know of that would enable the chairman of a Wage Board to say that it is illegal to accept evidence from a Black trade union. As far as I am concerned, it is perfectly legal, and a Wage Board chairman should accept representations from a Black trade union.

In conclusion, I would like to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister. That concerns the situation in the diamond-cutting industry. I do not know what stage has been reached in regard to the diamond-cutters’ strike. The diamond-cutting industry brings in a considerable amount of foreign exchange for South Africa and it is therefore very important indeed that the hon. the Minister should do everything in his power to solve the strike situation. I would be very grateful indeed to hear from the hon. the Minister just what is happening in regard to that strike.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to react to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He put quite a number of questions to the hon. the Minister, to which I believe the Minister will reply in full.

It is a great privilege to me again this afternoon to take part in this debate. When we speak of labour and of labour matters and of labour peace in this country, it is a great privilege to everyone in this House to participate in the debate. But you will allow me, Sir, to extend my sincere congratulations to our present Minister, whom I have known well for many years, on his new post and to wish him all the best for the future. Things will not always run smoothly, and he will be kept very busy sometimes, for if one is Minister of Labour one has to work hard, but we know the Minister to be a person who is capable of hard work. I wish him every success. I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking a friend and colleague, I may say, ex-Minister Marais Viljoen, for all the years he occupied this post. Minister Viljoen and I became acquainted as far back as 1930. We have come a long way together and we know each other. I want to thank him very much for his loyalty and for his devotion to duty, to the benefit of the Republic of South Africa, during the years in which he occupied this position.

However, I want to come back to the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow. One of the arguments he advanced today was concerned with the wage gap between White and non-White. I want to make it quite clear in this House today that a great deal is being done. However, I ask myself whether in many respects this is the right thing to do. I believe that many good things are being done as regards the salary of the non-White. However, I want to concentrate more on the Bantu who often earns a salary which he is not sufficiently educated to use correctly. Abuse of liquor has assumed alarming proportions among the Bantu during the past year. The percentage has doubled and redoubled; that I am convinced of. If the hon. members say that the salary of the Bantu, as far as certain kinds of work are concerned, should be comparable with that of other non-Whites, I disagree with them. When hon. members speak of the general level of the cost of living, the biggest item of expenditure every month is accommodation. However, the Bantu can live more cheaply because his accommodation is mostly subsidized and because his transport, whether by rail or by bus, is further subsidized by the Government. A great deal has been done up to this stage to reduce the wage gap, but I believe that it would be a foolish step if the Government were to reduce the gap too drastically.

I want to return to the hon. member for Pinelands. His speech was devoted mainly to the foreign workers in the country. I believe that the hon. member spoke mostly of the mining industry, as well as of the large numbers of Bantu who come to sell their labour in our country.

Not only foreign ones.

Yes, the hon. member is right. However, I just want to make it clear that if our Bantu had not been so well off, it would not have been necessary to draw large numbers of foreign Bantu to this country to sell their labour to the mining industry. One of the hon. member’s lamentations was that it is immoral to cause the Bantu from the Transkei, from Lesotho and from anywhere else to come and live here, on a family basis.

However, if there is any industry today which treats its workers well, then it is the mining industry. The mines do everything in their power to make their Bantu workers happy. Their workers receive benefits which surpass almost any benefits offered by any other employer in this country. The mining industry spends millions of rands every year in order to make its workers happy, especially the Bantu. Their accommodation, their food, their medical benefits and their sport facilities are among the best in the world. How on earth can one accommodate those Bantu who come to work here on a family basis as well? What do hon. members of the PRP want? It is impossible. Furthermore, I want to allege that the mines are presently recruiting and employing thousands of local Bantu, with the advantage that those Bantu are in fact accommodated on a family basis. However, most of those Bantu are accommodated in the Bantu townships in the urban areas today. This is a sound basis. Why? Because the mines have offered such a tremendous increase to the Bantu workers in their service. This is actually the bait which is being used in order to attract the local Bantu as well. Those people are being accommodated on a family basis in the local Bantu townships, and they are happy there. I cannot see how on earth it could be allowed—whether the churches speak of this does not matter—or how it could be justified for the mines, or any big industries, to accommodate thousands of people from Malawi …

I did not include them.

If the hon. member did not include them, I apologize to him. However, how the mines could accommodate on a family basis the thousands of people from the Transkei, or from any homeland, I do not know. It would simply be an impossible task.

How many wives does each one bring with him?

What I do concede to the hon. member for Pinelands is that—this is my opinion as well—facilities should be created in the labour pattern of those people, and with the assistance of the rapid means of transportation available today, for the large numbers of Bantu employed by the mines to visit their families during week-ends. This is a matter one can argue about. However, it will first be necessary to determine the cost this would involve, and as soon as the homelands have become a reality, we could provide to those people the necessary transport which would enable them to visit their families over weekends; or perhaps even every second weekend.

A second aspect I want to discuss is the one which was raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He raised the complaint we are always listening to, the one concerning job reservation. Job reservation is a nail in the coffin of both Opposition parties, and it will remain a nail in their coffin until we have finally buried them, politically speaking. If one looks at the symptoms on the part of the Opposition, it is clear that they cannot keep going much longer. The only thing that could possibly save them would be a sudden and merciful death. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I must take issue with the hon. member for Stilfontein over the way in which he has attempted to justify the wage gap which exists in South Africa between the incomes earned by Black workers and White workers. I really feel that the hon. member was going a bit too far when he tried to justify this by saying that the Blacks would spend their money on too much drink, etc.

It is true.

It may be true, Mr. Chairman, The hon. member said that this is true, but I have seen many White people misusing their money on drink. The real issue here is, if a person is doing a particular job of work, what the value of that work is and whether he should not earn that value for the work. I do not think that race, home life or any of these things should be any criteria for what a man should be paid. It should be what the job is worth. I should like to ask hon. members: How many White people do we know who came from humble backgrounds who, by virtue of their own effort—by studying and being prepared to work—have raised themselves up to where they are enjoying a good living and are prosperous people? Why should we deny a man this just because of the colour of his skin?

I do not deny them that.

The hon. member talks about subsidies. He referred to the fact that Blacks get subsidized transport. Do not Whites? They talk about subsidized housing. How many big companies today supply houses for their employees at R10 or R20 per month? Does not this very Government do it with their Cabinet Ministers? I therefore really feel that the hon. member should forget about all this kind of talk because, with all due respect to him, he is making a fool of himself by trying to debate an issue such as this. As long as these inequalities exist, men who labour for their livelihood will join together to fight for their rights, and they will do so in the accepted form, i.e. by way of unions.

I now want to say a few words to the hon. member for Bethal who spoke about the British labour union movement and said that representatives of that movement had tried to come into South Africa and bring their labour union methods into this country. Unfortunately that hon. member does not seem to be here at the moment, but I nevertheless want to make clear to him—and to all hon. members on that side of the House—that we of the Official Opposition want nothing to do with the British labour union movement.

We are glad to hear that.

As far as we are concerned those people should stay right out of South Africa, and the main reason why I say that is because those labour union movements are completely and utterly saturated and motivated by politics. They are completely left-wing political organizations and we totally oppose their interest here in South Africa, as we do their coming to South Africa to try to bring their type of trade unionism into this country. This does not mean to say, however, that we are opposed to labour unions. As long as labour is exploited by employers, who have the opportunity to exploit labour, men must be allowed their right to join together to fight for their share of the value of the work that is being done. After all, is it not so—as I have said—that the Whites throughout the world have thus been able to make their place in the sun? Here I agree with the hon. member for Springs who said earlier that it was time to take a good look at the whole subject of labour unions. I think his concern lies with an aspect I have already mentioned, i.e. that many labour movements are playing too great a role in the political scene. I agree with this danger, and we have already mentioned what has happened in the United Kingdom. I agree that we must take a fresh look at this matter.

We must ask ourselves why there are labour unions. Why do labourers want to get together into some type of movement? As I have already said, historically this has occurred because men have had to gather themselves together in order to get a fair and square deal. We have already heard from the hon. member for South Coast that there are White employers today who are exploiting Black labour because this Black labour force falls outside the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Surely something must be done about this, and if the Government does not do something about it, the labourers themselves will. If the Government, which is elected to protect them, cannot see its way clear to giving them that protection and to giving them a fair and square deal, these people will gather themselves together to do something about it.

In the South African context, however, there is only one thing they can do, and that is to become politically involved. This is the danger that we on these benches see facing South Africa today. Because of this Government’s refusal to include Blacks in the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act, the Blacks today are forming themselves into unions. We heard a moment ago that 50 000 of them are already involved in union movements.

Eighty thousand.

Eighty thousand, we now hear. These people are being politically motivated now because they say they are not getting a square deal and are now going to do something about it. This is the history of what happened in Britain where these people eventually formed themselves into political organizations. And what do we have in Britain today? We have a socialist state and the nationalization of many businesses. This is also happening in Africa today. To the North of us we see how this mentality has crept in and how labour groups are, in fact, running the country politically. I believe it is up to the Government and to the hon. the Minister—I want to appeal to him in this regard—to re-examine what is required in South Africa at this particular time in our history. I believe we must examine what our Blacks want. There are hon. members on the other side who give the impression that these Blacks want to run the political scene. The average worker does not want to become politically involved.

How do you know?

How do I know? I carried a union card at one time in my life. I have attended union meetings and I have been at strike meetings. I know a little bit of what motivates a worker. At the same time I was on the other side of the fence when I managed a large employee force at one time. I think I do know a little bit of what motivates the average worker. He wants to make sure that the basic needs of himself and his family are satisfied. He wants to know that the aspirations which he has for his children are satisfied. He wants to know that they can get an education and that they, in their turn, will have a fair deal and the opportunity to rise to the top of the ladder in their due time. I do not believe that the average worker is really interested in politics.

However, as I said earlier on, unless the Government alters the Industrial Conciliation Act to include Black labour, I am quite sure that we shall see a Black political labour movement grow in South Africa to the detriment of the country’s future.

I should like to refer briefly to the annual report of the Department of Labour. I refer to it in connection with the question of labour unions. I was pleased to see that at the end of 1974 there were all told 1 482 liaison committees and 207 works committees as opposed to 773 liaison committees and 125 works committees at the end of the previous year. This means that nearly 210 000 more Blacks have been brought under the scope of these various liaison and works committees. This is one way of getting the point of view of Black labour across to management and I am very pleased to see that this has happened. I was also very pleased to see recently that in one particular industry an African worker representative appeared at industrial council level. In that particular case the African worker representative appeared along with Indian and White union representatives before the industrial council in order to negotiate a new deal for the Black workers. Although it is very good indeed to see that Black workers can now have this representation on industrial council level, I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is the thin edge of the wedge, because Black workers are sooner or later going to request—in fact, they will demand—that their representations be submitted on a union level. After all, does the hon. the Minister feel that these Black labourers’ representatives are going to be happy to have this rather junior status on the industrial council for all time? We talk about giving people their identity, giving them equality, giving them their integrity and giving them their self-respect, but in this particular case we are going to have a sort of fourth-class labour representative coming on to the industrial council. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti made a few statements which are actually in complete contradiction to reality. I do not understand the logic of his argument. He says that the Black man must be given trade union opportunities, but at the same time he says that we are afraid that the trade unions will engage in politics. Is the hon. member a stranger in Africa and does he not know that all the political leaders to the north of the Republic of South Africa came from the trade unions of the various countries? Does he know where President Kaunda, President Nyerere and others received their training as far as organizational work is concerned? I simply cannot imagine how the hon. member could have come along with such a misrepresentations in this House. However, I want to leave the hon. member at that.

Arising from the question of job reservation and the shocking statements made by the hon. member for South Coast, I want to make a few remarks. The hon. member for South Coast make an accusation against our White workers which I believe to be shocking. It is shocking because it contains an untruth and I say categorically that the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He simply made a statement which is completely unfounded.

What was so shocking?

The hon. member said that the lazy White man was being protected by job reservation. Then he also made the statment—it is a shocking statement—that the White worker was exploiting the Black worker as a result of the protection he enjoyed through job reservation.

The employer!

In this connection I want to refer to a statement made by Harry Oppenheimer. I do this for the information of the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Pinelands as well, because Mr. Harry Oppenheimer is their monitor. The issue he referred to was the relations between the White workers and the Black workers. Mr. Oppenheimer said—

If Mr. Harry Openheimer is not advocating a form of job reservation in making this statement, I do not know what he is doing. He makes it quite clear that there are two parties who must consider each other’s standpoints. This was explained here by the hon. member for Bethal, but the hon. member for Orange Grove did not accept it. It seems to me that he did not listen to what was said on this side of the House about the question of job reservation. It is a question of collective agreements in this connection. It holds advantages for both the Black worker and the White worker. This applies to all workers in South Africa. As the hon. member for Welkom, said, since that principle of reservation and conciliation began to operate in our whole labour organization in 1924, we have never had the shocking strikes in our economy that we had before 1924. There must be some form of protection, otherwise we should not enjoy a peaceful co-existence in our country. In this connection we must start with our workers’ organization, and as I have said, we have had great success with this since 1924.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that we could not accept that we in South Africa should apply the same methods as the ones applied by the British trade unions in England. However, if one looks at the trade union system used to the north of us in Africa, what does one see? Why are the countries to the north of us experiencing the problems they are in fact experiencing in the economic field? In this connection I want to refer to the book Unions, Parties and Political Development—A Study of Mineworkers in Zambia; London, Yale University Press, 1971. The book is written by R. H. Yates, I say this for the information of the hon. member for Hillbrow, because he mentioned the workers’ organizations in Zambia. This book gives a long exposition of the problems which arose in Zambia because of the action of the trade unions in the Zambian economy. That hon. member, who is such an authority on the subject of economy, will realize the importance of a trade union, especially when that trade union acts the way trade unions in Britain act. There, for example, they have caused the whole strength of the English pound sterling to collapse. The whole economy of England has been deteriorating over the years because of their actions. What has recently happened to the pound again because of their behaviour? In spite of this, Sir, the hon. member comes along here and tells us with sanctimonious wisdom what we ought to do. I now want to refer to what is said by Mr. Bates in this book on the position in Zambia. Since Zambia attained independence, there has been continual agitation for higher wages, and the Government simply granted the higher wages at the time. Mr. Bates quotes what certain people in Zambia had to say about these events. The first quotation is this one of the Zambian Minister of Labour, who said the following in 1971—

The expatriates to whom he is referring here are the Whites. Then he goes on to give the reasons for that difference between the wages of the Whites and the wages of the Zambian citizens. There is a very valid reason for it, and it is the same reason one has here in the Republic. It is a traditional situation. [Interjections.] Sir, I challenge those hon. members to tell me that there are fewer Whites in Zambia today, precisely as a result of the situation in Zambia, than there were before independence. The fact is that there are more Whites employed on the mines of Zambia today than were employed there before independence. This is so because the people there cannot get along without the Whites. But, Sir, this writer goes on to say on pages 48 and 49 of this book—

Then this person says—

He does not say that their role involves agitation for an increase of wages. The trade unions themselves believed that they should continually agitate for higher wages. That is what they are doing everywhere, after all. The trade unions in Britain and all over Africa are continually agitating for higher wages. This is something we want to avoid. A channel must be created for them, such as we do in fact create for them by means of the conciliation councils. This is precisely the reason why we got the success of our labour relations in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, after hearing the viciousness of the attack which the hon. member for Etosha made on all trade unions as such, I expected him to advocate the complete banning of trade unions in South Africa. He concluded by saying that they were agitators and that people of this nature could cause economic chaos in a country. Of course, irresponsible trade unionism could bring about such a situation, but in South Africa we have had responsible trade unionism for many years. The hon. member for Etosha appears to be completely opposed to the whole principle of trade unionism, which of course is the very essence of the bargaining power of the worker. I wonder how many members opposite, who represent working constituencies where there are many workers, would repeat the speech which the hon. member for Etosha has just made in this Committee. Certainly, it is not the type of speech one would have anticipated from a party which professes to look after the interests of the worker. The trade union is regarded as the organ whereby the worker can express his opinion and through which he has bargaining power as between employer and employee.

The question of job reservation has been raised by many members on both sides of the House. We on this side have certainly been waiting for some hon. member opposite to try to justify job reservation in present-day circumstances. We are often told that it only affects a small minority of workers, but for that reason it seems irresponsible on the part of the Government to persist with its policy of job reservation. Indeed, I think hon. members on that side of the House will agree that every person has the right to work and to realize his/hers full potential in such employment. I think they should try to apply that as a yardstick to see whether they can still justify the retention of job reservation in the statutes of South Africa.

The matter I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister under this Vote, also deals with the question of certain persons wishing to realize their full potential as far as their employment is concerned. I want to refer particularly to the position of the physically handicapped people. In terms of the Government’s policy of providing employment for these people, we know if we look at item H of the estimates which is before us, that there is an amount of money to be voted under “sheltered employment services” for handicapped persons. In terms of these figures it would appear that there is to be a reduction of the expenditure in this regard, from R1 545 000 to R1 402 000. There is a smaller deduction in regard to the subsidization of workshops for the blind. I believe that this reduction of the amount which is to be allocated for persons in sheltered employment, requires some explanation from the hon. the Minister, in view of development that has taken place in providing job opportunities for the physically handicapped. In terms of the arrangements which the Government has with various factories, sheltered employment and the subsidization of workers, we can see the Government is doing something to assist these people. The basis upon which sheltered employment is provided, has been in existence for a long time. According to the figures provided by the hon. the Minister earlier this session, there were some 1 800 posts filled out of the 2 000 posts that are allocated to persons in sheltered employment. Many of these people look upon the Government for increases in their rates of pay as and when they show an increase in their productivity. Therefore one should have expected an increase in the amount to be voted rather than a decrease. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he has given consideration to reviewing the wages as far as these people are concerned.

If one looks at attempts to assist this group of people, one realizes that there are a number of organizations which do assist them in seeking employment. However, if one looks at the background and at the increases that have occurred with regard to the physically handicapped, one will soon realize that the problem is growing in immensity. Figures indicate that three out of 100 South African babies that are born, are disabled. We know of the ravages of diseases such as polio and cerebral palsy. In addition to this there are the industrial accidents that occur from time to time. Above all this, we have an alarming increase in the number of persons injured in road accidents. It is rather interesting, if one visits one of the schools for the physically handicapped, to see the increasing number of children attending these schools, children who have been injured and physically disabled as a result of road accidents. The latest figures indicate that some 14 000 people suffer serious physical injuries as a result of road accidents per year. This means that the question of finding employment for the school-leavers, and others who are already in employment and have to be reintegrated into the economic field, shall require urgent and additional attention. These children are being trained in 25 of these schools. Many of them are suffering from various disabilities, such as cerebral palsy, etc. They have to attain a certain degree of proficiency before they can seek any form of employment. We know that in other countries a great deal has been done in this regard. In Australia and in the USA recent surveys indicate an alarming number of this population group, percentagewise, to be physically handicapped and disabled. Here in South Africa it is extremely difficult to assess accurately the percentage or the number of people that are required and who require special attention and assistance. If one discusses the matter with people associated with assisting the physically handicapped, it becomes clear that all these people wish to lead as normal a life as possible. Consequently the assistance that is rendered to them by the Department of Labour is appreciated.

However, when it comes to planning for the integration of these people, and particularly for the finding of work for school leavers, we do find a problem. Many of these young people turn to the Department of Labour to find employment. After having a discussion with a vocational officer they are told to call at various firms where there might be vacancies. This can sometimes be very damaging psychologically for the physically handicapped person who has to go from one company or firm to another to find some form of employment. Therefore, I consider it to be essential for the hon. the Minister to give attention to a complete investigation into the position of the physically handicapped persons, into the question of placing them in employment and finding job opportunities for them. I believe it is important that the hon. the Minister should have available to him statistics in order to examine the extent of the problem, to find other avenues of employment and job opportunities for them, to see that they receive the necessary vocational training and to equip them for those opportunities.

As I indicated earlier, there is the position of the younger person, the young school leaver, who finds it increasingly difficult to find employment when there is keen competition for any particular job or vacancy where it occurs. If one looks at the position in the Federal Republic of Germany, one is impressed by the tremendous strides that have been made in that country in trying to assist these people. Indeed, in a special survey that was recently undertaken, a survey dealing with the rehabilitation of the physically handicapped, as a result of legislation that was passed in Germany it was found necessary to provide special employment through employers on a percentage bases. 6% of all jobs in a particular type of employment, provided an employer had more than 15 persons in employment, had to be set aside for the severely handicapped. Where this was not done, a compensatory payment has to be made into a fund which is utilized for the betterment and for the promotion of the rehabilitation of these people. In addition to this they have a special arrangement whereby severely handicapped persons receives extended dismissal protection. The dismissal, before being confirmed, must take place in agreement with a welfare officer, so as to ensure that the person is suitably dealt with. There has to be a dismissal period of at least 4 weeks. In addition, they also receive supplementary leave of 6 days during a year so as to assist them. There are, furthermore, various other provisions in regard to the training of these people to ensure that they receive the maximum degree of training in order to assist them in every way. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo has approached the debate from a different angle, and I, too, should like to enter the debate from a different angle. The hon. member for Umbilo dealt with a type of person in our community who is most definitely receiving the attention of the Government. However, if more could be done for them, it would definitely be welcomed by all of us.

I, from my side, should like to express a few ideas in connection with Coloured labour. I do this against the background of the idea that the basis of our present labour policy is the same as the basis of our ethnic policy, the policy with which the NP has been trusted by the electorate of South Africa for a period of more than 28 years. At times we speak of the Coloureds as an emergent nation. We see the Coloureds as a group of people who are developing politically, socially and in other spheres within our community in a special way. At the moment I do not know what the Theron Commission has to say about them. I shall deal with the factual position with which we are faced at the moment, and nothing more. The fact of the matter is that of our population of just over 21 million, according to the 1970 census, approximately 2 million are Coloureds. Of these 21 million, 8 million are economically active, and of the 2 million Coloureds 700 000 are economically active. As far as the Whites are concerned, we have the position that 1,5 million are economically active, 0,2 million of the Asians are economically active and 5,6 million of the Bantu are economically active. If we make a further analysis of the position as regards the Coloureds, we find that of the total Coloured population 35% of the Coloureds are really economically active. Of the Indians, on the other hand, only 29% are economically active, of the Whites something over 40% and of the Bantu something in the region of 37%. The fact is that 10% of our total population is Coloured, and about 700 000 of approximately 2 million are economically active, as I have already said. Here we have a large number of people in our community to whom we have to see, and these people are relatively poor. They are employed in the unskilled and semi-skilled trades. These people constitute a very small percentage of the more highly skilled trades, of the professional trades in the higher technical classes, etc. In addition we have another phenomenon. Sometimes we hear that basically the Coloureds are not very reliable in the field of labour. There is a degree of work-shyness, but we do not have the statistics to enlarge of this.

What we do have in the official statistics is proof of a very large labour turnover amongst the Coloureds due to resignations and dismissals which have a connection with this work-shyness, although, on the other hand, they may also have a connection with seasonal labour in various parts of the country. But the fact remains that this figure is very much higher than amongst the other population groups. We find that in the manufacturing industry, in various sectors of this industry, the Coloureds work far shorter hours than any of the other population groups, with a few exceptions, for example, in the tobacco industry where they work longer hours per week. But on the average they work much shorter hours. They also work less overtime. Far fewer of them are economically active, as I have already proved. That is to say, if we take an overall view, we find that physically the Coloureds make a smaller contribution to the economy of our country, to the things about which we have a great deal to say; growth rate, higher productivity, and combating inflation, etc. I am not saying this to disparage those people; there may be social and other circumstances which give rise to this. I am saying this, however, to emphasize the point that we shall have one million people here before long, and together with the Asians we shall have more than one million people who, relatively speaking, actually make a very small contribution to the things which should in fact help us to establish a strong economy so that we may be of assistance in uplifting those less developed peoples. Now my question is whether we can afford this. I say we cannot afford it, Sir. The Government is indeed prepared to help the Coloureds and to protect them just as it is prepared to help the Whites and to protect the Whites. Indeed, it is protecting the Coloured in more than one respect already, inter alia, by means of job reservation, which the opposite side of this House wants to have abolished. I see as the answer to these things only one concept, a concept which we must introduce into our terminology, and consequently into our policy as well. We must start speaking of a Coloured labour policy. If this group of people is seen as a separate group in our community, one which may ultimately be dealt with in a separate way in a political sphere, I think a special approach is necessary in respect of the one factor which is going to be instrumental in uplifting them, viz. their labour. Consequently it is necessary to speak of a Coloured labour policy just as we speak of a Bantu and a White labour policy.

It is estimated that by 1980 the Whites will constitute only 13% of our economically active population. It is time that an attempt is being made to make good that shortage with immigrants, but surely it is clear that this is not the answer. Now the question arises whether we should not look at certain matters once again in working out a labour policy for the Coloureds. I have made a note of some of these, but because of lack of time, I shall not be able to deal with all of them. Included in those matters is the question of supply and demand on the Coloured labour market or on the labour market as a whole, and the source from which the available Coloured labour comes. Then there is the question of training and upgrading, the question of a recruitment policy for Coloured labour so as to combat the problem which the hon. member for Morreesburg raised the other day, viz. the concentration of Coloured squatters in the Western Cape while huge extensions are being undertaken on the West Coast, which, traditionally is a Coloured area. Planning has to be undertaken so as to ensure that these people will be attracted to the areas which have the employment opportunities. Serious consideration will have to be given to the contribution which the Coloured women are able to make. The major stumbling block, however, is the Coloureds’ attitude to labour as a whole, especially as far as the wage gap is concerned, so that the Coloureds may realize what the narrowing of this gap means. In this regard the Department of Labour will have to bring in other State departments in order to provide assistance. Hon. members on this side of the House are not always present when the Opposition, especially the PRP, speaks to the Coloureds. We do not know what they tell the Coloureds, but we listen to their speeches in this House. If one reads what they have already said this session, it becomes apparent that they are telling the Coloureds: “We shall give you a small seat somewhere in a federal context.” Having said this, however, they leave the people with another question which is unanswered and this is: What will happen to your economy? What will happen to your labour position? What will happen to your place on the labour market? What are you able to contribute to combating inflation and developing the country’s economy? The industrial development of South Africa and the stable economy will have to grow and it will have to grow not only in the interests of the Whites as some people are inclined to think. Whatever is done in this regard, will have to be done for the very advancement of the Coloureds and their development as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Westdene has drawn the attention of this House to the situation of the Coloured people and has once again emphasized the policy of the Government in its determination to put different people into different compartments. He went so far as to suggest that there ought to be a special labour policy for the Coloured people. I believe this is a fiction; this cannot happen. Earlier on in this debate I tried to indicate that our economy is indivisible. If we are going to have a labour policy, it must therefore be a labour policy embracing all workers in South Africa. It may well be that special attention will have to be given to one group or another because of the historical factors involved in the development in South Africa. But to reinforce and formalize this, I believe, cannot be done. I hope it will be resisted.

The hon. member for Springs, when he replied to my own contribution earlier on in the debate, tried to make the point that the Opposition on both sides always sought to make political capital out of this very serious problem of a labour policy for a growing industrial giant in Southern Africa, this despite the fact that both the hon. member for Hillbrow and myself said at the beginning of our speeches that our primary concern was with the economic growth in South Africa and with industrial peace. The reason why I raised the two major areas of labour representation on the one hand and migrant labour on the other, was because, unless we resolve these two key problems in South Africa, economic growth is at risk. If we do not go beyond that and resolve these two issues, I believe that industrial peace in South Africa can well be threatened.

A great deal has been said about job reservation. I confess that I have not intended raising this matter again. It has been raised year after year and certainly has been raised a number of times by a number of speakers today. I believe that in essence job reservation is an insult to the White worker. That is all it is. It is an insult to the White worker, because what the Government is saying is that the White worker cannot stand on his own feet.

You are insulting the White worker now.

No, I am not at all.

Yes, you are insulting the White worker.

The whole policy of job reservation is an insult. It is the same as saying that a White worker does not have the ability to do the work. We on this side of the House believe that the White man can stand on his own two feet and does not have to be protected in this way. Let us be very clear on this issue. That does not mean that when we talk about Blacks moving into a whole hierarchy of jobs, from which they have been precluded up to now, that we are saying that we need not have regard for the people who have been doing this work up to now. This does not mean that one must push people aside and throw them out of jobs. Of course not! That is why one does it by means of consultation; one does it in the course of the development of an industry, whatever that industry may be.

When we come to labour representation a number of responses have been made here today. The hon. member for Rustenburg unfortunately flits in and out of the House and is not here at present. He made a number of scathing remarks about hon. members in these benches. He said amongst other things that the Black man in South Africa and in Africa as a whole is simply not ready for trade unions. He seems to forget the very history of our country, where over 50 years ago there existed a very powerful Black trade union. Many remarks have also been made concerning other countries in Africa and, indeed, other countries in the world. When one looks at the history and at the present situation of the trade union in Zambia, for example, one finds that their record in terms of work stoppages is one of the best in the world. There a trade union does exist where all its key office bearers just happen to be Black. This business of always saying that we must relate everything to the customs of the people and that we must keep them back in some sort of tribal mentality for the rest of their lives, is totally at odds with the growing industrialization in South Africa and we have simply got to come to terms with that.

The hon. member for Bethal spoke about the British delegation that came to South Africa. I spent a full day underground in a mine with that British delegation, showing them the developments which have taken place in one of the mines in the Free State. I had a very long discussion, debate and argument with Mr. Jack Jones. I want to tell the hon. member for Bethal that Mr. Jack Jones completely misunderstands the situation in South Africa. Mr. Chairman, you know what it is like when these foreigners come along and try to tell us what to do. [Interjections.]

Order!

The real test in trying to prove that Mr. Jones is wrong is that if any Black trade union goes to the Department of Labour and tries to refer complaints of workers who belong to their trade union, the Department of Labour will not take these complaints up. We have a number of instances on record of this happening. That is why I say that Mr. Jones is completely missing the point, and I therefore implore the hon. member for Bethal not to listen to these foreigners. [Interjections.] The political implications, of course, are great—and of course there are political implications in the trade union movement. Anyone who does not recognize that fact does not understand what trade unions are all about. For example, we all know that Dr. Albert Hertzog was the main speaker at a meeting of the Mineworkers’ Union only last year, and he was the main speaker there for a very good reason. So I warn this Government to watch very carefully for political “inmenging” with trade unions. [Interjections.]

Order!

There is a last point I want to make about trade unions. Hon. members opposite constantly hold out the example of British trade unions, as if this were the only system in the world. Only last year in this debate, however, reference was made to the German system of trade unions. We have talked about the decline of sterling and the way the pound has devalued, but what about the German mark? This is a very dominant currency in the world today, and Germany has one of the finest and best trade union systems in the world. One of the reasons why they have so little trouble is because on the one hand there is a national trade union movement for all workers, while on the other hand there are works councils that work in a complementary system. That is what we ought to have in this country.

I am in a great hurry, but I do want to put one further question to the hon. the Minister. I want to refer to the whole question of unemployment in South Africa. All of us are aware of the fact that jobs are getting scarcer. One is aware of the down-turn in the economy and one hopes this will not last very much longer. However, if one reads the Rand Daily Mail—one of the favourite newspapers on that side of the House—one sees, and I quote, that—

I merely quote this as one single example. The point I am trying to drive home here to the hon. the Minister is that we still have no record whatsoever of the number of Blacks or unemployed in South Africa, and I say this in the light of the rise in unemployment, which is always a very dangerous thing in any country, but specifically in South Africa.

I asked another Minister last year whether consideration had been given to the registration of unemployment Bantu and the reply was—

Whenever we want to know what the rate of unemployment amongst Blacks in South Africa is, there is no reply from the department or from the Government. My plea is that this reply should be given today.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands said, inter alia, that work reservation provides protection to the White workers, which is actually an insult to them. Perhaps I should speak to him in a language which he will be able to understand better. I therefore say: Do not judge in order that you may not be judged yourself, or as they say in Holland: “Practise what you preach.” He speaks of protection which insults the Whites, but how should we understand his condemnation if he begrudges the Blacks a place in the streets of Pinelands let alone in industry or other places of employment? It was that hon. member who objected to the presence of the Blacks in the streets of Pinelands. [Interjections.]

However, I want to deal with another subject this afternoon, and that is the shortage of White artisans. In the latest report of the Department of Labour, in the manpower survey which was made in 1973, I see that the metal and engineering trades experienced the biggest shortage of White artisans, namely 6 565. In the building industry there was a shortage of 4 034 and in the motor industry 2 374. This is a total shortage of 16 800 artisans.

If the White workers are channelled and trained properly, there would not be a shortage of White artisans. I want to prove my statement on the basis of the following: At the moment slightly more than 70 000 White operators are employed in South Africa as against a skilled labour corps of 226 500 Whites. This amounts to approximately a quarter of the total White labour force being in posts which are classified as “operator”. I respect the work which anyone does and I believe that each of those 70 000 Whites are proud of their work. However, I believe that those 70 000 operators could be used to far more advantage in our industry. Operators are usually the people who are the first to be exposed to unemployment when there is an economic recession. I believe that we could use those people far more productively as full-fledged artisans.

I know that a great deal is being done to train White adults. I am thinking for instance of Westlake where excellent work is being done and where approximately 200 White men per annum are receiving intensive training at the moment.

The UP started that.

Yes, and it was also done before the Haas Das programme was started. [Interjections.]

Since the training scheme was begun in 1951, 2 286 of the people who registered there, have achieved artisan status. However, I believe that not enough is being done to train adult White males in order to obtain artisan status.

Is there not a possibility of having a similar institution to that of Westlake established for the Witwatersrand? A new institution like this would, after all, be situated in the heart of our industrial complex. The remuneration which is at present being paid to people who receive their training at Westlake—basically it is R20 per week plus R10 per week for every dependant—is not sufficient for a man with a family. I often come across unqualified people who would like to receive training like that provided at Westlake, but they do not see their way clear to going to Westlake from the Witwatersrand. Westlake is situated far away from the Witwatersrand and a man with a family on the Witwatersrand does not see his way clear to going so far away from his family in order to undergo training. If an institution such as Westlake should be made available to the Witwatersrand, we could also think of making it possible for people to receive part-time training in specialized directions, whether by evening classes, or classes on Saturdays.

One also hears complaints of firms not affording certain people the opportunity of gaining practical experience. It is often a question of the person simply having to gain the necessary practical experience in order to qualify for a higher profession. I wonder whether the Department of Labour could not arrange for those people who want to qualify as full-fledged artisans, to be employed in firms which are prepared to provide the necessary training.

However, there is another reason for the shortage of qualified artisans, and I want to place the blame for this squarely upon the shoulders of those industries who are indulging in wasteful exploitation as far as our young boys at school are concerned. They entice these young boys away from school by offering them attractive salaries. Those boys then have to work as operators without receiving any training at all and without having the opportunity of qualifying as full-fledged artisans.

Therefore I want to appeal to our schools to warn our boys against this evil. Rather let the boy enter a certain sphere and qualify in a trade in which there is a future for him. I want to ask our industrialists to show more responsibility towards the young boys by offering them the opportunity of qualifying in a sphere in which there is a future.

Now I come to the question of trade unions, a question about which a great deal has been said. Once again, the hon. member for Hillbrow, as he does year after year, asked that we should open the door for mixed trade unions and Black trade unions. Perhaps I may just refer him to someone whom, I think, is a greater authority in the sphere of industry and a greater economist than what he likes to think he is. The person I am referring to is an ex-United Party MP on top of that. I am referring to Dr. Frans Cronje, who serves in their executive and is one of the executives in their party organization. On 3 September 1975 he said, inter alia the following during an interview with Die Vaderland—

Are you against trade unions?

I wish that they could listen to Dr. Cronje, but hon. members on the other side have become so rigid in their hatred of the National Party that they are even prepared to make use of the trade unions to try and cause the downfall of the NP.

As Albert Hertzog did.

When I said by means of an interjection a moment ago that the Official Opposition is against influx control, the hon. member said that this was nonsense and that they were indeed responsible for introducing it. The same hon. member is nevertheless pleading every day for the Black worker to have an opportunity to sell his labour where he wishes and, at the same time, for all migratory labourers to be accommodated on a family basis.

I have never said so.

After all, this is entirely in conflict with influx control. If there are a thousand Black labourers in the Transkei who want to work in Boksburg and all of them go there, must they be allowed to do so, must influx control be abolished in this way? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Boksburg will pardon me if I do not respond to his speech. This is the first opportunity I have to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Marais Viljoen, who represented my constituency for 23 years. Since he was also a Minister of Labour for a long time, I should like to pay tribute to him specifically for the labour peace which prevailed in the constituency while he represented it and also while he was Minister of Labour. Then I also want to tell the new Minister of Labour that we know that during the years in which he was Minister of Water Affairs, a great deal of rain fell and many dams were built. We trust that the Department of Labour will also achieve the same success under his supervision.

This afternoon, I should like to talk about job satisfaction. The most important source for any industry or business is its employees. If those employees are unwilling, uninterested or unskilled to carry out their duties and responsibilities with dedication and satisfaction, the best equipment, tools or methods for achieving efficiency, will not be able to produce the desired results. No machine can offer the unique characteristic of the human factor of initiative and imagination in solving problems. In addition man is the only elastic source of effectiveness. Man is able to progress through growth and experience. Therefore the human factor is the most important factor when it comes to effectiveness. I should like to indicate that job satisfaction is more important than salary or wage.

Various studies and research have been carried out. In the USA R. Stranger published findings in his book, Psychology of Industrial Conflict to the effect that workers in the retail trade, the chemical industries and office workers placed job satisfaction as being first and salary as being third in importance to them. A similar investigation in South Africa by Drs. Sandra and Andre van der Merwe of the University of Stellenbosch proved that achievement, promotion and recognition are considered more important than salary. This was the opinion of employees in the retail trade and office workers. Similar studies have also been undertaken in Sweden and Australia and in other parts of the world. Researchers there came to the same conclusion. Therefore it is necessary for an industry or any organization to realize that recognition, security, promotion, perks and status symbols are among the most important considerations they can offer their employees. The manner in which these points may be implemented and dealt with in an organization determines the quality of the management, the quality of the workmanship and the degree of satisfaction among the employees.

Nevertheless, it is the duty and responsibility of every successful employer to ensure that every employee is granted the opportunity of working effectively. In order to achieve this, the relationship between employer and employee is of the utmost importance. It is important that they should take cognizance of each other’s inspirations, skills, ideals and aspirations and appreciate them. A climate must be created in which an employee is afforded the opportunity of finding and achieving satisfaction in his work. There must therefore be a good employer-employee relationship. The management and the manager must recognize the human element and involvement in his or her work. People must be motivated in their work because only then will they carry out their duties effectively. There must be communication between employer and employee because this will result in team work and purposefulness.

In these times when we are dealing with inflation, every organization or undertaking needs creative talent more than analytical thought, because creative talent is what keeps man, the employee, the labourer, active and dynamic in his goal of effectiveness. When one has the opportunity to display creative thought in one’s work, one finds satisfaction in one’s work. Effectiveness results in increased productivity and therefore in increased profits, which in their turn determine the salaries or wages. The person who achieves most as a result of a condition of job satisfaction, is nevertheless remunerated for his contribution in the end. However, it is important to realize that from the ranks of the top management through the entire organization, the need for recognition is of the utmost importance. Paying attention to this need can indeed alleviate a great deal of pressure from the financial aspects. It must be borne in mind that we are working with people and all they ask from their employers, is that when results are achieved, they should receive their due for it and be treated as people and as individuals.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react to the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I only hope that he will derive great satisfaction from his new job. He has a safe seat, and now he is trying to curry favour with the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] This is a good way to begin his career here. Sir, I am pleased that the hon. member for Boksburg mentioned Westlake. This is a fine UP institution which was established in the interests of the White workers. I have no fault to find with the hon. member’s plea for another and similar institution to be established in the Transvaal, because I think the better we train our labour force, the better it will be for the country and I am convinced that a similar institution in the Transvaal will be able to serve a good purpose.

I do not think that hon. members on the opposite side of this House understand our policy in respect of trade unions. We are not opposed to industrial representation, whether in the form of works committees, liaison committees or trade unions. We do not have an ideological standpoint which supports trade unions only. However, we accept that trade unions do exist and, as the hon. member for Maitland put it, one either has to accept them or destroy them. One cannot allow the existence of a vacuum in which these people may float about. After all, hon. members on that side of the House ought to know in what Dr. Albert Hertzog is engaged at the moment, but it is easy to keep an eye on him. If trade unions are not registered, however, we do not know what is going on, and this is the source of danger.

I think the Government has realized at long last how important a trained and skilled Black labour force is. It is probably difficult for the Government to admit that the UP, as usual has pointed out the way to the Government in the field of labour. Now the Government is offering major tax concessions to employers to train non-Whites; the Department of Bantu Education has established in-service training centres, and everywhere today Blacks are doing work which they never did 30 years ago. Gert Beetge worked for my father at one time, and if a Black man were to have picked up a hammer at that time, all the Whites would have left immediately. These days Blacks everywhere are doing work which they never did before. The Government accepts this and I personally consider our Blacks to be an asset and an untapped source of riches for our economy. The Black labourer constitutes no threat to the White man, if the Black man is properly trained, and is paid the same wage for the same work with the same responsibilities. If this policy is not going to be implemented, the position of the White worker is going to be undermined in the long term. In the short term, job reservation is in the interest of the White worker, but in the long term, as the White worker becomes an ever decreasing minority of the percentage of workers, it is going to be of no importance and is going to undermine their position.

I want to come back to what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said here. I have to assume that this hon. member is the chairman of the NP’s labour group. The hon. member said the following with reference to me—

This is the UP’s policy. If this is done, the Black man as well as the White man will be protected, because then an employer will not pay a Black man an inferior wage to do the same job as a White man, and consequently the White man will not be undermined.

I said “determine”, not “pay”.

Through job reservation the Government is undermining the White man, because job reservation causes employers to employ a Black man, a Coloured or an Indian in the same job but at a lower wage. In this way the White man is being exploited.

We need an established Black labour force and I believe that migratory labour runs absolutely contrary to this principle. If I were a member of a church or of a synod, I would have disciplined a Christian Nationalist Government if it persisted in implementing a policy of compulsory migratory labour in South Africa. It is a source of misery and it is a glaring injustice which the Black man is being done. Not only does it destroy the family life and moral life of the Blacks, but also the contribution of these people to the economy of the country. All I am asking is for the hon. the Minister as a new Minister—and we are told by the hon. members on the opposite side who are sitting around the hon. the Minister making purring sounds, that he is entering a fine career—to say that his Government is prepared to move away from compulsory migratory labour. His colleague, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development says that if the people of the Transkei become independent and if the Black Xhosa-speaking South African citizens accept Transkeian citizenship, they will have a better opportunity in the cities than previously. So why can the hon. the Minister not ask these people to move away from the system of migratory labour? After all, his colleague has left the door open for him to move in that direction.

We have heard a great deal about unemployment amongst the Blacks over the past two years, especially in view of the recession we had in our economy. We accept that there has been unemployment, and that there still is. What I want to know from the hon. the Minister, however, is what he thinks the situation would have been had the mining industry not created 90 000 new employment opportunities for Blacks in 1975. I think we must take cognizance of the fact that 90 000 Blacks were given employment opportunities which did not, exist previously. These thousands of Blacks were given employment opportunities without such opportunities having cost us a cent. What a difference this is to the XDC and the BDC, which cost us millions of rands to create a few thousand employment opportunities in the homelands. I believe, and I want to urge the hon. the Minister to do this, that we should introduce a thorough administrative system of labour statistics in respect of the Blacks in the country. We cannot carry on if we do not know how many Blacks do not have employment; if we do not know what the position is. Suddenly, within a period of 12 months, 90 000 new employment opportunities were created for Blacks in our mining industry. However, we see nothing in this regard in the general economy. There is no shortage of Black labour. How high is the unemployment rate amongst Blacks? I believe that we should know this, because these people are going to become more and more important in our economic life.

I want to return to the aspect of Black labour on the mines, a matter which the hon. member for Stilfontein also raised. This is the strongest possible lever which we have at our disposal for raising our economy to greater heights. It is a fact that our mining industry is becoming more and more dependent on South African Black labour. I believe that this can make a major contribution towards the development of our economic life by building up a consumer corps amongst the Blacks, by giving them decent conditions in respect of their family life and by combating over-population in the homelands by attracting people to our towns and cities, to the mines throughout the whole country.

I also want to mention the importance of obtaining labour from the tropical zones, as they are known I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us—now or during the discussion of the next Vote—what the position is as regards recruiting Black labour from the tropical zones. How many people come from Malawi and those places? Do they still come here, and if they do not, why not? What attempts is the hon. the Minister making to bring them here? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay for long, because one cannot achieve anything in ten minutes. Nor am I at all in favour of these short ten minute speeches. No decent speaker can say what he wants to in ten minutes. It is built into the policy of separate development in South Africa that migrant labour will virtually come to an end in the future. The hon. member must just understand that, but I do not have the time to go into that now.

Today I want to discuss two matters. Against the background of the annual entry into the labour market of economically active sections of the population, I want to say two things. I want to discuss a sound population policy; then I want to discuss a proper education programme which must provide for the inculcation from an early age—from Std. 1—of a labour awareness in our country. About 200 000 economically active people enter in the labour market annually. The second point is that our population pressure is increasing. The annual population increase per thousand per annum among the Whites is about 21, among the Coloureds 38,2, among the Asiatics 32 and among the Bantu, 39. This implies about 600 000 new people per annum in South Africa. Sir, what is this pushing us towards? It is pushing us towards bigger schemes; Saldanha and Richards Bay, etc. It is pushing us towards a greater need and towards greater and sustained growth in order to provide employment. Thirdly, it is pushing us towards a greater need for production volume. Fourthly, it is pushing us towards the realization that everything relating to growth, everything relating to the labour market, must be supported to an increasing extent by schooling and by technology. It is forcing us to a fuller realization that in order to provide so many people with an infrastructure, food and services, these will all be processes and actions which involve technology and science as essential and indispensable components. We must realize that out of three groups in this country, the Blacks, the Asiatics and the Coloureds—their technological progress; their technological ability to progress; the capital available to provide for their technological progress—the increase in their numbers is such that in the years that lie ahead we shall never be able to master it. We shall never be able to build a sufficient number of houses and schools. We cannot keep pace with the population increase. We shall have to realize urgently that a realistic population policy is an absolute necessity. Other countries in the world are openly engaged in this. We shall have to realize that in order to escape from the tragedy which Uhuru has brought to Africa—in countries without a population policy and without a proper labour evaluation and education programme—we shall have to learn that political emancipation and the political freedom we are now acquiring through the liberation of some of the Bantu—in fact we are now only making a start with our process of liberation—does not really bring about any true freedom unless labour awareness and a realistic ability to evaluate labour, capacity for work and the task of labour, is instilled in every young child.

Thousands of speeches have been made in this House about the political rights of Coloureds, Bantu, Whites and Asiatics; thousands of speeches about accommodation, schools, roads to be built, about subsidies awarded, family allowances and pensions. There have been hundreds of speeches about our mineral wealth, our strategic position, the necessity for the preservation of our identity and about language awareness. We have had hundreds of speeches comparing us with Black States elsewhere. But very little has ever been said in this House about the crime and the outrage and the injustice of seeing a stream of children enter the world, Brown, Black, White and Yellow, seeing them born, and then seeing them a prey to the misery and suffering of aimlessness in their work, of being misplaced in their work and of seeing them falling prey to the terror of numbers. I ask that in view of the vast inflow that is being experienced as a result of the population explosion, we feel called upon to give urgent attention to the implementation of a realistic population policy. In no syllabus in our schools do I find provision being made for children to be orientated towards labour awareness. We often discuss language, status and sport, but there is no such thing as a syllabus which includes a course to impress upon the child and the young person at an early age what it means to be a worker and to perform a labour task in connection with one’s home, one’s nation and one’s country. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give me an opportunity to compile such a course. I shall take ten men from this House of Assembly and we shall compile a syllabus from Std. 1 which will ensure that when they matriculate our children will be able to evaluate work and will believe in work as they believe in the Christian religion which is instilled into them from the cradle. When labour awareness blurs, when it is not cultivated, or when it is ousted by other evaluations, then this constitutes a warning to a people. As a result, we are maintaining a totally unrealistic standard of living. The burden of debt is increasing and the number of summonses has reached record proportions. We are based entirely on the evaluation of Black labour. And this is based on the presence of the Black man within our economy. A spending fever has broken out among the workers, the producers and the youth. An extravagant community spirit, like an evil spirit, has begun to move our people. When workers resist work, and spend more than they earn, when a people relies on mineral wealth, when a people constantly and vociferously maintains that South Africa should be kept White and that they will fight for their White identity and will demand equal language rights; if we are not prepared to perform physical labour; if we measure our fitness by what is achieved on the sports field; when we seek our release in ever-increasing consumption of liquor; when we want to conceal our guilty conscience behind an unprecedented holiday fever; when a voter uses his vote to hold a pistol to my head when I warn him against laziness, unproductivity, love of ease, spending fever and status seeking, and when we omit to introduce new dimensions into our evaluation of labour, then it is late in the day.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carletonville is always an interesting speaker and I always enjoy listening to him. However, I think he surpassed himself today and made one of the best speeches I have ever heard him make. It really was an excellent speech. I agree with much of what he said, particularly with what he said at the end of his speech. I think far too much is said, inside as well as outside the House, on matters such as political rights and housing, while not enough emphasis is placed on a sense of responsibility and self-control among the various population groups of South Africa.

However, I want to deal with another speech I found interesting and with a statement made by the hon. member for Boksburg.

† The hon. member for Boksburg referred to the fact that there were 70 000 people who were qualified artisans in South Africa. He felt that the figure was too high and that White artisans who were qualified were the first to be in danger in times of unemployment or of industrial recession. I take the opposite view. I believe that not enough White people are being trained as artisans in South Africa at the moment. I think there are far too many untrained Whites in South Africa and therefore a very great need for artisan training for White people.

I want to refer briefly to the apprenticeship system. As I understand the qualifications prescribed for becoming an artisan, one can enter into an apprenticeship for a period of five years, one does 10 weeks of study at a technical college, without having to write any examinations. One then becomes an artisan by effluxion of time. In other words, one can get one’s trade after a period of five years. I think that this system, if I see it correctly, should be looked at once again, because I do not believe that a person who, by effluxion of time gets a trade, is necessarily an efficient artisan or someone who is able to do the work that an artisan should do. The other method is by qualification through a trade school. There is only one trade school for Whites in South Africa and that is the National Trade School at Westlake. Last year there were 180 admissions; only 180 Whites were able to get into the Westlake Trade School, the only school of its kind for Whites in South Africa, but there were over 400 applications. The way by which they qualify for partisanship at Westlake is to do one year of theory and practice and then a year of apprenticeship in the commercial market. The allowances at Westlake have always been a cause for complaint, but these have improved in the last year or two. I think the hon. the Minister can consider, in the light of the increased cost of living, improving them still more. I would say to him, however, that there is a further irritant at the moment and that is the fact that the people who are at Westlake for training are only issued with two uniforms a year. This is wholly inadequate for a full year’s training at Westlake. He could perhaps also look into that matter.

I want to deal with one or two problems arising from the school. First of all the admission age is 21, whereas for Coloured training schools the admission age is 16. The difficulty is that a young man is able to do his national service only at the age of 18 and then does either a year, 18 months or two years. Many of them spend a couple of years doing nothing after their national service before being able to enlist at the age of 21 as a trainee at the Westlake school. On the other hand, there are those people who leave school at the age of 16 as a result of broken homes or as a result of having to go out—perhaps being forced by parents to do so—and work. They do nothing for two years until they can do their national service at the age of 18 and after they had done their period of service in the army, they have to find something to do until they can get into the trade school at Westlake. What a waste of time and labour.

Another point I want to make is that it appears that there are no new trades created. I would have thought that in the age of television and of the computer, there would be a necessity to create new trades and Westlake, I know, feels that new trades should be created and that they should be given instructions along those lines.

Then we also have the position of a dual system in terms of which the Westlake trade school is under the joint control of the Department of Labour and of the Department of National Education. There is an overlapping of the functions of the two departments, and that will have to be looked at as well. One of the greatest evils, I think, is the growing number of unqualified, untrained White youths in the Republic. Not enough attention is being given to the training of young Whites, and I prove my point merely by saying that Westlake is the only trade school for Whites in South Africa. To an increasing extent there is going to be competition from non-Whites, and according to the programme of this Government there is going to be greater training for non-Whites. I consequently feel that there is a tremendous potential drain on the State arising from the existence of many unqualified, untrained White people. I also believe that this is harmful to White security as a whole. It also leads to the possibility of racialism amongst Whites who are resentful of the training opportunities now being given to the non-White people. I therefore say that the Government has to give further consideration to training as many White people for the highest possible positions for which they can qualify.

Another point I want to make is that too many Whites retire early. I think greater use could be made of the services of elderly Whites after they have retired, and I believe that one way in which they can be kept in the labour market, acting productively, is by way of taxation incentives. I believe that we need every single White in South Africa to work productively and to continue to work until he cannot work any longer. There is far too much inducement for people to retire too young and then to be utterly unproductive. When this hon. Minister was Minister of Forestry, he launched with success a programme known as “Our Green Heritage”. I think the time has come for him to give consideration to the launching of a similar campaign in his capacity as Minister of Labour, something like “Work for your own Survival”. I think this is particularly applicable to the White man because there is a tendency amongst Whites in South Africa today, at all levels and in all spheres, to take things too easily and not to realize that they have to work to survive. Something he must also be aware of is the fact that there are a growing number of first-class matriculants who do not go on to university and that there are a great number of young Whites who leave school in Std. 8 or Std. 9 and who obviously can not go on to university but are unable to receive any technical training. I think that this matter must be given very careful consideration because it is endangering the position of the Whites in general.

I want to conclude by making a few remarks about Coloureds. I am looking forward to receiving the Theron Report. I hope it will be tabled soon. I also hope that one of the most important aspects of that report will be the proper utilization of the Coloured work force because there are far too many don’t-works and won’t-works amongst the Coloured people. They are creating all sorts of social problems for us. Many of them are work-shy. As has been said this afternoon, they work shorter hours, they change jobs too frequently, they are disinclined to take on overtime and many of them drift into crime. I would be surprised if that report does not bear out what I have been saying, namely that the crime figures amongst young Coloured people, particularly the don’t-works and the won’t-works, are probably higher than amongst any other population group in South Africa. I hope that as a result of that report there will be some form of compulsory upliftment programme launched by the Government for the Coloured people. As I have already said, just as the fact that there are far too many untrained and badly trained White people constitutes a danger for the White people themselves, so there is an enormous number of don’t-works and won’t works—In fact generally work-shy people—amongst the Coloured people who are endangering not only the position of the Coloureds but also the security of the population as a whole as a result of the fact that they take to crime.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Simonstown made a very constructive contribution to this debate and I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to it more fully. I just want to point out that I wholeheartedly associate myself with what he said with regard to the fact that we should perhaps retire at a more advanced age. What he said in connection with the fact that we should give more attention to labour reminded me of the Latin saying which we could really take to heart, and that is: “Laborare est orare”—in other words, “to work is to pray”. I think this could be very meaningful for all our people.

I now just want to deal with something which the hon. member for Pinelands said earlier today and which was also raised by the hon. member for Pinetown. It concerns the issue of migrant labour. The issue as to whether serious sociological and social problems are bound up with migrant labour is not a matter concerning which one would argue with those hon. members. As the hon. member for Carletonville said, the solution to the problem of migrant labour is to be found in this very policy of the NP. The hon. member for Pinelands suggested that a commission be appointed to investigate the entire matter. I do not know whether there are any industrialists in his constituency, nor do I know whether he realizes what benefits are being offered to industrialists with a specific aim of persuading them to decentralize. In South Africa it is not sufficiently stressed that industrialists should not remain in the cosmopolitan areas, but should decentralize to those places where the labour is available. One would really have thought that it would be advantageous to everyone to take his industry to a place where the labour is available. If, then the Decentralization Board asks that the White/Black ratio in labour be one to two and a half or three, then it is none but the kindred spirits of the hon. member for Pinelands who oppose this and advance the ingenious argument that a specific industry must be locality-bound. After all, surely one has to think along the lines of decentralization if one wants to reduce migrant labour. However, the hon. members cannot proclaim anything of the kind too loudly, because that would amount to support for our homeland policy.

The hon. member for Pinelands also referred to the system of trade unions and said that we should not necessarily look at the trade union system of Britain; we should look at the trade union system of Germany. Why can we not further develop a South African system of our own? I should like to refer the hon. member to an interview which Mr. Van Zyl, managing director of a well-known clothing factory held recently with a press representative and in which he adopted a particularly favourable approach to the issue of liaison committees. He said—

He concluded the interview by saying—

The hon. member for Pinelands can leave it to the new hon. Minister of Labour further to cause the liaison committee system to develop further into a truly South African system which will be satisfactory to everyone, employer and employee.

As far as job reservation is concerned, the hon. the Minister said in his message in the Swamsa bulletin—the mouthpiece of the South West African Municipal Staff Association—

That is a clear statement. The reason for labour peace and order having prevailed in South Africa over the past few decades is the fact that the Government has correctly perceived and evaluated its most important task in the field of labour.

One of the cornerstones on which sound relations with our employer organizations is undoubtedly based, is specifically the aspect of job reservation. On 31 December 1974, only 26 job reservation determinations were in force, and, calculated on the basis of the manpower situation in 1975, this represents 2,3% of the labour force. The hon. member for South Coast said that there were no statistics of prosecutions under section 77. He is probably unaware of the fact that in 1975 there were only 65 prosecutions in terms of section 77. These prosecutions were only in respect of the building industry. Only 88 employers were involved. Without enforcing section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act there is always the understanding that in this delicate sphere there will be no infringements. There are still calls, even from influential people, for job reservation to disappear. I just want to say that the people concerned are playing with fire. The issue here is not productivity, but a state of mind. This is something which the hon. members of the Opposition cannot understand. The issue here is a state of mind and the matter of security. The issue is social security. This, in turn, is something which gives rise to greater productivity. It is not the issue that, as was advanced here, people who are too lazy to work are being protected, or that this is an insult to the White man. The issue is one of social security. If one does not have social security, one cannot be productive.

They represent a mere 2%.

The point at issue is not the 2%, but the understanding that section 77 is there to preserve the social security of all the nations. If any of them does not do their work properly, the employer knows what to do. Even in these times of a slack economy we note that among employers there is far too much seeking for loopholes by which to evade the provisions relating to job reservation, and this is being done solely for motives of profit. The conclusion to which I want to come in connection with this matter is that the NP is not going to interfere with the social security of our people. This constitutes the primary guarantee for industrial peace and ultimately for productivity. If the social security of the people is interfered with, this influences the attitude of the worker, and then one can forget about higher productivity. That is why our policy will remain one of controlled employment of non-Whites in the White area, viz. non-Whites will only be employed after full consultation with the trade unions and the staff associations.

In the time that still remains I just want to point out that there are still certain anomalies in the Workmen’s Compensation Act in spite of the fact that an amendment to the Act in question is at present before the House. In this connection I associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Rosettenville. We welcome the improvements contained in the Bill. For example, the Bill provides that the maximum earnings which exclude any person from the scope of the Act has been increased from R 260 per annum to R9 600 per annum. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on an occasion such as this you can understand that it is certainly not easy for a new Minister, in an important Vote such as that of labour, to rise to reply to the hon. members’ speeches after the person who has been in charge of this portfolio for so many years, no longer occupies this position. I cannot blame hon. members if they find it a little strange, for I, too, find it a little strange. Nevertheless I hope that we will grow accustomed to one another as time goes by, and that the same sound relations will develop between hon. members of this House and I as existed between the hon. members and my predecessor. On this occasion I also want to say that I should like to associate myself with those hon. members who referred earlier today to the excellent way in which my predecessor, the present President of the Senate, discussed matters with the hon. members here in a debate such as this for many years. I want to associate myself with the good wishes that were conveyed to him, and I want to say that I am deeply impressed by the particularly excellent way in which former Minister Marais Viljoen led the department, dealt with the Vote and also played his part in the Cabinet. Of course he had the advantage, for which one is grateful, that he had a personal interest in this technical field. He devoted himself to it ever since he came to Parliament. We are grateful that he was able to act as Minister of Labour in the Cabinet and in this House with so much distinction for so many years.

In addition I want to say that the knowledge that I have the good wishes of hon. members in this connection is making it easy for me on this occasion. I want to convey my sincere thanks for the good wishes which were expressed by the opposite side of this House and by my own side. I appreciate this, and I hope that those good wishes will, in the years which lie ahead, provide me with the support which I almost certainly need. It is also pleasant to know that one has a department such as the one I now have the privilege of having behind me. The Department of Labour is an old department with a long tradition. It is served by experienced officials who do their work with great dedication and expertise, and who enjoy the confidence not only of this House, but also of the employees of South Africa. Since I became Minister I have been deeply impressed by the fact that there is a sound relationship between the Department of Labour and everyone associated with the department. It is not only employees who are associated with the department, employers are also associated with it. Therefore I want to tell the department and its officials that in the years which lie ahead I look forward to availing myself of their knowledge, their experience and their good services.

This subject was discussed for 5½ hours today. It was a very interesting experience for me. Many matters of fundamental importance were raised. I hope that in the years which lie ahead the stage will be reached when I will know more about them than I know today. I am very grateful for the discussion which took place and for the positive contributions which were made on both sides of the House. Occasionally I differed with the opinions which were made on the opposite side of this House, but that is the way things are in a debate. The hon. members on my side of the House replied effectively to many of the matters which were raised. I shall now, in the time at my disposal, try to refer to all the matters which were raised, not in a fragmented way, but instead by telling hon. members how I feel about many of the points which were raised, and how I see the road ahead, for hon. members are entitled to know this.

I want to begin by saying that in my opinion we have reached the stage at which labour and labour relations in this country are going to become more and more important. I think that they are going to be of decisive importance, particularly in the next few years which lie ahead, because we are dealing with a country which, in the pressure of its development, is drawing many people from outside into its great labour machine. Apart from that we are dealing with a country which is not exempted from criticism from outside. Unfortunately we are living in a world in which, as hon. members know, what is said in this House is known within seconds. These relations are of the utmost importance in a country with such a unique composition as that of South Africa, where there are so many population groups, where we could so easily go astray, where it is so easy to hurl reproaches, and where it is so easy to give advice when it comes to millions of people who have to live side by side in this country every day. It is not very easy, Sir; the fact that this is the case, is a matter of great seriousness. At the outset I want to say that in this House there is so much goodwill and so much good on both sides, that I believe the day will come when, in regard to these matters, we will first ask what is in South Africa’s interest, before asking what is in the interests of a specific party. It could be that we are entering an era in which we shall have to discuss labour matters with as much piety and circumspection in this House as defence matters. In spite of differences we have seen goodwill on both sides of this House, and I hope that that goodwill will continue to be shown in the future.

To eliminate any misunderstanding I want to react at once to a remark which an hon. member on that side of the House made here this morning, i.e. that new Ministers can make no difference to such fundamental matters as labour policy but can only make extensions to what already exists. Apparently the hon. member’s intentions were good. Perhaps he was just feeling me out to see which way I would jump. He spoke of a new Minister who is a new broom, and hoped that the new Minister would sound a new note. The hon. member must not doubt that not only hon. members on that side of the House and we, but also the entire South Africa must look for a solution within this old and well-tried framework. In the case of a matter such as labour, one cannot pull in different directions. If this was done in the past, I hope it will not be the case in future. I see several smiles, but I can assure hon. members that I shall try to bring my argument back to what I have just said. We in South Africa are in an exceptionally fortunate position, and when we proceed from this situation, I think that when we discuss this matter here and outside we must always bear in mind that a person’s point of departure and the public image he presents can be one of two kinds: Either an image of confidence in and optimism at the future of our fine country, or an image which does not reflect that. I make so bold as to say that our labour situation in South Africa is so fortunate, excellent and without fault that we should be grateful to everyone in the country, and that we should continue to present this image. It is an image not for only a section of our people; it is an image which is essential for the Republic of South Africa and its future.

When one assesses South Africa and its labour situation, this can be done by observing what is happening here and trying—as was done today—to do so by means of figures. However, one can gain a perspective very easily in several ways, and one can do so very easily by assessing South Africa and measuring it against the outside world. Do hon. members really know if any other country since 1933—economically the worst period the world went through—in which there has been over-employment as we have in our country today? It is wonderful to be able to speak of an unemployment figure of 0,6%. It is wonderful to be able to know, in these times, not only that we in South Africa have over-employment, but also that interested and envious eyes are looking at this country because so much labour security and labour stability is being offered here. One need not look at how many people are working and how many are not working; one need only ask the bankers of the world where they want to risk their money in these times. This country, in this regard, has an image in these times of depression which compares favourably and is sometimes even better than that of most countries in the world, including the United States of America. In other words, if we were to measure it by these standards we could tell one another that as far as the labour situation, too, is concerned our people occupy a satisfactory position. But what is more: If we consider the frustration in the outside world, then I want to tell hon. members that they need only look at South Africa’s drawing board for the next 10 years to note that so much is going into South Africa’s pipeline that the question of whether people could possibly be unemployed would not even arise. The question will rather be one of where we will find people to get what is going into the pipeline out at the other end.

If we have to assess South Africa in a situation such as this, we are in the fortunate position of knowing that in the Republic of South Africa there is so much labour peace that, quite apart from the little unrest which occurred here and there and which will occur from time to time, apart from its duration, apart from its intensity, apart from the numbers involved, we are and still remain the most peaceful country in the world. We need not say this to one another and we need not consider only the figures. I ask once again: How does it happen that so many in the world are prepared to invest in South Africa? Of course they like investing here for various reasons. They are investing in South Africa because they believe that there are great possibilities for profits in South Africa. In these hyper-sensitive times capital is invested in a country in which the possibility of peace and quiet in future is the greatest. It is a barometer, an absolutely sensitive barometer. If we consider the indications and the future possibilities, then we in the Republic of South Africa are very fortunate to be able to have this labour peace today, as we are experiencing it at present.

For how long?

Longer than in many other countries, and if the hon. member opposite co-operates, for always. The fact is that we in South Africa find ourselves in a situation in which we must discuss the issues and ask one another how matters will stand in future, for labour peace is one of the most important factors, which can bring about total peace in a country. Labour rest is one of the prerequisites for future safety. We need not argue about it; we know it is true. Not only is there a flow of money, but of people as well. New opportunities are created for countries in which there is labour peace.

Therefore I want to say that South Africa’s strong economic position is in fact based on its labour peace, and that we should treasure it. What we do in this country must be aimed at maintaining relations and the peace which must exist in South Africa at all times. As a matter of interest, there are so many examples of what could happen if we were to disturb the peace in any way. I should like to mention two examples of which we are very much aware in this House. Hon. members know how hypersensitive the world was to Sharpeville in the early ’sixties. Hon. members know how long we suffered as a result of it. Hon. members know what happened afterwards when we saw not long ago, how South Africa experienced a ripple, which really caused problems at that stage. It was nothing serious in comparison with what happened in other countries, but it was, after all, in South Africa that it happened, and where it was allegedly so serious. I am referring to the strikes we had in Durban and which we had to struggle to bring under control. Therefore I want to tell hon. members that it is imperative that we preserve the peace for as long as we can.

If we are to have labour peace in future, then we must understand that South Africa is on the eve of tremendous development. We must project this against what has to come, what is awaiting us. The fact of the matter is that what is awaiting South Africa is an economic development which, by the turn of the century, is going to harness all the various sectors into what I could almost call overcapacity. The gross national product will have to more than treble in volume in South Africa. We know that the development of the entire infrastructure has to be enormous. We know that these things have to happen in order to achieve a few things, inter alia, to make South Africa so strong economically that it can afford a high standard of living and that this high standard of living can be afforded not only for the White people but also for the Brown, Yellow and Black people. We do not want to create prosperity for one sector of the population; we want to create prosperity for all. We realize that we must be able to do this in this country because we must be able to buy and pay our own way through the world. It is South Africa’s difficulty—perhaps it is also its strength—that it is a cash country today. In the past South Africa did not have friends that wanted to help it. Sir, we are the country that pays in cash and if it is necessary, in gold as well. So far South Africa has developed without outside assistance, and it will only be able to continue to develop if it can do so without outside assistance. But we have a very great responsibility because it is not only the Republic of South Africa we want to make strong; we are also making nine different countries strong, and helping to build various future states. We have an enormous task awaiting us. That is why we will in fact have to have an economic development which will be strong enough to bear this great weight, otherwise South Africa cannot achieve its ultimate goal. And on the way to that ultimate goal, it is of course necessary that the people who work for it and who have to occupy that position in future, feel that they are also building for themselves and building for their future security.

We come now to the question of relations. We could approach this matter from various angles. I want to say that sound labour relations are based in the first place on the fact that we have a labour force which is unique. On this occasion, while I am discussing this, I want to say that this country, this House and our people are all greatly indebted to one thing among our labour force, and that is a factor which has disappeared in other countries but which we still have, i.e. the factor of responsibility. I want to tell you, Sir, that our people have something which has become a rarity in other parts of the world, viz. the responsibility of people who work. We have responsible people. I have not yet had a great deal of contact with them, but in the few cases in which I spoke to them, I got the feeling that there was no secret element of conflict between us, a conflict which has already brought other countries to their knees, but that our workers give me the feeling that above all they are still good South Africans and are always responsible people, and for that reason I think we should pay tribute to them. It is the responsibility of these people which has also made it possible for us to have had this peace and tranquility in these past years. Now, I know it is being said that in the years which lie ahead we must have a revaluation of our labour situation, and of the people who are involved in it.

We have also had evidence in this debate today of what is in the process of happening here. We had figures before us today, and the insistence that we should absorb as many Black and Brown people as possible into employment. A short while ago I attended a congress at which I addressed the Confederation of Labour. Subsequently I also received documents from them and in those documents I read a question, a question which our people have on their minds, and I am referring now to the White workers who have provided the stability in the past. And this question is: What reliance can we place on security in future? I want to say at once that labour peace and tranquility in South Africa was possible because the White worker felt that labour security, and he shall have to continue to feel it if we want to continue to maintain labour peace and tranquility in future. Having said this, it seems as though it might be only one side of the coin, for the fact remains that it is impossible for us to get this enormous quantity of work done, the work which has to be done on all levels of development, unless more people are doing it. There are Black people and there are Brown people and they will have to participate within South Africa in ensuring this future development. This is something which will have to be done together as one great team. By that I do not mean that I want it to be felt in future that my department and I are drafting a law for the planning of labour or for the orientation of various people and their positions within the labour context in South Africa, and are doing so without taking all of industry and the employees of this country with us. I want to state at once what my policy will be.

In the years which lie ahead my policy will be to do what I am doing so fairly and to be so just that what has to be done—and I think that a great deal still has to be done within the framework of the NP policy—will be done cheerfully and with the support and active co-operation of the workers and employers in South Africa. From the outset I adopted the standpoint that my office is open to all employers’ organizations. The employers’ organizations that have been to see me conducted very fruitful talks with me, and I also kept the door of my office open to all employees’ organizations. Not all of them have availed themselves of this opportunity, and what we have been able to say to one another so far has been that if we have to develop a formula in South Africa it will have to be a formula of co-operation of everyone involved in labour in South Africa.

If this is accepted as the basis for future development, I at once want to react further to a component of it. When we speak of employees and employers, the first question which emerges is this: To what extent will it be possible to yield to the pressure, or will this have to be done, pressure that we should make use of a system which has succeeded in other countries of the world but which is no longer necessarily a proven system today? Such a system may have served those countries over the years and over a period of many decades, e.g. the trade union movement in Britain. The question is to what extent we should follow that course and regard it as a course which can also be followed successfully in South Africa by Black workers? I want to tell hon. members at once—and I am saying this deliberately—that I do not believe that the trade union system which is peculiar to Britain and which has achieved success there, although I do not know whether they are satisfied with it at present, but which has nevertheless served that country for many years, can prove successful to the mind, knowledge and insight as well as the needs of Black Africa, just as little as Africa has any liking and feeling for the Westminster system of democracy. What these two aspects have in common with one another is that Africa has no strong feeling for either.

Up to now it has been the policy of the NP not to approve of Black trade unions. This is still the policy, and I also believe that this is not the course we should adopt, namely by approving of Black trade unions in South Africa, for I believe that we in South Africa should have the ingenuity to be able, in fact, to meet the need, and that is to provide something which people want, i.e. consultation and the satisfaction of their own minds in the labour world. However, I do not think that is not part of that course. If hon. members ask me why this is not part of that course, I shall tell them that if one considers Africa and the attempts which have been made, it is very clear—and there may be hon. members who are students in this field and have already gone to see what happens—that the trade union movement has so far produced nothing of benefit to Africa, other than to have been abused by Governments for their own purposes, and that may not happen. On the other hand, trade unions have also been misused against Governments in order to bring about their downfall, and to be employed in this way for political purposes, and that may not happen either. Nowhere on the Continent of Africa do we have any indication that a basic need for trade unionism has existed in a single country and that it has succeeded. What is interesting of South Africa itself is that there was a time when Black trade unions were encouraged. However, that era is passed. And it is interesting to note that many of the people who were involved eventually either fled the country or found themselves in other difficulties because with the formation of trade unionism they were in fact the ringleaders of another kind of evil. Hon. members know the names of these people who were the precursors, and of what became of them. But what was very interesting was that when the ringleaders disappeared, the entire movement collapsed.

I want to mention an example of this, and having dealt with it, I shall not refer to it again when I return to the hon. member. I think it was the hon. member for Pinelands who referred to it. He referred to Heinemann Electric, a company on the East Rand. What has happened in this case? I want to say at once that there is a court case pending, and I do not want to anticipate this. I believe the court case will indicate what actually happened. What I want to say here is that there was a company here that was carrying on peacefully with its business. Suddenly, one fine day, it broke out like measles and the workers did not want to come to work. When they were asked why they did not want to work, their reply was that they wanted a trade union, and that if they did not get a trade union, they would go on strike. Because the case is sub judice I have to choose my words carefully. All that I can say is that there was trouble, but that it was of short duration. There was a White man involved, a person who had nothing to do with their daily task, and we shall still see how the case ends. The Police took this man away and after they did so, strangely enough, peace was restored and there is peace to this day. No one there ever spoke of a Black trade union again.

Another reason is that I believe that we should realize that trade unions, as they have developed and unfolded over the years, have made certain demands on those countries in which they were a success. There was a requirement and a need which had to be met, namely of affording the worker of that time—the era of the beginning of the industrial revolution and afterwards; when there were only White workers—the opportunity of being able to negotiate better in an era of capitalism.

It may have served its time well, but in Europe it is a fact that the trade unions have become entirely socialistic and today there are voices which are being strongly raised in opposition to it. That is why I said a moment ago with so much satisfaction, and I want to repeat it because I do not want any misunderstanding, that our people have been so responsible up to now and that we are very grateful for that. However, I believe that if there is no significant need and demand among the Black people for a Black trade union, other people must not come and tell us that they think there is a need for it. The people who are asking for it are in my opinion the wrong people. The right people are not asking for it; always it is only the wrong people. I shall only begin to believe it when the right people ask for it. So far it has only been the wrong people. However, I do not want to remain negative only; I also want to be positive as far as this matter is concerned. My predecessor laid the foundation here with the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act, the Act of 1953, which was amended a short while ago, and provided that a start could now be made within a factory to meet a need. What is that need? The first need is communication and the second is the opportunity to discuss and communicate one another’s problems. What has happened during the past year? Recently, since the Act was changed, over 2 000 of these committees have been established—I am speaking collectively of the works committees and the liaison committees; I do not want to go into too much detail—which have to meet this need. What has happened here? At first there was an attempt to meet the first requirement, the need for communication. Now, on a basis of a study carried out by the Free State University some time ago to try to evaluate whether there had been improved communication—this has been done scientifically and I have to accept it—it appeared that in 97,4% of the cases where those committees existed, there was better communication.

There is of course the second objective, and that is to try to improve productivity once there is better communication. Scientists who carried out the research tell us that in 39,7% of the cases there was increased productivity. What is very interesting, however, is the fact that labour unrest diminished dramatically in cases where such liaison or works committees existed. I know it is being said—as was said here today—that this scheme does not go far enough because no provision is made within the scope of this scheme for other needs.

However, I do not want to go into detail here today, but I believe that we must follow this course and make a success of this scheme. We must look at what we have and see whether we have gone far enough with it or whether we must change it, but we cannot throw out the baby with the bath water and try something new. We must give attention to this scheme which is already half way to being a success and is on its way to becoming a complete success. We must recreate this scheme and make something of it, for it has potential because there are two fundamental elements inherent in it. The first element is that of liaison and co-operation between employer and employee, and the second is the opportunity to sit down around the conference table and make mutual needs known.

These 650 000 Black people in South Africa may subsequently become a million Black people, and eventually even 2 million Black people, and can hon. members imagine how satisfactory it would be if the representatives of those people throughout South Africa could sit down around conference tables in the knowledge that their needs were really being looked after. And what are those needs? There is a need for money, better working conditions and all the other needs which they discuss with their employers. If we can achieve success with this scheme, we would really have made a breakthrough. Then we will never again hear about Black trade unions, for then it would not be the case that such organizations were being established from ulterior motives. Then groups will be established to maintain true labour peace in South Africa.

I have already discussed these matters and told the employers’ organizations that it is my intention to take this point further during the next recess. I believe it is going to be necessary to have a round table conference so that all employers can consider and discuss various possibilities to see whether they cannot perhaps bring something in existence for South Africa. I am convinced that this will happen. Many of these people have already begun to think in this direction. Therefore I believe that what we are doing through joint consideration must be done, and that employer and employee must sit down together with the Government around a conference table so that we can create labour peace in South Africa, and do not need to look elsewhere and try to make something of a trade union system which has failed elsewhere on the continent and also in South Africa. There is no indication that Black trade unions were ever a success here or outside South Africa, and everything indicates that the methods which we are employing in terms of the new Act will ensure a breakthrough. I am inviting hon. members opposite to embark on this course with us and not to try to condemn this system.

In future we will probably have to take a very close look at the position of labour itself. Of course we have been discussing the matter of figures all day, and perhaps it would therefore be a good thing if we were, just for a moment, to glance at the latest figures in regard to manpower in general. The Department of Labour, of course, conducts a proper manpower survey every second year. I have studied this manpower survey and made an abstract which gives us an indication of precisely what the labour situation is at present, according to the very latest figures. I am now going to quote from it because it may perhaps serve as a basis for further arguments. The last survey was made in 19.75. According to that survey there were 1 487 498—i.e. 29,67%—Whites. To make it interesting perhaps I should round off the figures to the nearest 1 000. There were also 530 000 Coloureds, 181 000 Asiatics and 2,8 million Bantu. These figures refer only to labour-active people within South Africa. In contrast to what was implied today, I want to point out that a comparison with the previous survey disclosed that the Coloureds showed the greatest increase—an increase of 9,7%. Following on the increase among the Coloureds, there were increases of 6,5% among the Asiatics, 5,8% among the Bantu and 5,5% among the Whites. In aggregate there was an increase of 285 000, that is to say, a growth rate of approximately 6%—over two years. This differs from the figures which were quoted today as supposedly indicating the current figures in regard to our labour situation. As far as the professional, semi-professional and technical occupations are concerned, the population groups show considerable growth. Hon. members would do well to take cognizance of the following interesting figures. The number of Whites increased by 29 000, which represents a growth of 13,28%. The growth among the Blacks, however, was 28%. As far as the clerical professions are concerned—this is in fact the most important livelihood of the Whites—the Whites increased by 7,6%, the Asiatics by 30% and Bantu by 29%.

My object in quoting these statistics is not that hon. members should remember the figures, but to indicate the contrast. Hon. members should take cognizance of the difference: Among Whites it was 7%, among Coloureds 37%, among Asiatics 30% and among Bantu 29%. The survey pertaining to the various groups is therefore more or less in proportion to their numbers. Therefore it cannot be alleged that provision is not being made for the entry of White, Brown and Yellow people to the extent to which they become available to the market. In the case of male technicians there was an increase in growth of 25%, and in the case of female technicians growth represented an increase of 16%. The percentages which I have now furnished therefore indicate the increase in the rate and not the total intake.

I can therefore allege on the basis of these figures that the impression that we in South Africa are in fact building up a backlog because the Black and Brown people are not being absorbed into the labour situation is not entirely correct.

If one wanted to discuss Black workers, one could think of what is happening at present in South Africa. What I find so very interesting is that on the one hand, South Africa is reproached for not being able to find Black people to do its work, but on the other hand it is also reproached for not wanting to employ Black people. Although we hear these reproaches, South Africa at present finds itself in the situation that it has a mining industry which has been cut off from certain components of its sources of labour, or is in the process of being cut off from those sources. It is only with the utmost difficulty and at the greatest expense that this industry can find people within South Africa to enter the industry despite the fact that the circumstances within the industry are exceptionally favourable. I think it has already been mentioned today that the mining industry in fact offers working conditions which compare very, very favourably with working conditions in other industries anywhere in the world. The mining industry cares for its people in the field of medicine, and offers excellent recreational facilities. In addition feeding services are provided. Although this industry provides working conditions which are extremely good, the industry is only with difficulty succeeding in persuading Black people to enter the industry.

At present it is true that only approximately 43,6% of our Black mineworkers are from South African territory. We therefore experience the contrast that on the one hand we are reproached for not wanting to employ the people and at the same time when we do want to employ them there are still various posts which are vacant. In reality there are still a large number of Black people in South Africa who can pick and choose where they wish to work. The Department of Bantu Administration and all hon. members who deal with this will know that they are so selective about where they want to work that there is a surplus available, not in industry, but in the other sectors. Agriculture and certain services have indicated that they want more workers, but they cannot find them. Consequently it is very difficult to evaluate precisely what the position really is in South Africa. However, I think that we can safely say that in spite of the fact that at first glance there are many Black people who want work and allegedly are unable to find it, we have a good rate of employment, in fact full employment, for in the sphere of industry there is at present a shortage of Black labour in the country and as a result of which there are quite a few posts which cannot be filled.

Having said this about labour, and having initially said that White workers are receiving the necessary protection, I want to add that I believe that the White worker in South Africa ought to be protected and that the work reservation provision ought to remain on the Statute Book. I am saying this for various reasons, some of which have already been pointed out by hon. members. One important reason is that the people have every right to be protected in an industry in which they were trained and in which they have been engaged for years. They have every right to demand that they should, in their own country, enjoy that protection which other countries afford their people when similar circumstances arise. Let me say at once that, when we discuss this matter, we should not only discuss what is happening today, but should in reality speak with enthusiasm and optimism about the future. What is awaiting the Black man?

Today the homelands have not yet been developed. They still have a very long way to go, but they have enormous potential. The citizens of the homelands must make something of those homelands, because the homelands belong to them. In other words, they have every opportunity to build up something there, to enjoy full protection there and to enjoy primary rights there. In addition they may be absorbed into the industries in South Africa, in what I want to call the intermediate areas or border areas. In those areas vast opportunities are being created for them, and they are able to rise further than in the rest of the White area. In addition, in the rest of the White South Africa, they have the opportunity to be employed, as they have in fact been employed, with the possibility of all being absorbed into the work situation in South Africa in the years which lie ahead. Therefore it would be wrong to want to create the impression that we in South Africa do not care or do not have a place for the Black man in this country, for if everyone, Brown, White and Black believe in this country’s great future, if we knew what was on its drawing board, I want to say that there will be work in South Africa for everyone, regardless of his colour. The important thing is: Who will be protected, who will work where? Therefore, I want to associate myself with what has already on various occasions been said to the workers in South Africa, inter alia, too, by the hon. the Prime Minister, namely that there is a link between the South African ethnic situation and its internal labour situation. Within the context I think we can achieve that goal. In my opinion, therefore, there is an opportunity for everyone in South Africa to co-operate in the situation. There is also the assurance to the White man that he will be protected in that part of the work which he has to do. But, what is also important, is that we are entering a situation—in fact, we are already in it—where work opportunities also have to be created. Therefore it is of the utmost importance to this country of ours that the people on whose training so much has been spent, who have become so skilled in the practice of their professions, and who are already in short supply in South Africa, should thrash out the situation among one another by way of a readjustment so that routine work is shifted from their shoulders. In the interest of South Africa, and in their own interest, they will then be able to render the services which constitute the maximum potential for South Africa.

The second step is that a round table conference will have to be held to determine who should work where, for in a readjustment of types of employment it is not only the Government which is involved, nor is it only the employer who is involved. The employee is also involved, and I have told the employees—and I want to repeat it now—that I hope and believe that relations will be of such a nature that all parties will sit down around that conference table and accept the joint responsibility of ensuring that all the work is done. In addition they must also themselves determine who will do what. Inherent in that is also protection for the White man himself, for then it will not be possible to force anything upon him. He knows that there is going to be a great deal of work, and that he cannot do everything himself. He also knows that he will have to help ensure that these things happen. In other words, Sir, he must also accept co-responsibility for ensuring that that sorting out of the work process in South Africa will be done with his co-operation. I have invited them to co-operate in this way in future, and I have every reason to believe that the White workers of this country will play their part in ensuring that that part of the work which they are going to retain, will be done well, and also to plan who is going to do the remainder of the work. Therefore I believe that the way in which our industrial councils work is of such a nature that these matters will be thrashed out there. The result of the fact that we have industrial councils which are functioning so well and which have, over the past few years, acquitted themselves of their task in such an excellent manner, is that I need not doubt that we will be able to find this formula within the framework of our Conciliation Act. Therefore I do not think that we in South Africa need be afraid that there will not be people to do the work in future. I believe that there will be people to do the work. What is important, however, is that the decisions which will have to be taken on who works where, should be joint decisions of a joint labour government in the Republic of South Africa.

Sir, I have now indicated what my views are in respect of future developments. I want to leave it at that now, and come to the various hon. members who participated in this debate today. In the first place I want to express my cordial thanks to them for their contributions. Hon. members on this side of the House replied well to the points raised by hon. members opposite, and there is not much which remains for me to say, now that I have given an indication of what my views are in respect of the road ahead.

I think that what I have just said covers most of the points raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member used an example when he spoke of a work situation which is going to develop near Cape Town. He referred to the fact that Koreans will be imported to do certain work here. I want to tell the hon. member that his example was incorrect. He compared this situation to the importing of Indians and Chinese years ago. I want to tell him that this is an entirely different situation. The fact of the matter is that people come to work in South Africa under contract. After they have completed their contract work, they return. As Minister of Water Affairs, I was personally involved in the construction of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. A French firm was working on the project, and we brought in quite a number of people from abroad. They have all returned; we did not keep them here. There are other examples as well. There is the case of Natref, where people came from abroad to work here. In other words, this is a controlled situation, where people come to this country to complete a contract, and then return. Therefore there need be no fears that such a situation will subsequently arise. What is very important, however, is to realize that these people come to work here for no other reason but that the work has to be done, work which is of a highly technical nature. There are simply no people in this country, whether they are White, Brown, Black or Yellow, who can do that work. We simply do not have the numbers to make that possible. We must get these people from somewhere, otherwise the work is simply not done. Therefore I think it was a very uncalled-for remark which the hon. member made, and he should be grateful, in the years which lie ahead, that South Africa is going to have such a high growth rate that we have to ask other people to come to this country and help us do the work. The hon. member can be pleased it is not the other way round.

I want to tell the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that I am very grateful for the contribution he made to this debate today. The hon. member and I have come a long way together, and I want to thank him for the support which I received from him as chairman of the labour group on this side of the House.

The hon. member for Pinelands referred to several matters, but the two main statements he made were the question of “labour representation”, with which I have already dealt, and the migrant labour system. However, I am afraid that the hon. member should not discuss this system under this Vote, but should do so during the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Affairs. It would be inappropriate of me to discuss a matter with him, which by rights falls under the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member for Springs expressed the idea that all bodies should institute a collective investigation into the position and functions of trade unions. The hon. member also referred to the Institute for Labour Relations at Unisa. I just want to say in passing that one has many of these institutes, for everyone under the sun wants to establish institutes. The more inquiries I make, the more institutes emerge in South Africa. However, the work which is being done at this institute, Unisa, is good work. I ascertained this personally. I am very grateful for the way in which the leader of this institute, Prof. Wiehahn, has engaged in his task in the past. Because I am not mentioning other names does not necessarily mean that we are unwilling to co-operate with other institutes. I believe that in this sphere one should co-operate with those who want to co-operate. I want to add that I am also aware of the fact that other institutes are emerging, people who want to provide the Black labourers with so-called guidance, but who in essence want to advise them on nothing else but how to establish Black trade unions in this country. I want to state in advance that such institutes will have no friend in me in the years which lie ahead.

The hon. member for Overvaal made a fine contribution to the debate, and I want to thank him for it. The hon. member also referred to labour relations and, inter alia, made an observation with which I want to agree, i.e. that the Black workers have great responsibilities in the days which lie ahead. The hon. member’s statement is correct, for in the years which lie ahead each one of us, White, Black and Brown, will have to bear his responsibilities, i.e. of acting and working in a responsible way, as far as the labour situation is concerned. None of us will escape those responsibilities.

The hon. member for Maitland requested that we have the same organizations for White and Black people. My reply to the hon. member is “no”, because I do not think we should make this applicable.

The hon. member for Welkom dealt thoroughly with the arguments raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow and confirmed that the policy of the NP will remain unchanged. Hon. members must not begin to tamper with our policy, for within the framework of this policy all things are possible for South Africa.

The hon. member for Meyerton made an appeal for an attitude of mutual trust between employer and employee in order to bring about increased productivity in that way. All I can say to that, is “sela!”.

The hon. member for South Coast made several observations. He referred to those industries which White persons are leaving. I think the hon. member referred to the building industry. I just want to tell the hon. member in passing that he is perhaps seeking the reasons in the wrong place. I have been told that many people who are leaving the building industry are people who do not want to work in a “wet” industry. But I would not want to try to be too clever in this regard in my reply to the hon. member. I shall look into the situation.

The hon. member for Hercules issued a warning and said that we should all reflect on what he called the 4½-day working week. The hon. member said that everyone in South Africa should take stock of the situation in which we find ourselves. I want to agree with the hon. member. I want to tell the hon. member that when it comes to two, three, four or five days, or however many working days there may be, it is a question of what people themselves feel they owe their country. If there is a right frame of mind, then this frame of mind will bum in the hearts of everyone, viz. a realization of the situation in which South Africa finds itself. I want to tell the hon. member that his was a timely statement.

The hon. member for Jeppe referred to the narrowing of the wage gap and also to the fact that he would like to see us training Black labourers. The hon. member also referred to Black trade unions. I think that enough has already been said in this regard. If he had listened to everything I said he would have heard enough to give him wisdom.

I listened.

I also want to refer to the hon. member for Rustenburg. He made an appeal to the Opposition by implication rather to lend their support to existing works and liaison committees, and I agree with the hon. member. He was entirely correct. In this regard I just want to furnish the hon. member with the following figures: At present there are 291 works committees and 2 187 liaison committees. The total number of workers involved is 654 000.

The hon. member for Rosettenville made observations on medical services and asked that it be possible for medical examinations to take place before employment is accepted, and that it should be done throughout the entire country. I want to tell the hon. member that, I am not a doctor as he is, but that this seems to me to be impossible. I do not think that it is practical to give every worker in the South African labour market a head-to-foot examination before he accepts employment. That is a little far-fetched. I also want to tell the hon. member that to me it sounds too much like a further step along the road to a welfare State. He and I should both be afraid of one thing, and that is a welfare state. In any case, I think that our people are healthy. If the hon. member were to look at those of us sitting here and at what is happening outside, I can honestly say that the general state of health and conditions of work are of such a nature that, except in the case of risk work, we should refrain from saying to the people that they should all first be examined to establish to what extent they are able to work. If the hon. member does not mind, I should prefer to furnish him with a written reply in respect of certain matters which he raised and which are of a rather technical nature. There are observations which he made which are important, and I should like to furnish the hon. member with a written reply to them.

The hon. member for Bethal advocated the retention of work reservation and he did so in a knowledgeable way. I want to thank the hon. member very sincerely for his contribution. What he said, is true.

The hon. member for Sasolburg made a contribution in respect of labour training. I need not make a further contribution in this regard. I am of the opinion that the hon. member’s appeal for co-operation and reflection by White workers in respect of the position of the Black worker can be endorsed. That is precisely why I associated myself a moment ago with what the hon. member said, i.e. that it behoves all of us, employers and employees to reflect in the years which lie ahead on the overall labour situation in South Africa.

The hon. member for Orange Grove made an appeal and requested that the procedure in regard to wage determination should be revised. However, I do not think that the procedure need be revised. It is a complicated procedure and in any case I cannot simply tell the hon. member off the cuff, in regard to such technical matters, that he did perhaps have a valid argument. But I do think that this matter can be looked into. I want to tell the hon. member, however, that the procedure, as it exists, has been tested in the past and I do not know whether other hon. members on my side of the House would agree with me or would differ with me. I shall look into the matter, and if I think that the hon. member’s argument is a valid one, I shall let him know.

I want to thank the hon. member for Stilfontein, who is an old war horse, for his contribution and representations in regard to labourers on a family basis. He also replied on my behalf in a knowledgeable way.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the say which Black workers ought to have in industrial council meetings. However, I want to point out to the hon. member that these people are not members of the industrial councils, yet they are able to have a say in the meetings. There is a difference, and the hon. member should consult the Act again. The hon. member can request the department to explain to him how the matter functions. But it would seem to me as though there is a misunderstanding about what he meant and what the position really is. However, this matter can be cleared up for him.

The hon. member for Etosha referred to the misuse of Black trade unions, and I think that the hon. member will be able to infer from what I said earlier this afternoon, that he and I are in agreement on this matter.

The hon. member for Umbilo asked very technical questions, to which I have to reply. However, it would be a long reply, for he asked many questions, and I do not think he expects me to reply to him across the floor of this House, but he will receive a reply.

The hon. member for Westdene made a very important observation, and I want to thank him for his contribution. He made an interesting contribution in regard to the position of our Coloureds, and discussed the composition of a labour force in future and the position of Coloureds in it. He also pointed out that the Coloureds have no other place in which to offer their labour, and the future must therefore be spelt out for the Coloureds so that it will be clear to them. I agree with the hon. member that this ought to be done, but I believe that the National Party, in its policy as it is unfolding at the moment—I do not now wish to venture into the domain of the hon. Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations—has already indicated such a course. But it will probably be feasible to raise this question during the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations.

The hon. member for Boksburg pointed out that if people were correctly trained, there ought to be no shortage of artisans. He referred to the 70 000 White operators and requested that these White operators be afforded the opportunity of receiving better training. I agree with the hon. member and I think that it is a matter in respect of which everyone should co-operate, for 70 000 people are a great number of people to afford a better position in life. At a subsequent stage the hon. member and I can discuss the ways and wherefores of this matter further with one another. In the meantime I thank the hon. member for raising the matter.

The hon. member for Alberton made a very good contribution on dispositions, and I hope that the disposition which radiated from him today will also be a disposition which will in future be discernible in everyone. Before I resume my seat, I want to thank the hon. member for Carletonville for his contribution on labour policy and labour awareness. He would do well to make his speech at other places as well. It was a very good speech.

I am also pleased at the contribution made by the hon. member for Simonstown. He made a sound and important contribution and raised quite a number of matters in regard to Westlake. It is important that these matters be looked into first, and he shall receive a reply from me at a later stage.

The hon. member for Boksburg asked for the establishment of an institution such as Westlake on the Witwatersrand. Such an institution is being planned, and I shall subsequently furnish the hon. member with all the particulars.

Votes agreed to.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Vote No. 10 and S. W. A. Vote No. 5.—“Mines”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to avail myself this opportunity of welcoming the hon. the Minister to this portfolio. We know that his achievements in his previous departments were remarkable and we wish him luck in this portfolio as well. As far as we are concerned, he can depend on our goodwill while he is still new to the portfolio, but also in future, particularly if he will take notice of the advice he will receive from this side of the House.

†Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half-hour? I think this is an appropriate moment to refer to the retirement of the Government Mining Engineer, Mr. Tommy Gibbs. Mr. Tommy Gibbs has been one of the great mining engineers, one who was enormously respected throughout the industry and enjoyed, I believe, the confidence not only of the Government which he represented, but also of the whole broad private enterprise sector in the mining world. I think it is with a universal feeling of regret that we see Mr. Gibbs relinquish his post. I would have liked to say a great deal more about him, as I believe his career deserves special emphasis and praise, but in the short time available to me this evening I thought it was right to pay a short tribute to the work he has done.

I should also at this stage like to express the condolences of this side of the House about the recent disaster at the Western Deep Levels and the casualties suffered by workers of that mine and of the other mines which came to their assistance.

The mining industry is one which claims a heavy toll of life. In 1975, 765 miners were killed and 24 612 injured. Having said this, and having taken stock of this very alarming and tragic situation, it is also right, I believe, to pay tribute to the Chamber of Mines for the unremitting work it does in seeking to improve the safety on our mines through new approaches to the techniques of mining and by improved training, etc. Sir, the Chamber of Mines are going to spend R150 million in the next 10 years on research into new mechanical methods and new techniques of mining which, hopefully, will also have some effect on the casualty rate in that the resort to more mechanical means of mining will also reduce to some extent the physical exposure to which miners are subjected. The Mines Rescue Brigade has once again played a noteworthy part in the operations which took place after the events at the Western Deep Levels, and it is appropriate to remember that in 1975, the year which we are now reviewing, this Mines Rescue Brigade, which is a voluntary organization, was prepared to go into all kinds of hazardous situations and to accept great risks in saving their comrades from disaster or danger. It has already celebrated its 50th anniversary. I believe it is appropriate to pay tribute to the Mines Rescue Brigade and to the proto teams which are prepared to undertake such grave risks in defence of their comrades and for the protection of their fellow miners.

In reviewing the year I think it is right also to express satisfaction at the success of the new recruiting policy in the mining industry. It has come to realize that foreign labour is in fact not something on which the mining industry can count for ever. It is subject to political risks and to all kinds of interventions, some of which are really unpredictable for the future. To this end the mining industry has undertaken a major recruiting campaign. It has reviewed the conditions of labour and of employment, and the effect has been that the number of indigenous Blacks employed in South African mines, who numbered some 99 000 in 1974, had risen to 180 000 in 1975. These Black miners have been recruited from within South Africa itself and now constitute the major component of labour on the South African mines, a situation which was not the case before. I believe a very important change has taken place here. It has taken a great deal of organization and it has placed our mining industry in a position of greater safety so far as the employment of labour is concerned.

In reviewing the year, our attention has also been drawn, in the report of the Secretary for Mines, to the first report of the Minerals Bureau. This was a new innovation and the report is in fact the very first report of the Minerals Bureau which it has ever published. Its Energy Minerals Division will be very largely responsible for the Minerals Bureau’s contribution to the formulation of national energy policy. It will participate in the work of the Energy Policy Committee, and, therefore, in its initial stages one hopes that its main field of work will be to pay great attention to the recommendations of the Petrick report on the coal resources of South Africa. However, as the bureau itself states in its report—

This, Sir, is obviously a gap which needs to be filled, because as the Petrick Commission points out, the time has come for South Africa to take a new and hard look at the availability of coal, the extent of the resources and the utilization of coal within the South African economy. There is a most urgent need for more research into our most important energy source. The fact that South Africa of all countries in Africa has become easily the most highly developed industrial nation on this continent, is very largely, if not wholly, due to the fact that we have been blessed with enormous reserves of cheap coal, and this has played a very important part in the economic development of South Africa. It has up to the present been South Africa’s only important source of energy and has, as I said, made us into a major industrial country. The energy field has moreover become so dynamic that continuous study is necessary and will continue to be necessary to maintain this energy source and to adapt it to the circumstances which will develop from now onwards. It is rather striking and alarming that we spend 14 times as much on atomic energy research and twice as much on water research as we do on coal research. I think the time has certainly come to think very seriously about it. It has become a truism, a platitude, to say that coal, or energy, is vital to the future of South Africa. It is so obvious that it is vital to our future, especially with the great economic demands that are going to be placed on this country, that it is only right to accept that the recommendations made in the Petrick Commission report, which I believe are most important recommendations and a most important report, should be given great attention by the Government.

In this regard I would like to mention briefly—without raising the argument again—that the report of the Petrick Commission contains recommendations which affect a number of Government departments. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we believe we have to some extent set an example by reconstituting our parliamentary study group which deals with mining matters, into a mines and energy group. I believe that the Government would do well to consider some such similar formation in order that this kind of work could be co-ordinated within a single department under a single control. I would like to mention to the hon. the Minister yet another example. I have given many in this House. I was looking last night at the report of the Fuel Research Institute, which has an important part to play in connection with the recommendations made by the Petrick Commission report. It then occurred to me that the Fuel Research Institute does not fall under this hon. Minister and therefore it would be inappropriate for me to talk to him about it. These are the sort of difficulties we have. This hon. Minister is responsible for atomic energy, but he is not responsible for the Koeberg power station. He is also not responsible for Sasol. So one could go on enumerating anomalies that arise in trying to deal with energy problems within the present divisions which exist in the Government structure. I believe that the time has come to give very serious thought to this.

So far as the Petrick Commission report is concerned, one is tempted to go into greater detail, and I would very much like to do so, but time does not allow me. I would therefore ask the hon. the Minister whether he would be so good, when he rises to reply to this debate, to tell us what the Government’s response is to the Petrick Commission report.

I certainly shall have something to say about it.

I am sure the hon. the Minister will, but I believe also, for reasons that I have already stated, that the hon. the Minister will not be in a position to deal fully with the recommendations of the Petrick Commission report. So many of the recommendations affect other Ministers and other departments. We look forward with great interest to hear what the hon. the Minister will have to say. We hope he will cover it as fully as he can this evening and that he will deal as widely as he can with the various issues which are, after all, interdependent and interlocked issues. If the hon. the Minister is not able, by the nature of his portfolio, to deal fully with these interlocking issues, I would very strongly urge that the Government should give consideration to publishing a White Paper in which the views of the various departments and the various Ministries can be co-ordinated in order that there can be a coherent reply to the most important recommendations of the Petrick Commission report.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister also about the progress of the Soekor oil programme. The latest information available to us is contained in the 1975 report of the Department of Mines, in which some reference is made to the programme carried out in 1975. We are aware, of course, that a further programme was launched in 1976, that the Sedco rig has been brought to South Africa, that it has started a drilling programme and that, no doubt, some of the results are being evaluated. This programme is a very expensive one, and a bit of a gamble obviously, but is nevertheless of such enormous importance and of such very great interest to the country that I believe that the hon. the Minister would be satisfying a real need and great interest in this country by informing this House and the public of the progress that is made and the further development of plans for oil exploration.

There are many other things with which I would like to have dealt this evening. Unfortunately my time is very limited; so, some of my colleagues will deal with these other matters. I would like to conclude very briefly by thanking the hon. the Minister and his department for allowing us to have up-to-date reports this year from the Department of Mines and its associated bodies. I had occasion last year to complain about being presented with Africana; reports which were rather old and not up to date. This year his department has done well, and I would like to express my appreciation to it for having made available to us, for this debate, reports which are reasonably up to date in covering the work and progress of the department.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to what the hon. member for Von Brandis had to say. He made a few points with which I agree entirely, especially in connection with the coal mines. But I shall come back to that.

As far as I know, this is the first time that a Minister of Mines is also a Minister of Labour. It can of course be asked why these two posts should fall under one Minister, and the answer is that these two portfolios—Labour and Mines—are so closely interwoven that it is a very good thing that they should be under the jurisdiction of one Minister. I should like to congratulate him heartily and also extend a hearty welcome to him as Minister of Mines.

It is with mixed feelings that I rise here tonight because I am thinking of those five families who have gone through a sorry, trying time this past week. I am referring here to the five members of a proto team who lost their lives in Western Deep Levels Mine. The accident did not take place in my constituency—but the men were residents in my constituency and I knew some of them very well. It is with compassion that I pay tribute to those men tonight and I should also like to express my deepest sympathy with their families—their wives and children who remain behind. I think I do so on behalf of both sides of this House. Those men perform very dangerous work. In order to belong to a proto team, one has to be subjected to very strongest tests. Those men do this work of their own free will, of course, although they are highly paid for it. They are specially trained to perform dangerous work, and they have to be very fit, both medically and physically.

These men can actually be compared to the soldiers who fight the terrorists on our borders today. They are fighting in the interests of our country’s economy. If a fire breaks out in a mine, these men do not flinch from any danger. They do their work for their country, South Africa, and for its economy. They combat any fires or floods which may arise. I know what this means and I realize the dangers involved. I therefore want to pay tribute to those five men. Perhaps we shall not even have the privilege of attending the funerals of four of them, because as hon. members know, their bodies are still underground. We do not know whether those bodies will ever be found. I am sorry that that tragedy affected people in my constituency, but I am also grateful to be able to say that in the past I did what I could for those people in connection with complaints and appeals they addressed to me. I am also pleased that the hon. the Minister of Finance met those people halfway and made it possible for them to pay a reasonable income tax, and not the vast amounts they had to pay in the past. I conclude this part of my speech by once again paying tribute to those families. I want to tell them what we in this House are thinking of them in their sorrow. We know that the wounds inflicted can and will be healed by the Creator, our Lord and Master, alone.

I now return to the speech of the hon. member for Von Brandis. There is one point with respect to which I agree with him. I am referring to the coal-mining industry. Coal is probably our country’s largest source of energy. We are grateful that we are not as dependent upon oil as are many other countries in the world. If I have the correct percentage, we need oil to provide only 30% of our energy requirements. Coal therefore accomplishes a very great task in this country. What worries me, is that it seems—I say “seems”, because I do not have much experience of coal mines—from the reports I read that our coal mines only mine coal which is easily available. It seems to me that once a coal mine has been demarcated and the production has been calculated at 100%, the mining companies only mine between about 30% and 50% of the available coal. I wonder whether the Government should not take drastic steps, through the hon. the Minister and his department in collaboration with the Chamber of Mines, in order to ensure that the maximum amount of coal available in a mine is mined, because we in South Africa need coal very badly. We do not know what is going to happen in the distant future.

Fortunately our country possesses large coal fields. At the moment it is mainly our coalfields in the Eastern Transvaal that are being exploited. A little mining is done on the Witwatersrand and in the Orange Free State. Apart from this, our major coal complex is situated in Natal. According to report, good coal fields have also been discovered in the far north-west of our country and in the Bushveld complex. Time will have to tell whether we shall ever be able to utilize those coalfields, as does seem to be necessary at the moment.

In the atomic age every nation is striving to become independent of oil. We are aware of the awkward situation with which the whole world is faced today due to the pressure being exerted by the oil producing countries. I know that we are doing everything in our power to prospect for oil in South Africa. We know that oil drilling takes place every day. Perhaps we shall succeed in discovering oil in South Africa. If we succeed, it will afford South Africa major relief, no matter where the oil is found.

However, I say once again that coal is the source of energy in regard to which we must do everything in our power to exploit to the maximum. The existing mines must do everything in their power to ensure that the maximum amount of coal available in the mines, is exploited. It is also a major source of income for us. There is an immense shortage of coal in the world. We know that with our new harbours, with the rapid rail traffic …

Order! I am afraid that the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. member for Stilfontein an opportunity to conclude his speech.

The hon. member for Stilfontein may therefore proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the further time which has been granted me. Sir, with our rapid rail traffic and our new harbour at Richards Bay, we can export millions of tons of coal. All this is to the advantage of South Africa.

Before I come to my last point, I also just want to pay tribute to Mr. Tommy Gibbs, who is now leaving our service after many years. I know him personally and I want to thank him for the many years he gave the mining industry as Chief Mining Engineer. He was a great asset to the Ministers in the past. He provided us with a great deal of advice. We want to thank him for his service and, now that he is retiring on pension, we want to wish him a very happy period of rest.

Sir, there is another point which I want to raise, a point about which there is a great deal of doubt. I am now referring to the mines situated in the homelands. Many of the miners, and the mineworkers’ union in particular, are concerned about the people who work on those mines. They ask themselves what will become of those people when the homelands become completely independent, as the Transkei is to become independent on 26 October. I want to put it very clearly—I know that the hon. the Minister will probably also reply to this in detail—that it is Government policy that as long as a homeland does not yet have independence, they will see to it that every White man working in those territories will be looked after and will enjoy the same protection he would in the Republic itself. I want to put it very clearly, especially to the trade unions, that when such a homeland becomes totally independent, as the Transkei will on 26 October, those people will also be looked after.

Perhaps the Transkei will only obtain its independence later.

Agreements and contracts will be concluded between those countries and the Republic in order to protect the Whites there. However, I would be telling untruths here if I were to tell those White mineworkers that we would guarantee that for the rest of their lives they would enjoy the privileges which they enjoy in the Republic of South Africa while working in those independent states. If I were to say so, then as I understand our policy, I should be lying. I think that the time has arrived for us to furnish these people with full and detailed information. I know that there are people who are concerned about this. Unfortunately, these are responsibilities which this party must take upon its shoulders. We must accept that, since those mines are situated in the homelands, the future leaders of the independent States will be able to do what they wish with them in the distant future. However, I want to repeat that as long as those States have not yet obtained their independence, the Whites there will enjoy the full protection of the Government.

Why “in the distant future”?

Because unfortunately I am human, Sir. I cannot therefore see even one minute into the future. If I could see one minute into the future, I would perhaps not have been here today. But, Sir, that is how it goes.

Today I want to thank the whole mining industry in general for the fine efforts they are making. For example, every year we hear that a certain mine has had 3 million shifts without any fatal accidents. I want to tell the Chamber of Mines this evening that this is highly appreciated. One is grateful when one sees how the people are being taught, and how much money is being spent, to ensure the safety of every underground worker. We are very grateful for this. Tonight in this House I can say that more miners have accidents on the roads in South Africa than in the mines themselves. Hon. members who are not aware of the circumstances, will tell me that this cannot be the case. However, I want to tell hon. members that with the co-operation of every miner, of whatever seniority, and with the co-operation of the Chamber of Mines, the accidents underground are very few. If one is acquainted with the circumstances there, and realizes how many thousands of people work there, one can only praise those persons who work underground.

It is often said that the gold-mining industry is a disappearing and dwindling industry. It is said that although this is not the case at the moment, the industry will disappear at some time or other in the future, and that it will be necessary to look for other minerals. However, I can say the following to this House this evening—and there is a hon. member on the other side who knows a great deal about this—that I still see a very rosy future for the gold-mining industry. I trust that the gold price will rise once again and that it will not remain where it is at the moment. I therefore think that a rosy future awaits the gold-mining industry, and that the gold-mining industry will continue to be the goose which lays the golden egg in the South African economy.

With that I want to conclude, Sir. I just want to express my sincere thanks once again towards everyone—Black, Coloured, White and Yellow, whatever their rank who work in the mining industry, for what they do for South Africa. We know that they are the only ones who still work six days a week, and even seven days a week. We only hope that the other government departments, industries, factories and businesses will also follow the example of the miners.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Stilfontein has paid a striking tribute to those miners in his constituency who lost their lives in such a tragic way. I must identify myself with what he said. Our miners, as we know them, because we have represented them for many years, are naturally people who work under difficult circumstances, as the hon. member put it so strikingly. Because it has happened on occasion in my constituency that people have died in the service of their fatherland—I sometimes call them the economic soldiers who fight in the interests of the economic struggle in South Africa—I should also like to identify myself with what he said and to express my deepest sympathy.

Tonight, in the short time at my disposal, I should like to bring a certain aspect to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Before I do so, however, I want to say that I am grateful that the hon. members on this side of the House, as well as hon. members on the other side, are discussing the Mines Vote in a calm and peaceful atmosphere. Earlier this afternoon we crossed swords with one another for 5½ hours during the discussion of the Labour Vote. However, I believe that when we are discussing the activities of a large department like this—one can spend hours discussing them—it is in the interests of the people of the department concerned, and also in the interests of the industry as a whole, that we should do so in a calm, peaceful manner, as I know the hon. member for Rosettenville usually does.

I should like to bring a matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister, but I want to underline the fact that the hon. the Minister must not think for a moment that I have the answer to all the questions and to all the complications which are involved in it. The matter I want to discuss is something which disturbs our gold miners in particular. I am referring to the certification of our gold miners, and in particular to those who die as a result of heart diseases. I just want to say once again that I do not want to give out that I have all the answers, but I believe it is in the interests of our miners for me to put this matter to the hon. the Minister tonight. Statistics from the provident fund and the pension fund indicate that the vast majority of pensioners die as a result of some or other heart disease. Although heart diseases as such are not compensable, the miner is nevertheless compensated, if it can be proved that the disease is a direct result of inhaling poisonous substances. It is therefore obvious that the miner who suffers from a heart disease may indeed ascribe it to the nature of his work, but hon. members may realize—the hon. member for Rosettenville as a medical man in particular—that it is practically impossible to prove it. In this connection I should like to provide the following statistics: The lives of 46 out of every 100 miners are certified, and 25 out of every 100 of these certifications take place posthumously, while 29 out of every 100 miners are not certified at all. When it is accepted that the bureau may have made a mistake in the case of 50% of the 29 who were not certified, we find that 85 out of every 100 miners with 25 years’ service are indeed certifiable. As a result it would be justified, in cases where the medical bureau cannot establish whether a person is suffering from a compensable disease, for all persons who run a certain risk in their employment to be paid a compensation. The principle that a miner performs risk work has already been proved, accepted and laid down in the Act. Compensation to workers who have contracted a disease, where their condition is such that it can be proved that they are entitled to compensation, has also been established in the Act.

However, the problem which I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention on this occasion is that those workers who have many years’ service, but who are not in such a condition as to be entitled to compensation, receive no compensation for their service. Therefore—I say this with respect—I am convinced that a worker like this is quite entitled to special compensation, seen in the light of his many years’ service. As a result of the present lack of compensation of this kind, it is obvious that excessive pressure may be brought to bear for the certification of cases which do not qualify for certification. Therefore there is a strong feeling that miners should receive compensation after many years of risk work; not by means of a disease certification, but by means of a gratuity.

I know the matter is a prickly one, and that it is a matter which must be investigated in detail. However, I am simply mentioning the principles and I hope and trust that the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this. As I have already said, answers must be found to the following questions: What is the definition of a miner who performs risk work? Does it include all those who work underground, or does it include only those who work in a specified dusty atmosphere, those who work underground for a specific number of hours per day, those who work underground for a specific number of shifts, etc.? Another question which arises is the term of service to be laid down to serve as qualification for compensation. Should it be after 30 years? Should it be after 25 years? Should it be after 35 years? And then there is the question of the amount of compensation. Should it be R20 000? Should it be R15 000? I know that the financing of the fund is a matter which must receive serious consideration. Because it is a matter which affects every miner in South Africa, and because it is a matter which results in the greatest dissatisfaction amongst the miners, I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister on this occasion that there should be a compensation or gratuity of R15 000 for miners who have served for many years, whether 25 years or 30 years. As I have said, all those miners who worked underground for many years should be paid from the compensation fund for mines and works. This can be made possible by amending the Act and the contributions towards the fund in such a way that it will be possible to do so.

I can advance many reasons for having raised this matter. The hon. member for Stilfontein also referred to them. The miners in South Africa cannot be placed in the same category as the majority of other workers in the country. I believe that certification will be simplified in this way. It will serve as an incentive for miners to go on working as long as possible. It will quite rightly make the concept of risk work a broader and less involved one. It will definitely attract people to the mines as underground workers; it will give the underground workers a higher status, and it will be no more than fair in all cases. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister today because we on this side of the House, whose privilege it is to represent mining constituencies, are aware of the fact that the matter is a source of great concern amongst the miners. In the first instance it is a source of concern for a worker who has been working underground for 25 or 30 years and who is repeatedly sent to the Medical Bureau without ever being certified. A man like this cannot understand why another man, someone who has only been working underground for 20 or 25 years, is in fact certifiable.

I conclude by saying that I believe that the hon. the Minister’s office will be open to our miners and trade unions at all times. I believe that he will have the greatest sympathy with respect to the matter which I have raised. The miners of South Africa, the miners in my constituency, have the greatest confidence in the NP Government—and now I am not talking politics—rather let me put it in this way: The miners had the greatest confidence in our former Minister of Mines in the past. I am convinced that the miners in my area will have the fullest confidence that the doors of the present hon. Minister of Mines will also be open at all times to our trade unions and to our individual miners. I also know that the matter which I have mentioned, a serious matter amongst the miners, will be approached with the greatest sympathy.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not reply to the speech of the hon. member for Welkom. I am sure the hon. the Minister will deal at length with the questions of the hon. member.

You are unable to do so.

Does the hon. member think so? No, I shall leave that vexed question to the hon. the Minister. He may handle it; not I. It is his responsibility. The hon. member to whom I have referred is a member of the hon. the Minister’s party.

†We of the Opposition actually call our mining group the mining and energy group. I should like to congratulate the Government on the following, as is not unusual, the example of the Opposition. We can see it in the very interesting Petrick Report which we have had and which the chairman of our group has dealt with, as well as in the report of the Minerals Bureau. I believe that an important feature of the Petrick report is that is has not simply dealt with the whole matter of coal, but of energy in general. I think it has raised a number of most important factors and considerations for South Africa as a whole. Any intelligent and well-educated South African, who does not seek to know what is in the Petrick report, ought to make sure that he fills that gap in his knowledge. The annual report of the department makes fascinating reading for those who take the time to do so. What interested me particularly on page 31 of the Geological Survey Report was that a senior geologist of the South West Africa regional office of the department attended a congress of an apparently geological organization known as Sabra. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would kindly tell us what a senior geologist from Windhoek was doing at this congress, whether he went to this congress at the expense of the department and also what kind of geological society Sabra is.

I hope the hon. the Minister noticed in the report of the Minerals Bureau that the bureau is in need of better computer facilities, and I trust he will prevail upon the Minister of Finance to meet this need. It is pleasing to note that the data bank is being established effectively. The data bank was established as a result of the Petrick Commission report, and I gather that one of the reasons why the report took so long to appear was because this important computer technology was being applied in the geological field. I trust that the hon. the Minister will do his very best to twist the arm of the hon. the Minister of Finance to ensure that the Minerals Bureau, which will play an increasingly important part in our mining industry, has this very important tool of our modem day and age at its disposal.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not perhaps apply his mind to doing something about the copper-mining industry. When one looks through the report it is quite clear that there are redundancies at Messina and at the Murchison mine as a result of the fall in the price of copper. The Eersterivier refinery in the Cape has had to be put on ice. I am very pleased to note that we have appointed a mining counsellor in Santiago as well as in four other new countries, and could the hon. the Minister and his department not come to some arrangement in regard to the copper price fluctuation with Zambia and Chile? I was also interested to see that four large open-cast or strip-mining projects are being planned, are being undertaken or are about to be undertaken—at Aggeneys, for example, where Phelps Dodge is developing Hill complex; the Kriel Colliery is being developed by Anglo American, Iscor is developing the Grootgeluk Mine and at Richards Bay heavy metal-mining is being undertaken for titanium, zircon, ilmenite and rutile. I was very interested to see that the Secretary of the department mentioned on page 22 of the report of the Government Mining Engineer that the whole aspect of environmental control and the effect of open-cast mining was receiving his attention.

I especially want to ask the hon. the Minister to bear in mind the needs of the Mapelane Forest—adjoining St. Lucia—which I gather the capitalist mining house has its eyes on. This forest is a tremendous asset, and as an ex-Minister of Forestry I think the hon. the Minister will appreciate this perhaps better than anybody else. I wonder if the hon. the Minister is prepared to give hon. members an assurance that this forest will not be touched and will, in fact, be protected. At the moment the forest is not in danger but it may be if the hon. the Minister does not move to protect it. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us an assurance that he will introduce legislation in the House to control the effects of open-cast mining. We are aware that it is easy to give undertakings when one is in business but such undertakings only really count when they are in writing. Therefore I believe that a need exists for an Act of Parliament because the restoration of opencast mining areas can be done extremely creatively as we have seen in some parts of the world where this has been undertaken successfully. In this regard let me congratulate the Premier Diamond Mine which is undertaking a considerable amount of work on the environmental side. I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister what he intends to do to encourage the extraction of sulphur from flue gases arising from the processing of metal sulphides which is referred to on page 60 of the report of the department. The price of sulphur has more than doubled and the utilization of these gases will help to pay for the combatting of pollution and in that sense will be a victory over pollution. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could tell us how the various sections of his department, which is growing increasingly, are going to relate and co-ordinate. The chairman of our group mentioned something in this regard. We now have a Geological Survey, a Minerals Bureau, the Government Mining Engineer, and the National Institute for Metallurgy. In addition there is an Energy Policy Committee which is apparently connected with the Department of Planning but also to the department of the hon. the Minister. The Petrick Commission has also recommended that there be an Energy Planning and Co-ordinating Board.

There are, of course, also the free enterprise sector represented by the Chamber of Mines, and in addition the Fuel Research Institute. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will give us some idea of his plans to handle all these groups which are very important and which, I believe, need to have the attention of extremely competent and careful thinking in an administrative sense. In fact, I would say that the hon. the Minister’s department is growing like Topsy, and I trust that he is going to see that Topsy does not become Turvy. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will tell us more about the training programme at the Atok Platinum Mine in a Bantustan, as briefly referred to on page 5 of the report. On that page reference is also made to a new training system using four Black mining assistants under White supervision, a system which has increased the efficiency of the mine tremendously. I would also like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that he has extended our overseas links, and it appears that the department has had extremely useful contacts. The work the department did in assisting South American countries in establishing seismic centres, which are monitoring the amount of seismic activity in South America, is very important. It is also pleasing to note that the technical staff of the Geological Survey is increasing all the time.

Finally I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would be prepared to deal with mining labour since he has not yet done so. We would like to hear what has happened to the report on the mine labour situation and also whether the hon. the Minister agrees that the fact that the South African Black labour content on our mines has been nearly doubled with the creation of 90 000 new jobs has exploded the myth that South African Blacks will not work on the mines.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to add my good wishes to those which have been addressed to the hon. the Minister in his new capacity as Minister of Mines. I also want to wish him every success in dealing with this extremely important department. In my opinion it is the most important department in the economy of the Republic of South Africa. People do not always realize this. During the discussion of another Vote the hon. the Minister made mention of the world recession in contrast to the full employment prevailing in South Africa. I want to ascribe this to the fact that we have an immense supply of natural resources in South Africa. If we did not have these, we would, in my opinion, have been subject to that world recession too.

I should also like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Stilfontein in connection with the fire in the Western Deep Levels mine. I also want to express my sympathy to the relatives of the victims of that terrible accident in the mine. Things like this do happen in mines sometimes.

Now I should like to refer to certain international affairs. On a previous occasion I referred to the future sources of oil in the world, sources which are under the control of Russia and China at the moment. I also referred to the fact that the future oil reserves would be under the control of the communist countries in approximately 15 years’ time. This, of course, is a very serious matter for us. As far as other natural resources are concerned, one has interesting moves and manipulation by Russia on the international chessboard, not only as far as the world’s energy resources are concerned, but also as far as other mineral resources are concerned. If Southern Africa were to land within Russia’s sphere of interest—I am not saying that South Africa is there already; however, I want to allege that the Russians are in our vicinity, that they are on our borders; I do not think that we have to debate this matter—the Soviet Union would be in control of 80% of the world’s gold. This figure may be debatable. It may be 78%, but it is undeniably true that the figure will increase along with the expansion of this sphere of interest.

Then there are the other sources too. Russia is also a large source of chrome. Hon. members are aware of what recently occurred on the international front in connection with Rhodesia’s chrome. It was a question of Russia’s chrome as against that of Rhodesia for use in the USA. Eighty per cent of the world’s chrome will be under Russian control. Ninety per cent of the platinum in the world will be under Russian control. Seventy-five per cent of the manganese, 80% of the vanadium, 50% of copper and 60% of the diamonds will be under their control. This figure of 60% may rise to 80% due to certain unknown factors. We do not know what the production is of the fields recently discovered by Russia in Siberia. I can continue in this way to mention a long list of metal elements. I have in mind future scientific development and the immense role of trace elements which are found along with the types of metal I have just mentioned here. I have in mind, for example, the association of uranium and gold. Gold deposits also contain trace elements such as osmiridium and others, the importance of which are increasing more and more in certain industries. Platinum contains other trace elements which are also extremely important. I know that in many of the copper deposits of Zambia, for example, as well as those of South Africa, one finds certain trace elements. I have in mind, for example, selenium, a very much sought after element in the electronic industries. This is the future pattern of international politics, if we fall within the sphere of interest of communism. Therefore hon. members will realize how important it is for the Western world to safeguard the above mentioned natural resources in the interests of our own national self-preservation.

†Mr. Chairman, it is this compelling interest, this self-interest of nations, that makes nations come together. For that reason I say that the Western world will have to wake up to the situation.

*In referring to certain matters of a domestic nature, I want to agree with the hon. member for Von Brandis as regards his reference to certain matters, including the situation in which the Department of Mines finds itself, a situation which lends itself to duplication and to a mighty overlapping in State activities. Mr. Chairman, I now want to ask you to look up in Hansard the recent discussions on the Fuel Research Institute and Coal Amendment Bill. Similar discussions are cropping up, and if this is not duplication, I do not know what is. I ask you, Sir, with your knowledge of the matter, to check on this and to determine where discussions on the Fuel Research Institute are to end and where discussions on mining are to begin. I simply do not know where to draw the line. The hon. member for Von Brandis raised certain points under that head, but we could have raised those points under the Economic Affairs Vote as well, because the Fuel Research Institute falls under that Vote. In my opinion there is an enormous waste of time because nobody knows where the line is to be drawn.

For instance, let us look at the activities of the Fuel Research Institute. At one stage the institute also did research in connection with the mining of coal. At a later stage the institute dropped this work and it was then transferred to the laboratory of the Chamber of Mines. The Chamber of Mines has an excellent laboratory. However, this type of work is also done by certain private bodies, and I wonder whether similar work is not being done by the Institute for Metallurgy as well. There may therefore be a degree of overlapping.

I understand that a new installation is being constructed at the Fuel Research Institute to the value of R2 million, but the exact nature of this installation is unknown to me. Consequently one sometimes finds the Department of Planning entering the sphere of mining. Therefore it is essential to my mind for the various governmental and private bodies to be co-ordinated—as the hon. member for Von Brandis said—so as to eliminate this kind of overlapping. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Etosha made a particularly interesting speech here tonight, one which was worth hearing. I should like to join my hon. colleagues in associating myself with the congratulations and good wishes conveyed to the hon. the Minister. I also want to wish him everything of the best for the future. Similarly, I want to address a word of sincere thanks to the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and officials of the department for their cooperation and goodwill. One is given only the finest co-operation.

I also just want to refer to the hon. member for Pinetown who said that the UP had now established a mines and energy committee. It has of course been clear to us for a long time that the UP is in need of energy but I doubt whether the hon. member for Pinetown is the man to provide the UP with that energy.

The question is whether they can generate it.

This evening I, too, want to express my sincere appreciation to the people attached to the mines. There is no profession like that of the miner. The fact that those people have to go underground under dangerous circumstances every day must have a certain effect on them. However, they are people who can work hard and who are particularly loyal and proud of the work they do. They are also loyal towards and proud of the people who work with them. The miner always looks after his fellow miners no matter what dangerous circumstances he may be in. As we also heard this evening, he is even prepared to sacrifice his life for him. This does not only apply in the case of White towards White, but also in the case of White towards Black, and in the case of Black towards White. The miner not only gives up his life for his fellow miner, he is also prepared to sacrifice his life for the mine itself and for the continued existence of the mine. We are proud of these people who make exceptional sacrifices and play a major role in the economy of South Africa.

As the hon. member for Etosha said, it is a mighty industry. In spite of the poor condition of the overall economy of the world last year, the total sale of minerals amounted to R4 134,2 million. This represents an increase of more than R200 million in comparison with the previous year’s amount.

I should also like to refer to certain problems experienced by the people in the mines. I want to mention certain aspects in connection with the question of certification—and here I associate myself with the hon. member for Welkom. After years of work in the mines it is not easy for these people to find work elsewhere. They do dangerous work for years and often do not come out of it physically unscathed. If we look at the position in respect of long service, we note from statistics that after 25 years’ service underground, 45 out of every 100 people are certified during their lifetime. Of the remaining 55, 26 are certified posthumously. This means that after 25 years of service underground, 71 out of every 100 are certified. After 30 years’ service, 48 out of every 100 people are certified during their lifetime. Of the remaining 52, 25 are certified posthumously. This means, therefore, that 73 out of every 100 are certified. Those who are not certified, but who are nevertheless found to be disabled due to diseases other than those for which compensation is paid, receive no compensation, nor do they have a red ticket. These people have great difficulty finding work elsewhere. In my experience, most of these people still desire to work. Indeed, I believe that they can be profitably utilized in the labour market.

In this connection I should like to refer to the report of the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases in which is stated that the certificates of between 40 and 50 people who work underground, are withdrawn every year. If a certificate is withdrawn and the former holder of the certificate applies for another job, he may find that in view of his health, employers are not too keen to employ him.

The Chamber of Mines has excellent rehabilitation facilities for people who are injured, but in contrast to this, very little is done by the mines or by the Bureau to support people who have become partially disabled as a result of a non-compensable disease. My request is therefore that the recommendation referred to in the report to the effect that a rehabilitation scheme for such people should be established so that they may be saved for the labour market—be accepted and that we provide such persons with assistance.

Since I am referring to the question of certification, I should like to refer to another aspect. According to information put at my disposal, over the five-year period from 1 April 1970 to 31 March 1975, a total of 2 381 post-mortems were carried out by the bureau. Only 14% of the persons who died, visited the bureau in the six years before their death. It is my opinion that if more people visited the bureau, more certifications would take place. Of the 2 381 persons who died, only 323 visited the bureau with a view to certification in the six years before their death. After all, it is a service which is available and if the miners make use of it it may be of aid in the diagnosis of other diseases. I really feel that this service should be made use of to a greater extent.

The hon. member for Von Brandis referred to the question of accidents on the mines. I too should like to associate myself with the sympathy expressed towards the relatives of those people who lost their lives. The brigade which does the rescue work, operates on a voluntary basis. Consequently the slogan of the brigade is “vrywillig dien ek”. This is the spirit in which the mineworker works. I also want to say that as far as the regulations with respect to mines and industries are concerned, they are more comprehensive than the mine safety regulations drawn up by the international labour organization for the guidance of its members. Last year, more than a million consecutive underground man shifts were worked at eight gold mines, one diamond mine, one coal mine, a copper mine and two platinum mines. I think that this is an exceptional achievement. The accident rate on the mines is disturbing. If one looks at the trend in connection with accidents on the mines and if one compares the deaths and inclusive accident and injury rates per 1 000 persons in service per annum for the years 1964 and 1975, one finds a downward trend. In 1964 the death rate on all mines was 1,23 per thousand people in service per annum and in 1975 it was 1,22. The accident rate for those years was 48,46 and 39,31 respectively. There was therefore a decrease of 9,15. On the gold mines the death rate was 1,26 in 1964 and 1,32 in 1975. The accident rate for the two years was 59,92 and 50,94 respectively—a decrease of 8,98. On the coal mines the death rate in 1964 was 1,36 per thousand people in service per annum, whereas in 1975 it was 1,30. The accident rate was 33,20 and 21,47 respectively—a decrease of 11,73. In this connection one also has to take into consideration the fact that in view of the rising gold price there is also a tendency to mine deeper. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall start off much the same as did the hon. member for Stilfontein, viz. by wishing the hon. the Minister well with his new responsibilities. I also wish the Government mining engineer a long and happy retirement and I also share the sentiments of the hon. member for Stilfontein in regard to those who were affected by the tragedy at Western Deep Level.

Up to the present stage in the development of our economy it has always been difficult to exaggerate the importance of mining to the economy. This fact was touched upon by the hon. member for Etosha and, indeed, by the hon. member for Klerksdorp. I think one statistic serves to underline that fact. In 1974 exports from this country, including gold, amounted to no less than 30% of our gross national product. Since I have two opportunities to speak in this debate, I want to come back to gold and, when I do so, I want to do it in the light of three aspects: the future price of gold; the price in relation to the Mozambique Convention, which affects that price; and the labour situation in the gold-mining industry.

It is also, I think, pertinent at this point in time to realize that the recovery of our economy, after two years of what we would call growth below the safety margin, will come from a resurgence in demand from overseas, particularly for our metals and minerals, though naturally our other exports, such as agricultural produce will, it is hoped, play a part. The hon. the Minister will be as well aware as I am that traditionally—and there is no reason at present to think that what is about to happen in the immediate future will be any different—there has been a lag in time between the entry into an expansionary phase of our overseas trading partners and the increase in volume and price of our exports. I think it is therefore fair to a say to the hon. the Minister and to the Government that substantially our recovery, which will be based on our metals and minerals, lies outside the control of this Government, even though they may have caused the disease by their expenditure excesses. I say “substantially”, because the Government does of course create the framework within which the mining industry operates. Indeed, it is the policies of this Government which directly create the environment and climate in which foreign investors decide whether to invest here in the mining industry or not. This serves to emphasize the other special characteristic of South Africa, namely our dependence on the importation of capital from overseas. I think it is important to put it on record that the recent track record of this Government has been very bad. The devaluation in September 1975, and what is in effect an increase in tax through an additional surcharge on income tax and a loan levy, have all acted to the detriment of foreign investment.

The severity of what has happened to a foreign investor since September last year can be gauged from the fact that if you were a foreigner and bought a gold-mining share, for example, at the end of August last year, you would now receive only 60% to 75% of the dividends which you originally anticipated. That represents a decrease in the anticipated dividends of somewhere between 25% and 40%. That in itself is bad enough when you consider the amount of capital which is required for the development of our mining industry, but overseas investors also evaluate the political risk in any country before investing in it. You need look no further for the proof of the distaste of Government policies than the credit rating given overseas to South African bond issues. The public of this country will want to see confirmation that this Government will take appropriate action to ensure that our mining industry is in, and will continue to enjoy, the best possible health, and is indeed in the best possible shape to take advantage of the resurgence in demand for our metals, which will inevitably come.

The economic recovery overseas is already under way. The evidence of that can be seen in the increased demand for diamonds and in the price of copper, which has already risen substantially, even taking into account the devaluation of the pound sterling. But, Mr. Chairman, we have to look in particular at the present and future health of platinum, coal and, above all, gold, without in any way trying to denigrate the contributions made by other metals such as chrome and vanadium or the future potential of iron-ore exports through Saldanha Bay. The fact of the matter is that the price of gold is of overriding importance to our country at this point in time. In this connection there are both external and internal factors which have to be taken into consideration. Firstly, in so far as the former is concerned, we have now seen the first of the auctions by the International Monetary Fund, which has a programme to dispose of something like 17½ million to 25 million ounces from its holding of gold over the next 4 years. Of course, one swallow does not make a summer, but it is encouraging that 780 000 ounces were absorbed at $126, and that the price now stands at $126,65 or at least it did according to the closing price on Friday compared with a price of $125,65 on the day before the auction.

That there will be oscillations for us in the future, cannot be doubted, and it is important to remember that a change in the price per ounce of gold of only $10 over a year makes a difference to the foreign exchange earnings of this country of no less than 225 million dollars. However, while that might be viewed either as a threat or as a potential, we can be cautiously optimistic since the market’s ability to absorb this additional supply reflects a number of factors. The first is the resurgence in the demand over the past six to nine months for jewellery and other industrial purposes. This increase in demand has been occasioned principally by the need to build up inventories, which had been run down as the major western economies had gone into recession. In addition, there can be little doubt that the significant fall in the price of gold from the previous high levels has contributed to this recovery in demand.

The second factor is that the objective of the IMF itself is to make profits which are to be used to assist the countries which are classified by it as “developing nations”. There are approximately 106 of them. However, it is not in the interests of either the developing countries or the IMF to disrupt the market, nor to cause a substantial fall in the price.

The third factor is the likely participation of various countries, such as France, who, in one way or another, has an interest in the maintenance of the price of gold or a belief in the desirability of its continuing role. It is impossible to be certain, in view of the security which surrounded the first auction, but it has been announced by the Government of France that the Bank of France was amongst the successful bidders.

Order! I think the hon. member is deviating too far from the Vote under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect, I would have thought the price of gold was important in the discussion of this Vote.

Yes, but the hon. member was deviating too far. The hon. member may continue.

If you rule me out of order on those grounds, Sir, I shall not place the last two reasons on record, but I have no doubt that somebody else will. Therefore we can reasonably anticipate—to close off the question of the price of gold—that a floor will be consolidated from which, hopefully within a short time, a new upward trend will commence.

Internally, the picture of the gold-mining industry is mixed. On the positive side, as the hon. the Minister will know, the wages of Black workers have risen by 44%, in real terms, to continue the substantial progress of recent years. Admittedly, the hon. the Minister will be aware of the fact that they had started from a low base. It must be pointed out that we have still some way to go before we can thoroughly equate these wages with the wages paid in the manufacturing industry. That is not a static figure, but a moving one. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that the gap has been closed to a considerable degree. A fact that has been mentioned by the hon. member for Von Brandis and by the hon. member for Pinetown is that during the last two to three years, in fact since 30 April 1974, the proportion of South Africans working on the mines has risen from 20% to 43%. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, must pardon me if I do not follow up on the purport of his argument, because I should like to participate in this debate from a completely different point of view. I have here in my hand a map which indicates the geography of a particular region of South Africa, which in my opinion, was a latent geography of our country in the past, but a region of the country which, with a view to future mining development, may today be called a future small Witwatersrand, a region which, in my opinion, is on the threshold of a completely new future. I am referring in particular to the area in which prospecting is being undertaken for uranium. This region extends through the Karoo between Colesberg, Victoria West, Fraserburg, Laingsburg, Calitzdorp, Middelburg and Beaufort West. Prospecting is also taking place along our West Coast, in the vicinity of places such as Good house, Agenesis, Pella, Pofadder, Okiep, Springbok and then also in the direction of Prieska, Copperton, as well as in the direction of Kuruman and Sishen. I repeat: A completely new geography is developing here in our country. I want to point out that the Government showed great imagination in constructing a railway line through this area from Sishen to Saldanha. In my opinion this is a very imaginative project, a meaningful and dynamic project for the future. There is one fact to which I should like to draw attention. It is generally estimated that in the North-western Cape alone approximately R30 million has been spent in the past three years on prospecting, and that the total value of minerals, in this region alone, is calculated at approximately R20 000 million. It is a fact, and the former Minister of Mines pointed this out on various occasions, that the future mining development in our country is very definitely the key to practically the basic form of future growth and prosperity of our country in the future. Indeed, everything indicates that the availability of metals and minerals will be of decisive importance for our country in the future, especially with respect to two facets. The first is the maintenance of South Africa’s balance of payments, which I do not want to discuss any further now. The question can already be posed: Has South Africa not been clinging to gold for too long? Should we not have entered a broader sphere at an earlier stage with respect to the exploration of our mineral wealth in South Africa? I do not want to go into this in detail.

Secondly: Future mining development can play a major, mighty role in South Africa’s attempt at decentralization. Since our Government has committed itself to a policy of decentralization, this particular region, the region which I have recently described, is a region where the State can deliberately make a more positive investment in the future. What is the effect of this going to be? The effect of it will be that we will strike a major, momentous blow for the geography of South Africa from the viewpoint of decentralization.

In my plea I want to point out a few aspects and make a plea for certain things. The first is greater investment on the part of the Government in exploration itself, especially within this particular geographical area. I want to mention a few examples in this respect. Over the past two or three years South Africa has experienced a major revival as far as exploration in the mining industry is concerned. I think that this is a general statement which can be made today. If we analyse the situation in greater detail, however, we come to other conclusions. In 1969, for example, the exploration budget of a country such as Canada amounted to R57 million, equal to 4,63% of the gross mining income of that country. As against this, in 1967, South Africa spent only R6 million, or 0,46% of the total value of its mineral production, on exploration. In my opinion this is a situation which compares very unfavourably with the situation in a country such as Canada. I can take it further. In 1972 South Africa’s exploration expenditure was calculated at R15 million, or 0,77% of the total value of our mineral production. If my personal calculations do not let me down, we have the situation today that little more than 1% of the total value of our mineral production is being spent on exploration in this country. The question is whether a larger investment should not be made with respect to this particular facet on the part of the State, an investment, the impetus of which would be twofold, as I have indicated.

In drawing up a guide plan for mining which I advocate for the particular area to which I referred, for this latent geography of our country, there are three aspects I want to mention in passing. In the first instance there is the utilization of the waters of the lower Orange for future mining development. I think we have to plan ahead for a situation such as this. While the hon. the Minister was Minister of Water Affairs, he set the fine example of bringing water from the Lower Orange to the vicinity of Springbok, Nababeep and Okiep for the mining of copper. This is an example of where water was taken out of the Lower Orange by pipeline, and today this serves as a fine example of what can be done. In drawing up the guide-plan which I request, the utilization of the water of the Lower Orange is of great mining importance and must be worked out in greater detail.

Secondly, there is the question of the choice of labour in the new region which is going to be developed. It is a fact that South Africa has built its entire mining Industry on the Witwatersrand on foreign Black labour. I do not want to elaborate on this, but this is a situation which I think we should bear in mind since the mining industry is faced with new challenges. In the new situation White and Coloured must complement one another. This is a part of the world which previously belonged to the White and the Coloured people, and since this area is going to develop and evolve as far as mining is concerned, we must take the standpoint that, as far as providing labour for the mines is concerned, White and Coloured will for the most part have to complement one another. In the past, the hon. member for Kuruman has repeatedly pointed out the situation in which his area has landed itself because it was situated near the borders of a homeland and Black labour was brought into the Sishen area while the Black labour of the homeland could have been directly involved in the mining activities. I agree with the hon. member, and if one considers the overall picture of development, these are all aspects for which a guide-plan such as this has to be considered just as the Minister concerned, when he was Minister of Water Affairs, considered the water situation in South Africa with a view to the future.

Mr. Chairman, in his typical, eloquent manner the hon. member for Moorreesburg once again sketched a fine picture of the future of the west coast area and of that area’s potential mineral wealth. It is no wonder the hon. member is known as “Piet Weskus” (West Coast). The hon. member will pardon me if I do not follow his train of thought since I want to discuss another matter. It has been calculated that the world’s mineral requirements by the year 2000 will be twice as much as they are at present. According to present monetary value this will amount to the astronomical figure of R350 000 million. South Africa has immense reserves at its disposal. The hon. member for Etosha furnished statistics in this connection. It is therefore essential to point out that these enormous extensions will mean that people will have to be encouraged to enter the mining industry, and its sister industry, the metallurgical industry in larger numbers. Experts calculate that the mining industry needs approximately 80 university-trained engineers per year. However, the present figure is only approximately 10 per year. This also applies with respect to metallurgists and geologists. This is as far as the professional side of the matter is concerned. The White miner’s ingenuity, intelligence and ability to organize in every branch of the mining activities remain indispensable for maintaining continuous high production. I trust that the hon. the Minister and his department and everyone who deals with mining, will proceed with campaigns and programmes, such as the Phoenix project, to draw attention, through mathematics, science and vocational guidance teachers, to the attractive careers awaiting promising students in mining, metallurgy and geology. It is nevertheless gratifying to read in the report of the Government Mining Engineer for the year ending 31 December 1975 that during this period no shortage of White miners was experienced. The approximately 450 miners who qualify at the Government Training College annually, are taken up in the industry.

As far as the report of the Director of the Medical Bureau for Industrial Diseases is concerned, I am delighted to find that it supports a matter which I raised during my maiden speech in this House in April 1972. This concerns the problem which a miner experiences when his certificate of ability is withdrawn as a result of a disease which has not been caused through mining and for which no compensation can therefore be paid. At that time I asked that miners who are forced by circumstances to leave the mines, should receive special attention, not only in regard to the learning trades by means of which former miners will be able to remain fully productive above ground at a later stage, but also for the psychological preparation for the change-over. The director emphasized the fact that the position of miners is unique especially until the industries were controlled in 1973 in the sense that miners must be in possession of a certificate of ability. This certificate is issued by the State. It must be borne in mind that one’s work may depend on this certificate. Every year the certificates of between 40 and 50 people who are still working underground, are withdrawn. This may take place because a person develops epilepsy, diabetes, heart disease or high blood pressure. Just think of the case of a person who is only trained for mining, who has a family to support and lives in a house belonging to the mine. In the first instance, the solution for this problem lies in the creation of a form of gratuity, to which the hon. member for Welkom referred, so that after a certain number of years of service he may receive a gratuity—whether or not the miner was occupied with hazardous work and whether or not he suffers from a compensatory disease. If pilots attached to the Airways receive full honourable discharge at a reasonable early age together with a gratuity, why not our miners who, even when the crops fail, or inflation threatens to cripple us, continue to produce valuable currency for South Africa in seriously hazardous circumstances? Since these miners are subject to stricter conditions of service, they should be compensated even more by a programme for the retraining of workers. For instance, take the case of a person whose certificate of ability has been withdrawn by the Gold Mine Workers’ Provision Fund. He simply cannot understand why this takes place without his being certified as subject to a compensatory disease. The astonished man does not even receive advice about how to start a new career. I associate myself completely with the suggestion of the director of the Medical Bureau that a rehabilitation scheme be established for those who are disabled as a result of non-compensatory diseases, and even for those who have contracted a compensatory disease. The purpose is to motivate a person like this psychologically to remain productive for his own satisfaction and in this way to retain the assurance that he can fully comply with his responsibility as breadwinner of the family. I ask the hon. the Minister to give special attention to this recommendation.

With further reference to this report, I just want to mention the statistics in respect of those cases referred to the review authorities. It is said that a good lawyer wins at least 50% of his cases. The review authority reviewed 1 118 cases of Whites and Coloureds and three of Bantu over the past year. Of the 1 118 cases with respect to Whites and Coloureds 1 018 decisions of the certification committee were ratified and 100 were referred to the joint committee. Of these 100 cases 24 were nevertheless ratified and in only 66 cases the appeals to the review authorities succeeded, in other words 66 out of 1 118 cases, approximately 6%. My contention is, and I say this with great respect, that the review authority actually ought to be an appeal body in the full sense of the word. If this is not the case, it is doubtful whether it is really serving its purpose.

In conclusion I should like to refer to certain remarks which were made in connection with obtaining university entrance certificates by Std. X pupils, the idea that should they take mathematics and science, they need only present five subjects for matriculation exemption. Since there is indeed such an immense shortage of mathematicians and scientists, and since there is such an attractive future in the mining industry, the metallurgical industry and the geological industry for scientists, serious attention must be given to this idea, knowing full well that in certain circumstances the educationalists are not very happy about this suggestion. However, I think that at this important time it is very essential that more scholars should come forward and offer mathematics and science as subjects with a view to university training.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Morreesburg will excuse me if I do not react to their arguments as I have very little time at my disposal. When I came to the end of my last speech I was pointing out that the South African content of labour had doubled since 30 April 1974. The percentage of labour that is now drawn from South Africa, from within our own borders, is 43% and there is still 20% drawn from Mozambique, 31% from Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho and 6% from others, particularly Rhodesia. If one takes into account the risk we run in not being able to rely on the supply of foreign labour in the future on anything like the scale that we have in the past … I am thinking here particularly of Mozambique and Malawi. The hon. the Minister will of course be aware that Malawi has now been closed to recruitment for the mines for some time and that the supply from Mozambique has dwindled to a trickle. The reason why the supply of labour from Mozambique has dwindled to a trickle appears to be the difficulty in obtaining travel documents and for other reasons. This is despite the very large benefits enjoyed by Mozambique under the Convention with us through the provisions of substantial quantities of gold at the official price. Let us be clear in this respect. The windfall which was given in the past through this medium to Portugal and now to Mozambique has been borne solely by the gold-mining industry. There are others in South Africa, and indeed others in other sectors of the mining industry, who have also benefited from it. If it is considered to be in the national interest to perpetuate this state of affairs, then it should clearly be borne by the Government itself out of its general revenues.

It has been estimated that this clause of the Convention entered into between the two Governments, presently costs us in excess of $5 per ounce for each ounce of gold which is produced in our country. Obviously with the drying up or dwindling of the labour this figure should now be declining as the labour from Mozambique is now down to about 80 000 whereas in the past it was just in excess of 100 000. It is continuing to fall by some 6 000 per month. In view of the very substantial wage increases in recent years, if the 5 dollars per ounce could be given back to the gold-mining industry, in the sense that this amount would be available to the mines, they would no longer be as dependent on labour from Mozambique as they were in the past. Indeed, it would seem that labour on the required scale would be forthcoming from within our own country, and in the absence of a prohibition by the Mozambique Government, labour would probably still continue to be forthcoming from there in significant numbers. That is important, as the hon. the Minister will be aware, because labourers from Mozambique have held a much higher proportion of the skilled jobs in the gold-mining industry than their proportions in the total labour force would lead one to suspect. In the present circumstances it is therefore clearly no longer equitable for the gold-mining industry to pick up the whole tab for the subsidy to Mozambique. It is true, of course, that this is only one part of the Mozambique Convention, and if changes were to be made, such changes would have significant implications for the coal-mining industry, the platinum-mining industry and indeed for some of the gold mines that have benefited from the method of allocation which is at present in force but which is hardly sufficient justification for the present system.

If we are to succeed in attracting more South Africans to provide labour on our mines—an objective I would have thought is highly desirable and in the national interest—in order to eliminate the risk involved in relying on foreign labour, for example from Mozambique, our success or failure is going to hinge upon the terms and conditions of employment offered by the gold mines in comparison with other industries. The terms and conditions of employment are no longer simply a question of pay. That is, of course, exceedingly important, but wages have, in fact, increased more than fourfold over the last four years, or by 165% in real terms. At some point, however, there clearly comes a stage where, at any particular price for gold, further increases cannot be granted unless the viability of the mines is increased, particularly those mining a lower grade ore, or unless the productivity of the workers is increased.

Here I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister two things that will have to be done, and I am not trying to be political; I am simply being objective. We must remove the restrictions which operate at present by custom or law in regard to the use of workers in the mines on the basis of colour. This need not and will not be to the detriment of the Whites. The hon. the Minister, wearing his other hat, is the Minister of Labour, and he will know that when the recovery or resurgence in our economy comes, one of our more particular difficulties is going to be a shortage of labour.

A second matter I should like to urge upon the hon. the Minister’s attention in this connection is the provision of an environment which would encourage people to stay longer at a particular mine, resulting in the establishment of a more permanent work force. Here I am not speaking particularly about the gold-mining industry. I am referring to the mining industry in general. The matter is of increasing importance in view, as I have said, of the fact that quite recently workers have been staying on the mines for considerably shorter periods. This may be the result, as the hon. the Minister is no doubt aware, of a combination of the higher wages and the absence of workers’ families on the mines. In the first instance, there is one thing I would like the hon. the Minister to consider. What would his attitude be if the mines were prepared to construct housing at their own expense? I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us what his attitude and that of the Government will be towards a situation where a mining company is prepared to do that. The position at present is that, in circumstances where there is a Black township within a reasonable distance from the mine, houses may be erected within such a township. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us, if necessary after consultations with his colleagues the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, that the provision of such housing is not tied to any restriction or to any necessity to qualify in terms of section 10. He should also tell us that there is no limitation on the number of people who can be housed in such a township.

If there is no township within a reasonable distance from the mines, the present position is that permission to erect houses on the mine may be granted, but only to the extent that 3% of the total complement can be housed and on condition that the people so housed occupy key positions in the mine. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that that simply is not enough. If he wants to have a permanently and continuously successful mining industry within our country in so far as all mining operations are concerned—not only in respect of the gold-mining industry but also in regard to the mining of other minerals—we must be in a position to provide for a much higher percentage of the people working on a mine to be housed—and let me add, happily housed—on the mine. They must at the very least be content to stay on the mine. We must therefore provide for greater permanence for them on the mine than there is at the moment. I make this plea not to deny that all over the world there is an element of migratory labour, but our element of migratory labour is very directly related to the fact that people cannot live with their families in an contented fashion.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not react to the speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North because I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Brakpan. I should like to elaborate a little further on the mine worker, the person who has to work below the surface of the earth. We have had a great deal to say about people who fly through the air and people who work on the bottom of the ocean. A great deal of research has been done on aspects relating to them. A great deal of research has also been done on aspects relating to the miner who works under the surface of the earth.

Since the earliest times people have worked in and below the earth trying to dig for minerals. Mineworkers underground find themselves in a foreign environment, and frequently this has detrimental effects on their health and general well-being. We must remember that on the Witwatersrand there are mineshafts which penetrate the earth to greater depths than anywhere else. There are shafts which extend even to a depth of 4 000 metres into the earth’s crust. At such a depth there are factors which have a detrimental effect on a person’s body as well as on his mental state. I should like to give a brief summary of such a detrimental effect.

The first factor is the rise in temperature. It is found that there is a linear increase in the temperature of the rock surface as one penetrates deeper into the earth’s crust. At a depth of 4 000 metres the rock face reaches a temperature of approximately 52 °C. At such a temperature no one can be productive not even for a short period. By cooling the air and by means of ventilation this factor is minimized to a certain extent. To be able to do so it is necessary to pump even as much as eight tons of air into a shaft for the removal of one ton of ore. If air is blown into the shafts too rapidly dust is blown up, but I do not want to discuss dust now, except to point out that our legislation relating to dust has been placed on a level unequalled anywhere in the world. Our research in regard to the detrimental effect of dust has produced results achieved nowhere in the world. Another method of cooling is to spray with water, but unfortunately this results in an increase in humidity. The humidity which arises as a result is equal to that of the tropical Amazon valley. The Chamber of Mines has already done valuable research in the form of liquid in plastic holders to keep the body temperature of miners as close as possible to normal for a period of two hours. Even if the persons body temperature is kept normal in this way, he is still unable, under those circumstances, to maintain his normal productivity. The Chamber of Mines is also trying, by way of acclimatization, to adapt the human body to that high temperature environment. For specific periods beforehand they have people live in areas with high temperatures. Heat stroke, if it should occur, is treated by means of saturation, and the patient is admitted to a hospital for observation.

A second factor is pneumoconiosis, which I do not want to discuss for a great deal has already been said about it.

The third factor, a factor which in my opinion is still receiving little attention is that of barotrauma, i.e. a sudden change in attitude. In this way it happens that one’s eardrums suddenly close up when an aircraft suddenly loses or gains altitude. The cause of this is that air pressure on the inside and on the outside of the eardrums is unequal as a result of which the eardrums become very sensitive. This may lead to a discharge and to middle ear infection.

We have already heard a great deal of the number of cases of physical trauma which occur. I believe that the mining industry has done a great deal of research in this regard and that the incidence of this condition is already being limited to the minimum. One kind of physical trauma about which we do not know enough, is that which is caused by excessive noise. It is found that the rock face below the earth reflects sound waves and that, when a person is working at great depths below the surface of the earth in that heat, the constant noise of the drills may very easily have a detrimental effect on sensitive eardrums.

The fifth factor is the exposure of the eyes. One thing is very certain and that is that the sun does not shine below the earth. The lengthy exposure of the eyes to artificial light can also affect mineworkers to a great extent.

A last factor to which I want to refer, a factor of which we still do not know very much, is the psychological factor. The hon. member for Stilfontein expressed his regret at the fact that we still know so little about it. What is the mental state of the mineworker 4 000 metres below the surface of the earth? What is the effect of this upon him as a person? What tension does being isolated from his family cause in him? What effect does his being in the mines have on his fellow-workers? How does he cope with it? In turn, what is the effect of his domestic problems on him when he is deep below the surface of the earth? For eight hours every day he finds himself 4 000 metres below the earth. He cannot be reached if a problem should occur at home. He has virtually no contact with life on the surface. It is not simply a question of certification. We must admit that the person working below the earth is working in an abnormal environment. Therefore we must also take other aspects into consideration, and not only recognized diseases which he can contract below the surface of the earth.

If one considers that the Republic is placing minerals to the value of more than R4 000 million per annum on the market, I should also like to refer to the work of the Minerals Bureau. With that I shall also reply to a certain extent to the hon. member for Morreesburg and also to the hon. member for Etosha who both referred to the effect of Russian Communism and its penetration in Africa. In two weeks’ time the Minerals bureau will be a year old. The objectives of the bureau are exceptionally valuable. The bureau engages in the compiling of statistics, in research and all the appurtenances on the basis of which we draw up a pattern for the future of what we can expect from the various minerals. It is very important, in view of the fact that according to the report only 44 posts have been filled, that the matter receive attention as quickly as possible so that the Minerals Bureau can be expanded to its full extent in order to assemble the necessary data and let us know precisely what we have, what can be mined, and what must be left to our children to mine in future. If the data processing of the Minerals Bureau can be made fully available to us and also the outside world, it will give us a powerful weapon, particularly in respect of the Western world, whose strategic minerals are diminishing in quantity. It will also be our task to show the world that not only do we support the Western world politically, but that we can also form a strategic bloc against the threat of communism.

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the notice of the House and the Minister what I said a matter of 17 years ago in this House, when the Minister of Mines, who at that stage was also the Minister of Labour, was Mr. Jan de Klerk. I said this (Hansard, 1959, col. 6447)—

I now find, 17 years later, that I am getting support. I am getting support from the chairman of the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases, who had this to say—

I feel very strongly about this, and I think the hon. the Minister should investigate ways and means of introducing such a scheme for all those mineworkers who feel that they would like to pull out of the mine. Those who have worked for more than 25 years on the mines should be able, if possible, to get other employment. This can be achieved by providing such a scheme at each and every mine so that a mineworker, if he so wishes, can learn a trade while he is working as a mineworker.

The whole of the occupational disease structure in our country must be reviewed. At the moment there is the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which applies to some people and falls under the Minister of Labour. In addition, we have the Bureau for Occupational Diseases for those working in mines and works, which falls under this Minister. Over and above that, I find that the Minister of Health recently appointed a commission of inquiry into occupational diseases. In other words, we now have three different Ministries dealing with the same thing. It is my contention that the time has come for all these matters relating to these diseases to be brought under one Ministry. Whether this is brought together under Health or Labour really makes no difference, but we cannot have the sort of disruption which we have at the moment. There are dozens of anomalies which occur from day to day in respect of the various diseases.

A man with asbestosis on a mine receives one set of compensation benefits. A man with asbestosis working in a factory which does not fall under the provisions of the Mines and Works Act, however, gets another set of compensation regulations thrust at him. This cannot be allowed to continue because there is gross dissatisfaction amongst the workers. It is my feeling that if the hon. the Minister is able to do this, the department, i.e. that division of Ministry which is going to do the work, could concentrate on the prevention and treatment of occupational diseases in mines and in all other industries. There can be regular examination of the workers at the Compensation House, which, I understand, is to be built. There should be compensation for all occupational diseases based on the same level. There should be no wage ceiling for those people who seek benefits in respect of occupational diseases, and compensation should not be stopped if a man reaches a certain wage level ceiling. I want the hon. the Minister to realize this very important point, viz. that the man is contracting the disease gradually while his wage structure was far lower than at such time as he eventually makes his application for some recognition of what he has developed in the past. These are important points but nobody is dealing with them. Not a single hon. Minister who has dealt with occupational diseases has done anything about it. I think the time has come for us to save every man we possibly can in our labour force, and the only way to do this is to look after the worker. The only way to do this is to have one division looking after the workers’ health if their health is impaired in any way whatsoever due to their work in a factory, a mine or any other place of work.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not react to the speech made by the hon. member for Rosettenville, because I should like to address a few words to the Minister this evening in regard to the tiger’s eye industry in South Africa. Just as Japan has the pearl, Burma the ruby and Australia the opal, so South Africa has the tiger’s eye. This much sought after semi-precious stone is, as far as is known found only in South Africa and then only in the Northern Cape. In 1967 the Government appointed an interdepartmental committee to investigate and report on matters relating to the tiger’s eye industry. With reference to this report it was decided on a policy which would have the effect that it would not be possible to export any raw or semi-processed tiger’s eye from the Republic of South Africa or South West Africa after 31 May 1971. Positive steps were accordingly taken by our Government to put a stop to the exporting of crude and semi-processed tiger’s eye. The reasons which led to this step by the Government are obvious. I want to tell the hon. the Minister this evening that we are grateful that the Government made this drastic attempt to reserve the processing of this much sought after semi-precious stone for the South African entrepreneur. In addition we should like to see all South Africa’s minerals being processed and finished locally before they are exported. I have here a few clippings from several newspapers. I should like to quote from The Cape Times of 12 March 1976. The following was alleged—

Then too I want to quote what the Financial Mail of 2 April 1976 had to say on page 52—

I had personal experience of this. A short while ago the Department of Customs and Excise held an auction in the harbour, and we attended the proceedings. There we found quite a few crates of crude tiger’s eye which had been confiscated. The person who wanted to export the tiger’s eye glued a piece of green felt beneath an absolutely crude piece of tiger’s eye, smeared varnish over the tiger’s eye, with the idea of exporting the tiger’s eye in this way as so-called paper weights or book-ends.

At the congress of the Handelsinstituut in May 1976 as well, a draft resolution was adopted requesting stricter control in order to combat the export of tiger’s eye in its unprocessed form as effectively as possible. I want to quote from the motivation of this draft resolution—

I have already pointed out that according to The Cape Times report approximately 200 tons of crude tiger’s eye are being exported every year. It is very clearly apparent from the quotations that there are still people who are illegally smuggling unprocessed tiger’s eye out of the country and in that way trying to defeat the object of the Government to reserve the processing industry for South Africa. South Africa is annually losing millions of rands in foreign exchange.

Therefore I want to make a very serious appeal to the hon. the Minister this evening that this matter should be investigated—if the hon. the Minister has not already done so—and that, if necessary, far stricter measures should be adopted to prevent these precious gem-stones of which South Africa is the only producer, being smuggled out of the country illegally.

I want to suggest a few possibilities in regard to how we can combat this smuggling. Under the present regulations the fine for smuggling tiger’s eye is altogether inadequate. It is an economic proposition to smuggle tiger’s eye. I want to mention an example. A smuggler buys ten tons of tiger’s eye at R1 000 per ton, i.e. for R10 000, in the vicinity of Prieska and Niekerkshoop. If the person who wants to export ten tons of crude tiger’s eye is caught, he receives a maximum fine of R2 000. In other words, his total expense is R12 000 for the ten tons of tiger’s eye which he bought. In America the wholesale price of crude tiger’s eye varies between R7 000 and R5 000 per ton, and it retails at approximately R20 000 per ton. As soon as the illegal tiger’s eye is loaded on to a ship, or transferred across the South African border, the ten tons of tiger’s eye are worth approximately R70 000 to the smuggler. This is an easy way of making money. I hope the hon. the Minister will help us to eradicate this evil entirely.

I want to suggest that the maximum fine be increased to approximately R4 000 per ton, and that illegal consignments of tiger’s eye will be confiscated. I also want to pose this question: Has the time not arrived for the producer of tiger’s eye, the dealer and the cutter, to be registered and for the legitimate handlers of crude tiger’s eye to report to some body or other or to a department as to what they have done with either their mined or purchased crude tiger’s eye? I also think the time has arrived for the producer and South African cutters of semi-precious stones to come to an agreement and in this way utilize this unique product of South Africa in the best interests of South Africa. In Germany there is the city of Ider Oberstein which is also known as “gem city”. In this city of precious stones we find that 30 000 people are involved in the processing of precious and semi-precious stones. In a number of Eastern countries we find the same phenomenon. These centres for the cutting and processing of gem stones are concentrated in a few cities. Thousands of people are employed in each city in the cutting industry. The only difference is that the Eastern countries have to import all their precious stones. Nevertheless we find here a flourishing industry which means a tremendous amount to these countries.

I think South Africa also has a tremendous potential in the way of semi-precious and precious stones, of which tiger’s eye is the most unique. South Africa does not need to cast its pearls before swine, I want to make an appeal to producers and cutters of semiprecious stones to get together and decide upon the creation of a South African gem city of our own. The people of Kuruman have asked me to invite these people to establish a gem city there. There is water, border industry benefits and sufficient labour available, labour from the bordering Bophuthatswana, and here producers and cutters are within a stone’s throw of one another.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk to the new Minister of Mines, and I am talking to him because I consider him to be a competent person, otherwise I would not talk to him. Now I have said enough in this regard.

In the first place, I want to talk about our coal. We do not know the extent of our uranium reserves, but at present our uranium reserves, in terms of energy content, are less than our coal reserves. Secondly: So far we have not made any petroleum discoveries. Thirdly: We do not know how the experiments, the investigations into and the development of fast-breeder reactors is going to develop to be able to produce energy for us in future. Two weeks ago I addressed the Rapportryers in Empangeni. They took me to Richards Bay and there I saw the trains coming in, loaded with coal. This coal is exported to Japan. There were a few of us there and someone said: But should we export coal? Are we not exporting our potential source of energy? A question then occurred to me, and that is what I want to discuss this evening. I do not know what the extent of our uranium reserves are. We have no petroleum. In regard to the creation of energy sources we do not know very much, for it is still in an experimental stage. In view of this I have a question to put to the hon. the Minister. I am asking this because our people want to know. Why are we exporting our coal while there is still uncertainty in regard to our energy sources in all spheres. That is the first question I want to ask. However, I want to ask a second question. Sasol and Escom each has its own mine, and uses only a certain kind of coal. There are commercial mines which produce coal for the market. Is it right that certain coal resources are available only for certain companies or utility companies? In 1969 the Coal Advisory Council brought out a report in regard to the coal reserves of this country. This council recommended that a policy of conservation be applied. The council put the country’s coal reserves at 24 000 million tons. All the companies that testified before the council were unanimously in favour of conservation. All of them said that the demand would not diminish, but would rather increase. All of them said that the available reserves necessitated placing restrictions on mining, unless improved mining techniques could be applied. So far a cheap energy policy has been adopted. In view of the entire price structure of energy, a matter which has been dragged into the political arena, I want to ask whether it is still desirable to apply a cheap energy policy. The question which arises from this is whether State control over our energy resources has not become an urgent necessity. A further question is this: If State control is applied in respect of iron and coal oil, should State control not also be applied in respect of all the country’s other energy resources, since these resources have become of vital importance to us? Should control not be applied in view of the uncertainty which prevails in the country’s uranium resources, the experiments in regard to power generation and since, in addition there is as yet no certainty in regard to the discovery of petroleum sources?

Next I want to raise the question of the country’s mineworkers. Tonight I want to say something different to what one usually says about the subject. Tonight I want to state frankly to the mineworkers, and to everyone, that labour alone does not make a nation free, nor remuneration, nor salaries nor threats. I want to say candidly that if a person holds a pistol to my head in the form of his vote by telling me that he will not vote for me if I do not ensure that a pension or an improved pension is paid to him, then his heart is not in the right place, and money will not change his mental attitude. I am saying this candidly, and I am perfectly frank about it. No work reservation will save the miners; it will not save any labourer in South Africa. Our children, as I said earlier this afternoon, should know this. We are compelled to entrench our children with the knowledge of what labour awareness means. One cannot entrench one’s child, unless one begins to tell this to the child during his initial years, during Std. 1 or Grade 1. I invite the Ministry to give me and other members of this House, or experts instructions to draw up a curriculum which will bring home to our children—and to every individual, the value of labour to our country; to his household, his environment and his country. I want to tell the mineworkers and other labourers that the standards of White housing in South Africa are the highest in the world. In France, Italy and Portugal the average house is 4 000 square feet; in Australia 7 000 square feet, and in South Africa between 10 000 and 30 000 square feet. In Eastern Europe one finds university professors living in houses with an average area of 7 000 square feet. If we look at the houses in which professors are living in Stellenbosch, Pretoria and Potchefstroom we find that they are living in castles. Is this an example to set? The average area of houses in our Bantu residential areas is 7 000 square feet. In the Republic of South Africa this has become a status symbol, for the mineworkers as well; well, not so much among them, but among businessmen and other people we have to set an example: The intelligentsia, the spiritual élite. Two bathrooms, and double garages. What did the President of the Reserve Bank say in his annual report in 1971? He referred to an unheard-of increase of 30% in expenditure on private dwellings. In South Africa young married couples last year paid 10% more of their income on housing than in the rest of the world: 35% of their income, as against 25% in the rest of the world. In our country we are not yet subject to that population pressure which is being experienced overseas. But the Republic of South Africa has enormous projects on the drawing board, and requires R34 000 million for them during the next seven years.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.