Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 33, Government business shall have precedence on Fridays after Questions have been disposed of;
2. (2) with effect from Wednesday, 12 August, the hours of sitting on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays shall be:
   14h15 to 18h30; and
   20h00 to 22h30.

Mr. Speaker, the motion proposed by the hon. the Leader of the House consists of two parts. The first part relates to Government business having precedence on Fridays after questions have been disposed of. That relates to Standing Order No. 33, which deals with private members’ motions. As we all know, this is a new session of Parliament. Generally speaking, however, one can also look upon it in a way as a continuation of the earlier session this year. The programme of work which we have before us is therefore one which is rather crowded and which will afford hon. members the opportunity of speaking on a variety of subjects.

In addition to this there is the reference to matters of public importance as dealt with in Standing Order No. 26. The latter provision can thus be invoked should it become necessary. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have no doubt that you will deal leniently with possible applications by hon. members in this regard. For that reason the first part of the hon. leader’s motion does not really cause us a lot of difficulty.

When, however, it comes to the second part of the motion before us now, wherein the hon. the Leader of the House proposes that we sit on three evenings a week, beginning on a Wednesday evening a week earlier than usual, and with the programme being as crowded as it is at this early stage, we are experiencing substantial difficulties. I should like to know from the hon. the Leader of the House what his motivation for this is and what reasons prompted him to move this motion. The heavy programme of work with which we have to contend, specifically in the field of legislation, will require much study, research, group discussions and preparation. This type of schedule does not make it easy for hon. members of the smaller political parties to do this meaningfully. We believe that this brings unnecessary pressure to bear on hon. members of this House and that it is not in the best interests of making valuable and meaningful contributions towards the work of this House.

This becomes more of a problem in dealing not only with the Post Office and Railway budgets, but in particular also in dealing with the Votes of the various hon. the Ministers. That will require from us to be in two places at the same time. It will thus become very difficult for us to carry out the work effectively.

I always thought you were hard-working chaps.

I shall come to that later. [Interjections.] So we have undue and unnecessary strain, not only on hon. members of this House, but also on those responsible for parliamentary procedure. One thinks, for instance, of the work of Hansard. We often require Hansard transcripts of speeches for the purposes of debate. The Hansard staff will therefore be put under tremendous pressure in order to cope with a crowded programme of this nature, not to mention the catering staff, who will also have to do additional work. As a matter of fact, this applies to the entire administration of Parliament: the staff, the messengers, the security personnel and everybody else. Why should it be necessary to crowd the programme and to place this unnecessary pressure on hon. members and on the parliamentary staff?

The NP can postpone its congresses for a month.

We did not call the general election thereby causing the normal parliamentary session to be interrupted halfway. The situation in which we find ourselves today is of the Government’s own making. That being so, why then do we have to suffer in this particular way?

There is a strong feeling that the motion proposed by the hon. the Leader of the House is more in the interests of the NP than in the interests of Parliament. From this it would appear that the needs and priorities of the NP seemed to take precedence over those of the business of this House and as a result we have to telescope the programme of work before us. The end of this parliamentary session is now apparently aimed to coincide with the NP congress, which, I understand, will begin on 12 October. Therefore we want to know whether it would not be in the interests of Parliament rather to postpone the NP congress to a later date instead of placing pressure on hon. members of Parliament in order to make the end of this session coincide with the interests of the NP.

No one objects to working hard in this House. That is what we have all come here to do. We do, however, object to being denied the opportunity of making the best contribution possible to the work of this House and to being placed under undue pressure.

We do therefore object to the motion. In our view it is not in the best interests of this House and not in the best interests of Parliament. We will accordingly vote against this motion.

Mr. Speaker, since it has by now become traditional for the official Opposition to object to a motion of this nature, one cannot take it amiss of the hon. member for Hillbrow this afternoon for having opposed the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House.

Initially I thought that he was being more constructive in his criticism of the motion than what we have become accustomed to over a number of years. But why he should have made the unpleasant remark at the end of his argument that he believed that it was really in the NP’s interests that this session should be shortened and not in the real interests of this House, I cannot understand. The hon. member referred to a congress of the NP. I just want to point out to him that the NP’s congress in the Cape is taking place here in Cape Town. It is a congress which we are able to accommodate very easily. We could even exempt all hon. members of the NP for that congress if it should be necessary to have them attend the congress. Thus to advance the argument that the motion is being moved solely to suit the NP is simply to try to make petty politics out of the matter.

I cannot understand the attitude of the official Opposition. In the past a motion of the nature has always been moved at the end of a session, but in that case the official Opposition have always maintained that it could not understand why we had not introduced the extended sitting hours earlier in the session. Why wait until the end? Why wait until the end and then overwhelm us with legislation? As regards the legislation on the Order Paper it is true that the Government is coming forward with the legislation, but it has been on the Order Paper for a long time now. Some of the legislation has been at hon. members’ disposal for a long time now. In fact, a large percentage of the legislation has circulated in the Government Gazette in the course of this year as well as last year; in other words, nobody ought to be unprepared for it at this stage. There was adequate time during the discussion of the censure debate—after all, not everyone speaks in the censure debate—to study legislation. This will also be the case during the discussion of the Votes.

Consequently I cannot understand the main complaint of the official Opposition. Previously they always said that they were few in number and that as a result, tremendous pressure was placed on them by a programme of this nature. Now, however, they have come back after the election as such an enormous party! That is why I expected at least one complaint to fall away, viz. that we are dealing with a small Opposition party. After all, the distribution of work and the workload on that side is now considerably reduced. That is why I cannot understand what the complaints are about.

Moreover, it is traditional for the second session of the year to be a short session. I do not want to elaborate on that; the hon. the Leader of the House can tell hon. members what the programme of the Cabinet and the departments is in this regard.

But to come to the facts. Just to finalize the motion of censure, the three appropriations and the related minimum financial legislation would mean that this House would need at least 236 hours. If we were to heed the objection of the official Opposition today and were simply to coast along with the normal hours as they want us to do, this would mean our having to sit until 9 October this year to have 237¼ hours at our disposal; in other words, we would be able to finalize only the three appropriations, the motion of censure and financial legislation, with an hour in hand. What the official Opposition is now asking is that we should effectively start with our legislative programme only after 9 October. Meanwhile surely we on this side of the House have to continue governing. And in the meantime not a single debate passes without members of the official Opposition calling for the attention of a specific Cabinet Minister. I do not begrudge hon. members this. They are fully entitled to request the attention of specific Cabinet Ministers. But surely we also have to govern. If we want to keep the Cabinet here in Parliament all the time, surely proper government simply becomes impossible. If hon. members say that they do not mind how long they sit here, I can understand that full well, for they cannot fix a target date for themselves. After all, it is also not strange for the official Opposition not to have a target anywhere. It will impress no one if people express their willingness to sit here until Christmas because they do not want to put in a full day’s work for a few days during the week. I do not think that would impress the public at large. Consequently I support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. Government Chief Whip for his exposition and explanation of how long legislation will take us and up to what stage it will take us. However, I am reminded of the rather well-loved Jack Higgerty, who I understand stood up every year in the Opposition benches and spoke of “legislation by exhaustion”. This is the problem with which we find ourselves here today. When one is small in numbers in this House the pressures of work are greater, and I am sure that there is nobody that will deny that. It is a statement of fact.

Are you tired, Brian?

I am going to be very, very tired when this lot is over, I promise you. When, as I say, one has a small number of people in one’s party, one finds that sitting three nights a week taxes them enormously, and we are very, very concerned indeed about the fact that justice cannot possibly be done to legislation as it should be. This even applies to members of the Government. When we sit three nights a week perhaps those hon. members will agree that one may not give the attention to the legislation that one should. After all is said and done, it becomes a most onerous task to sit in this place on Mondays right up to 10.30 in the evening and then have to repeat those sitting hours on a Wednesday. This is even more so on a Thursday because on a Thursday one will have to sit until 10.30 at night and is then expected to commence sitting again on Friday morning at 10.30 am and go right through until 5.30 in the evening.

Do not worry; we shall see to it that the legislation is right.

We believe that consideration should be given to the fact that sitting on Thursday night does present a particular problem. We would have been far better disposed towards an additional night sitting on a Monday because we normally start night sittings on Wednesdays fairly early in any case. We would be far better disposed towards such an arrangement than we are towards sitting on a Thursday night. It is because of the unusual demands that this will make of our members that we in this party will also oppose this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few points concerning the debate on this matter. In the first place the impression really must not be created that this motion is an exceptional one in such circumstances, for this is not true. The fact is that it is a tradition of this Parliament that when there are two short sessions in one year the last short session is kept as short as possible, as certain problems are created for the legislator as well as for the administration of the country. We are now putting forward a motion which fits into the pattern of the past exactly, and I think the objection of hon. members opposite also fits into the pattern of the past, for that, too, has become a custom.

We MP’s need a trade union.

There is also a second point pertaining to the administration of this country. The fact remains that Parliament must be seen in the context of the administration of the country as a whole. During the session we are here in the Cape with a large number of our senior officials who have to attend to the proceedings here. Furthermore, these are the same people who have to give immediate attention to the proceedings which follow very soon afterwards when we have to return within two or three months and draw up a legislative programme which has to be introduced early next year. If we take all these facts into account, then we must find ways and means of preparing that legislative programme in the short time at our disposal. In this context it has in the past been and is still the case that we must try to make the session as short as possible. Consequently I want to say that what we are proposing now is not an unreasonable motion. It is a programme in terms of which we shall sit for three nights during the week during a period which we trust will be shorter than the normal period of sitting. Consequently I have no hesitation whatsoever in moving this motion.

Moreover, I want to ask hon. members whether they, too, have not now, for their part, given an undertaking to this country to try to serve the public as well? Are we to do this alone? What, then, do they want to come and do here? The argument they advance is that it is difficult to prepare legislation. As our hon. Chief Whip has told us, the consideration of the financial measures alone is going to take up far more than 200 hours. Consequently there is more than sufficient time in between to attend to legislative measures of an urgent nature. Consequently, as the programme progresses, there is going to be more than adequate time for those hon. members opposite to give the necessary attention to the legislation, even if they are few in number. They will be able to keep up, as the programme is not very long. The only party for which I have some sympathy is the NRP which comprises only a few people. I just want to tell the hon. member for Umhlanga that I am sorry that they are only a few, but then I also want to ask him whether he does not think that they have now reached the stage where they will have to decide about their own future? [Interjections.] In addition, I must tell those hon. members that we cannot aggravate matters for the administration of this country merely because they are few in number.

For these reasons I cannot comply with their request and I still require this House to decide on this motion which I have moved.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will recall that the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956, was amended rather drastically during both the 1979 and 1980 sessions of Parliament, owing to certain recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation which were accepted by the Government.

The amendment Bill now before this hon. House is a continuation of the steps which were taken to rationalize, modernize and adapt our labour legislation to the demands and circumstances of the times, as well as to give further recognition to the resolutions contained in the Government’s White Papers on matters pertaining to manpower.

As regards clause l the most important amendments that are being proposed are the following—

Firstly, it is being envisaged to substitute a simple definition for the present definition of “employee”, in terms of which all workers in South Africa, excluding those in agriculture, domestic service and a number of other undertakings, industries, trades or occupations at present excluded from the scope of the Act, will henceforth be able to join a trade union of their choice if the said trade union’s constitution makes provision for their admission and provided the trade union concerned accepts them. The result of this will be that employees who were previously unable to join registered trade unions owing to their origin, or to residential and other considerations, and who were in that way excluded from the conciliation and bargaining machinery of the Act, will now be included. Combined with this, several definitions in the Act are also being amended to eliminate differentiation between workers.

Secondly, the meanings of “trade union” and “employers’ organizations” are being amplified so as to include bodies, the objectives of which are, inter alia, to regulate matters of common interest with their employers in the case of a trade union, or their employees in the case of a workers’ organization. Up to now it was only those bodies whose main objective it was to regulate matters of mutual interest who were included in the definitions.

Thirdly, the definitions of “officer” and “office-bearer” are being amended in order to make them applicable to those encumbents of such posts in unregistered trade unions, federations and industrial councils who have so far not been included in the definitions.

Finally, the definitions of “white person” and “coloured person” are being deleted since they no longer serve any purpose.

The intention with the amendment of section 4 of the Act is to require trade unions and employers’ organizations, which do not intend to apply for registration, to furnish the industrial registrar with a copy of their constitution, their head office address and the names of their office-bearers and officials. This is deemed to be necessary so that official cognizance may be taken of their existence and so that the Department of Manpower may know whom to contact in such organizations and where.

A further obligation is also being imposed on the industrial registrar, when considering the objections to an application from a trade union, to take only those members of the objecting trade union who are also members of the applicant union into consideration. The object here is to ensure that the position of a union which applies for registration for a specific group or class of employees, or which is already registered on that basis, is safeguarded.

This provision will apply equally in a case where an applicant trade union, for example, makes application in respect of specific occupational groups. In such a case the industrial registrar will only be able to take into consideration the members of the objecting organization who are employed in those occupations and who may also belong to the applicant organization. In other words, the provision must be widely interpreted. In point of fact, it confirms and recognizes the workers’ right of self-determination to organize themselves of their own free will into groups of their own choice. Although in practice organization takes place primarily on the basis of industries and occupations, organization on other bases, for example on the basis of population group, is not excluded. It depends on the workers themselves.

This provisions stems from strong representations addressed to me by many trade unions to the effect that the autonomy of trade unions to decide for themselves which type or groups of workers they will admit as members should not be affected.

In addition, section 4 is being amended by the deletion of the provision in terms of which no regard shall be had to the objection of a multinational trade union to the application of a purely White or Coloured trade union which has recruited more than half of the potential White or Coloured members. This is in accordance with the principle of full “trade union autonomy” which is now being incorporated into the Act and in terms of which it is being left to the trade union themselves to decide on their organizational and structural set-up.

Finally, section 4 is also being amended by the deletion of the prohibition pertaining to the registration of multinational trade unions. This amendment is directly connected with the decision to accord full recognition to “trade union autonomy”.

In future it will no longer rest with the Minister to grant exemption with a view to multinational registration. Trade unions themselves will be able to decide which persons they will admit as members.

The same applies to the existing provision —section 8(3)—in terms of which trade unions with a multinational membership must make provision in their constitutions for the establishment of separate branches, the holding of separate meetings of such branches and the fact that their executive bodies shall consist only of white persons, unless the Minister has granted exemption from these requirements. This provision also falls away now, and trade unions themselves will be able to decide on internal administrative and structural matters.

As regards the principle of provisional registration which was incorporated into the Act during 1979 by virtue of the first report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Legislation, experience has shown that it is not of much practical use and consequently it has been decided to eliminate it from this Act.

Section 6 of the Act is being repealed in its entirety. The original intention of this section was to afford White or Coloured members of mixed trade unions who broke away to form their own unions an opportunity to lay claim to a division of the assets of mixed trade unions.

In view of the changing dispensation which is now in progress and the elimination of any racial connotation from the Act, this provision is no longer relevant. It may be added in passing that this provision was in any event never applied in practice.

In terms of the existing section 8(6) of the Act, labour organizations are prohibited from affiliating with political parties or from granting financial assistance to any political party. This principle is now being taken further by not only prohibiting the granting of financial assistance, but of any other assistance as well.

Finally, section 8 is being amended to provide that the requirements which apply to registered trade unions and workers’ organizations in regard to the maintaining of certain registers, the auditing of their books of account and the prohibition on the affiliation with and granting of assistance to political parties shall also apply to unregistered trade unions and employers’ organizations.

In accordance with the regulations laid down in section 4, viz. that unregistered trade unions must submit a copy of their constitutions to the industrial registrar, the amendment of section 9 envisages, that such trade unions shall also submit copies of any amendments to their constitutions to the industrial registrar.

The amendment of section 11 seeks mainly to compel employers’ organizations to have their head offices within the borders of the Republic and to make the requirements in regard to the submission of annual membership returns, the retention of the prescribed documents, the submission of audited financial statements, the publication of the names of office-bearers and officials after every election and the notification of any change of head office address, applicable to unregistered trade unions and employers’ organizations as well.

In accordance with the general practice of expecting all judges and judicial officers of our courts to take an oath or make an affirmation that they will ensure that justice will be administered fairly to everyone, a similar provision is also being inserted into the Act as regards the president and other members of the industrial court in the execution of their law court functions.

In addition it is also foreseen that the activities of the court will increase to such an extent that it will be necessary for competent persons to be appointed as members of the court on an ad hoc basis, and an appropriate amendment to make such appointments possible is being effected in section 17.

Other amendments which are being effected in regard to the functions of the court are to place beyond any doubt the jurisdiction of the court to hold sessions at any place in the country, to make contempt of this court punishable and also to empower a presiding member other than the president to appoint assessors.

As regards the admission of additional parties to an industrial council, the Act provides at present that a unilateral decision of the parties to a council is required to admit a further party or parties to such council. However, cases have occurred where industrial councils have failed to reach a decision on applications for admission within a reasonable period of time, and where the applicants concerned were consequently hampered and were unable to appeal to the industrial court.

To counteract developments of this nature section 21A is being amended in order to provide that if an industrial council has not reached a decision within 70 days of receipt of an application for admission, the matter shall be submitted directly to the industrial court for decision.

In view of the repeal of section 59, as a result of which the requirement that employers must register with the Department of Manpower now falls away, it was decided after strong representations from industrial councils, inter alia, to amend section 24(1) of the Act to provide specifically that industrial agreements may contain provisions requiring employers in specific industries to register with the industrial council concerned, since that would facilitate the administration of a council’s agreement.

In accordance with the Government’s policy it is now being provided that in the negotiating of an agreement or the making of a determination or arbitration award there may be no differentiation on the basis of sex.

In consequence of representations received as a result of the publication of this amending Bill in draft form, what is being envisaged is to allow a transitional phase in the phasing out of differentiation on the basis of sex. There are still 40 industrial council agreements which differentiate in respect of wages on the basis of sex. This differentiation operates only in respect of certain classes of work or occupation. Figures are not available on an occupational basis, but approximately 109 000 female persons are employed in those industries where differentiation does exist.

Since the participation in illegal strikes by members of trade unions has assumed ever greater proportions and has not only caused disruption of the production processes but of the national economy as well, the Act is now being amended to impose a prohibition on the application of funds by any labour organization, whether or not it is registered, for the purpose of financing any action which is contrary to the specific provisions of section 65 of the Act pertaining to the procedure which must be followed before it is possible to resort to lock-out or strikes.

Since it is essential for the purpose of keeping records and statistics that my department should be aware of labour disputes and strikes, it is now being made compulsory for employers to inform the Department of Manpower of a labour dispute involving any loss of man-hours.

A new section 34A is being inserted in the Act which seeks to give statutory effect to the establishment of works councils. This arises from the proposed repeal of the Black Labour Relations Regulation Act, 1953.

While the representations elicited by the publication of the proposed statutory amendments are in general in favour of the repeal, there has at the same time been strong insistence on the retention of some or other form of statutory machinery of communication on the entrepreneurial level.

The provisions of the new section 34A accord statutory recognition to the approximately 2 750 liaison committees which have so far come into existence under the aforesaid Act and which will in future be known as “works councils”. The National Manpower Commission has been requested to institute an investigation into the functions and powers of works councils and other negotiating bodies on an entrepreneurial level, after which the matter will be reconsidered.

The insertion of section 51A in the Act is also a result of the repeal of the Regulation of Black Labour Relations Act. It makes provision, as in the case of the latter Act, for an order to be made at the request of a group or association of employers in terms of which conditions of service are regulated in specific industries or trades. As in the past there is at present still a pressing need for statutory provisions of this nature in industries and areas where there is no industrial council.

As I have already indicated, it is being proposed that the Black Labour Relations Regulation Act, 1953, be repealed. The same applies to the Electrical Wiremen and Contractors Act, 1939.

As hon. members know, the former Act makes provision for the establishment of a committee system to regulate conditions of service for Black workers, and machinery is established for the settlement of labour disputes between Black workers and their employers. This Act was originally placed on the Statute Book because Black workers were not at the time considered to be “employees” in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956, and were in that way excluded from the machinery for negotiation and conciliation created by that Act, and provision therefore had to be made for them in some other way.

However, the definition of “employee” was amended in 1979 to include certain groups of Black workers, and it is now being further amended to make it applicable to all employees, with the result that Black employees are now being placed on the same level as other workers and the need for a special measure in respect of them no longer exists. As regards the Electrical Wiremen and Contractors Act, 1939, the original intention was to promote safety in regard to electrical wiring and maintenance work.

The appropriate place for measures for the safeguarding of electrical installations is the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, 1941. To achieve this, provision is going to be made for that purpose in the regulations of the latter Act.

It is intended to allow the clause making provision for the repeal of the Electrical Wiremen and Contractors Act, 1939, to come into operation on the same day as that on which the said regulations take effect.

Mr. Speaker, these are in brief the envisaged amendments, and I trust that they will meet with the approval of this House.

Mr. Speaker, before I respond directly to the legislation now before us, I should like to underline and give emphasis to two very important factors which we must take into account if we are to understand the developments which have taken place in the labour field in recent years.

Firstly, I believe it is important to see this amending piece of legislation as a part of a process which began with the appointment of the Wiehahn Commission. It is a process which, in the main, has been very encouraging and has brought about substantial changes in labour regulations and relations in South Africa. These recommendations and the changes which have followed have not always been universally accepted in South Africa. There are those who have stated repeatedly that because of these changes there has been a degree of instability introduced into the labour field. It is my view that were it not for these changes our situation would be considerably more precarious than it is today.

It is, nevertheless, a process which has reached no finality. We are in a state of flux, and it is not only desirable, but necessary, for the process to begin. My own approach to this particular Bill is to see it as a part of a developing process with still more to come.

Secondly, it is impossible to discuss labour relations in isolation from socio-economic and political factors. The hon. the Minister, in his speech last week in this House, made that very clear. I believe he made some very telling points. We know that for a very long time Blacks were by definition excluded from the statutory process. Again in his introductory speech today the hon. the Minister has made reference to that and has indicated why it has become necessary to introduce certain changes.

We are still feeling the effects of that indefensible exclusion today. In addition we are experiencing double digit inflation and workers at the end of the economic scale have been put under enormous pressure by escalating costs of basic foodstuffs, with the result that at their place of work workers have, perhaps more than ever before, been open to the temptation to move as fast as possible in order to improve their own and their colleagues’ position. More important is that hundreds of thousands of Black workers who have been denied political rights of any consequence will inevitably be concerned with bringing into the labour arena those matters which would normally find their place in a political dispensation. All that this means is that the labour field is a highly volatile one, and we as legislators in this House must do everything possible to ensure the minimum amount of conflict and the maximum amount of labour peace.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister, who has been in the forefront—a very courageous Minister, if I may say so—of the changes that have been introduced, that I hope that he will warn his colleagues that if they do not keep pace with the changes taking place in labour relations by swift and far-reaching action in the constitutional and political fields, the conflict that we are trying to avoid will be heightened and the problems will be exacerbated.

You need not try to turn this matter into a political issue.

No, not at all. The hon. the Minister says that it is not necessary for me to make political points in this debate. I am actually underlining and building on the very speech that the hon. the Minister made last week. I think it was a good speech, in the main. I think the hon. the Minister was making the point that one cannot see labour in isolation, that one cannot see labour relations as restricted only to this particular Act, to this particular legislation. If we do that we are in for a terrible awakening.

You have made that point, but this legislation does not concern that angle.

I think it does. Let me summarize it in this way. What we see happening in the workshops and factories of our land and what this legislation tries to regulate, should be what I would call an early warning signal to what could become part and parcel of our total way of life.

I now want to underline a number of the very positive features contained in this Bill. Before I do so, however, I want to welcome the removal of many of what I would term the offensive clauses appearing in the Bill when it was published in draft form for comment early this year.

Are you supporting the one about political interference?

May I make my own speech? The hon. the Minister has had a long enough time. These include the provisions for break-away unions, the power for the Minister to cancel union registration on new grounds and the extension of the prohibition of assistance to political organizations as well as political parties. The positive features of the Bill, as we see it, include at least three or four major items. Firstly, the elimination of all reference to race throughout the Industrial Conciliation Act. The scrapping of race categories is to be warmly and strongly welcomed. Secondly, there is the outlawing of sex discrimination. This follows on legislation that we dealt with in the last session. We welcome this as well. Thirdly, there is the extension of trade union rights to Blacks residing in the homelands and coming to work in the Republic as contract workers and, fourthly, the repealing of dualistic legislation, namely the Black Labour Regulations Act, the Black Labour Amendment Act and other similar Acts. All of these moves we believe are positive, and we would like to say to the hon. the Minister that because of this we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

There are a number of other important aspects of labour relations that are still in the process that I referred to right at the beginning of my speech. I refer, firstly, to the registration procedures of employers’ organizations and trade unions. I think if ever there was an area of concern and one shot through with confusion, it is this whole question of registration, which is often confused with recognition and with representation.

According to the footnote on page 19 of the very helpful explanatory memorandum on this measure by the department, we are told that in the light of the representations received, it has been decided to “hold the clauses of the amending Bill connected with registration in obeyance and refer this matter to the National Manpower Commission for investigation”. Of course, it makes good sense to do just this, but it does make it difficult for substantial debate to be conducted on the legislation before us in general terms, especially in view of the fact that clause 5 is in my judgment one of the most important and one of the key clauses in the Bill. On the one hand the registration of trade unions on a parallel race basis is now being removed and far stronger emphasis is being placed on the concept of full trade union autonomy. In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister made it clear that he had received very strong representations in this regard and he dealt with it in some detail. Let it be said immediately, Mr. Speaker, that freedom of association has been and remains a cardinal principle in the trade union movement, not only in this country but throughout the world. I want, however, to sound a warning to the hon. the Minister and his department and I do so because I honestly believe that this is a problem area. Where it becomes dangerous is that in the South African situation race can often be both a bedevilling and explosive ingredient.

Paragraph (c) of clause 5 offers protection to the rights of particular groups of workers where they are seeking to obtain the right to autonomy. That I can understand. However, in my judgment it is a very convoluted argument and can be a two-edged sword. In other words, it is possible to remove, as the hon. the Minister has done—and with regard to which we have already congratulated him—all reference to race in our industrial relations legislation but to bring it in by the back door by this emphasis on trade union autonomy. Let me try to explain what I mean by this.

One of the most serious and harmful aspects of labour relations at present in South Africa is the aggravation of polarization between Black workers on the one hand and White workers on the other, very often within the same enterprise. I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister: Do we wish to encourage workers to be seen as workers and thereby to have a strong and responsible labour movement, or do we wish to entrench the divisions of yesterday and to proliferate unions which are uni-racial? I think that one of the big dangers is that in our whole approach to this matter we have seen the growth of unions, some of which have come into being almost overnight and have then disappeared. Others have started in a small way and have grown and are now fairly strong, and then there are, of course, what we could call the historic unions that have been with us for a very long time. I think we must be extremely careful that in rightfully allowing trade union autonomy, we do not in fact encourage unionization with race as an interest factor. What we must avoid at all costs in South Africa today is joining battle between Black nationalism on the one hand and White nationalism on the other with the workplace as the battlefield and the employer as an unfortunate and helpless onlooker. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to think about this.

This matter has been discussed with these trade unions and they prefer trade union autonomy.

The hon. the Minister has just pointed out that this has been discussed with the labour unions and that they prefer autonomy. I said right at the beginning that autonomy is a cardinal principle in the trade union movement throughout the world. Where I think we have a problem, is in this respect: If one takes for example a single enterprise, a factory or an area, it is obviously desirable that the employer or the employing organization should have to deal with as few unions as possible. What we have seen in recent years and in recent months, is that an employer is faced with two unions in one plant or in one factory, one of which is White and one of which is Black. One then has the bidding and the out-bidding situation where the one union makes certain requests and negotiates, and the employer gives and takes. Immediately the other union’s workers in the same enterprise are aware of this and forthwith they tot up their requirements and demands with which they approach the employer. The result is that the employer is in a very desperate situation.

You know of course that in the steel industry they deal with not only two, but with a number of unions.

I know all that. The point I am putting to the hon. the Minister is that we should try to reduce the number of unions wherever possible without having an official control. Of course workers must be allowed to organize as they wish within certain bounds, and I am saying too that cognizance should be taken of the need for the protection of certain groups of workers. I have no quarrel when it comes to the occupation, but when it is done on a group or race basis, then I think what we are in danger of doing is entrenching a situation which is highly undesirable and in fact even incendiary. That is the whole argument I am advancing.

I shall deal with that aspect.

If there was—I know the scorn with which this is often greeted—on our Statute Book a Bill of Rights which protected the individual against discrimination on the basis of race, colour, creed or sex, then one could of course quite easily emphasize the principle of freedom of association and autonomy without running the kind of risk which I have mentioned here earlier. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to think about this very dangerous situation and to give us his reply at his own convenience.

I shall deal with that too.

Another matter which I believe to be crucial and which has also been referred to the National Manpower Commission for investigation is the functioning of the industrial court. There is no denying that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the industrial court as it operates and not with it as a concept or its principle.

Well, that is a new one now. Do you say there is dissatisfaction?

Of course there is dissatisfaction. The very reason why we have amending legislation is that the thing is not perfect. Furthermore, on the hon. the Minister’s own admission, it is now being referred again to the National Manpower Commission in conjunction with the industrial court to look at its function. The industrial court is a relatively new concept in South Africa and there is a great number of people who are very confused about its boundaries, functions and the time factor which is involved when an appeal is directed towards the industrial court. I think the very fact that the hon. the Minister is now making it possible in this legislation to appoint certain people to play this role all over the country suggests that he himself is aware that there is a problem. All I can say is—I hope the hon. the Minister is listening to me—that I hope that the Manpower Commission will treat this as a matter of urgency and that, if necessary, further amending legislation should be brought before this House in the next session of Parliament.

Thirdly, in clause 26 the functions of the works councils are outlined. Here again there is a footnote in the explanatory memorandum. Many of us in the House will be familiar with the introduction of liaison committees, which were nothing more than a substitute for basic bargaining rights for Blacks. According to our information there are approximately 2 750 of these committees in existence. They are now to be known as works councils. Over the last 10 years employers have been strongly encouraged to set up these liaison committees and to make them work, particularly in the field of communications and in the industries with which I have been concerned for some time, but it has occurred again and again that these liaison committees simply were not large enough vehicles to bear the capacity of the needs, hopes and aspirations which were brought to bear upon them. Therefore it is good that we have made the moves that we have made in recent years, with the hon. the Minister taking the lead. I can well understand that these strong representations should be made to maintain these councils in one form or another in our industrial relations system, particularly as I have consistently argued in the House for more and greater attention to be given to what we would call shop-floor mechanisms, because, let us admit it, most of the action is taking place at that particular level, and this is why we have this enormous struggle between, on the one hand, the industrial councils and on the other hand those who want to have in-house conciliation or agreements. I have also argued that works councils could only succeed if, firstly, they complement unions rather than be in competition to them, and that is always an inherent danger. I have further argued that they require certain facilities and powers to become meaningful and should be available for all workers. The hon. the Minister is more than familiar with the so-called two-tier system which operates in West Germany, which I think many of us know at first hand and which is regarded as perhaps one of the best systems in industrial relations in the world. But that does not mean that one can simply take it like that and impose it anywhere else. Yet I think one can learn from it, and I would hope that that is the direction in which we will be moving. I want to stress that one of the complaints that I receive from many White workers, strangely enough, is that, while they had direct access to the trade union movement, something which Blacks did not have as they were limited to unregistered unions with very limited powers and no access to industrial councils and so on, as these liaison committees developed and the Black workers sat with the managing director and discussed problems, the White workers asked: “How is it possible? Why should they have direct access to the people right at the top whereas we do not have that?”

Now of course the situation has been very different, but it has certainly strengthened my own conviction that if South Africa is to continue the process, so that labour peace can be maintained in this country, attention must certainly be given to the trade union movement, together with employers and employers’ bodies, but also there must be a great deal of attention given to some mechanism that could operate in a fashion complementary to the trade union movement at local level. I am therefore glad that this matter has also been referred to the National Manpower Commission, and I hope the commission will give it some teeth, because as it stands at the moment I want to suggest, with respect, that it is toothless.

There are a number of what I would call fairly disturbing features. One of these is those provisions of the legislation affecting unregistered trade unions. We have no quarrel whatsoever with the provisions laid down to make it compulsory for unregistered trade unions as well as registered trade unions to submit details of both their organizational and financial set-up. We have no problems with that at all. We think that is perfectly reasonable. I believe, however, that we have erred in stressing too much the controls, with not enough emphasis placed on the benefits. I refer, in particular, to clause 54 which amends section 78 of the principal Act. I quote the proposed new section 78(1C)(a)—

There are a number of basic principles that one looks at in approaching labour legislation, and I think that this particular clause contradicts two of those principles. Firstly, it contradicts the promotion of self-government in industry and, secondly, the promotion of the free enterprise economy philosophy. Here we have a situation in which the employer may decide that a particular union is perhaps prepared to negotiate and that its members are wanting the employer to deduct membership fees upon receipt of a request signed by the employee concerned. It is not a question of the unregistered trade union making such a demand. It is a question of this being agreed to. If an employer actually sits down and works out that this is the best thing possible for his situation, why on earth must he then go to the hon. the Minister and tell him that he believes that in his situation this is what ought to happen and then have to get permission? If the hon. the Minister says “no” …

Seen the other way round, it is very easy. There is only one thing for an unregistered trade union to do, and that is to register.

Yes, I concede that. The hon. the Minister knows better than I do, however, that this is not a simple matter. One cannot explain away all the intricate problems, which are now coming to the fore and which any employer can tell one about, by simply saying that one should tell them to register. We are still left with the legacy of mistrust, a legacy of people having been excluded.

And external influences.

Well, all right. If the hon. the Minister is going to take that kind of attitude, it is going to be hard to have a reasonable and worthwhile debate on this particular Bill. Let us accept the fact that there is an emerging situation in South Africa. Surely the person who knows best what is good for his own labour peace on his own factory floor, is the employer himself. The best control that employer has over the representative character of the union is also in terms of the check-off facilities. He would never agree to that unless he believed that there was a large degree of representation. Once he has agreed to that, why should it then still be necessary for the hon. the Minister to make the decision? It only adds to the conflict and to the polarization. There is an uneasy peace in a number of flashpoints in South Africa, but at least it is peaceful. I believe that if we retain this particular clause, it will bring the whole matter to a head again. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, despite his interjections across the floor of the House, to think about this and to tell us in his reply why he believes this is necessary. If he can give us a satisfactory reply, we will accept it. If not, we will simply have to consider an amendment to this particular clause. I repeat that I believe this clause, as it stands at the moment, unless there is a satisfactory explanation, contradicts the promotion of self-government in industry. A State should facilitate and not control the promotion of a free-enterprise economy philosophy which allows the employer to make that decision on the basis of the facts he knows in his own situation. The employer is hard-pressed at the moment to negotiate satisfactorily with unions which are representative. If he decides that one trade union in particular deserves recognition, it is nothing more than an unwarranted and unfair intrusion for the State to interfere with what he believes is the best way to resolve a potential conflict situation. I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us why he believes this is necessary and also why he believes the consequential subsection (d) is necessary, which lays down that any employer who contravenes the subsection referred to shall be guilty of an offence. There is also the stipulation that—

I am not at all clear as to why it should not be possible, in theory or in principle, for the head office of a trade union or employers’ organization to be located for example in Lebowa, kwaZulu or any other self-governing territory.

Mozambique.

Thank you. That is very interesting. I am staggered that the hon. the Minister should compare kwaZulu with Mozambique.

It is outside South Africa.

Is kwaZulu outside South Africa?

Mozambique is outside South Africa. What distinction do you make between Lebowa and Mozambique in principle?

In principle? Mozambique is a sovereign, independent State. It has nothing to do with South Africa. But Lebowa, or any other self-governing State, is part of the Republic of South Africa. I am amazed that the hon. the Minister was not aware of that.

It is within South Africa.

Of course it is part of South Africa. Maybe the hon. the Minister is, with a great deal of wishful thinking, projecting into the future.

I want to know where you draw the line.

I think the hon. the Minister knows where I draw the line. He certainly knows where Chief Gatsha Buthelezi draws the line. He will be very interested to hear the comparison between Mozambique and kwaZulu, as being both outside South Africa.

I think we had better forget that.

I would have thought that it is very much part of South Africa and that that is the way he would like it to stay. So, indeed, would we. It has been quite illuminating listening to the hon. the Minister, but I would like to know why it is not possible, in theory or in principle, for a head office to be there. A great number of workers in these territories are involved and it may be good, especially with the hon. the Prime Minister’s emphasis on decentralization, for a head office to move there. Maybe, as I say, the hon. the Minister anticipates that these are also going to be independent States and that is why he is making allowances for it. I leave it to the hon. the Minister to reply to this.

There are only two or three other points on which we seek some clarification. Firstly, there is clause 10. The hon. the Minister interjected earlier and wanted to know what I thought about that. This clause debars direct political involvement by an employers’ union or a trade union. I can well appreciate this and I should imagine that those who drafted this particular legislation had the HNP in mind. However, it goes far beyond financial assistance and makes it impossible for any union or employers’ organization to—

Interpreting this very strictly, I can see that there is wisdom in this measure, but this is a very broad category indeed and it is almost impossible to make a fair and consistent interpretation in such wide terms. Surely, organizations and unions have a legitimate interest in certain broad political issues. What happens, for example, if a particular party, irrespective of which one, holds a very strong view on GST on basic foodstuffs? If a union should come out in support of that, is it supporting, encouraging or influencing a particular political party? In addition, the exclusion of Blacks from meaningful political activity will, of course, inevitably politicize Black unions. It is not something which one can control: it is there already. Any employer or personnel director will tell one that time and time again, when it comes to drawing up the agenda, the issues placed before them are issues which are beyond the immediate responsibility of a normal employer.

Clause 48 deals with the prohibition of strike action. Paragraph (d) provides for the insertion in the principle Act of the following measure—

Must we take this to mean that in the event of an illegal strike—let us face it, the strikes we have experienced over the last months and years have all been illegal—it will be impossible for the organization, trade union or any member involved to assist by providing, for example, basic rations for the duration of the strike? Let me use the meat workers’ strike as an example. Whilst attempts were being made from many quarters to resolve that, a lot of people went unpaid and their wives and children were directly affected by this. As a result, money was raised to pay for food. In one sense, the effect of this measure will be that that will no longer be possible but will indeed be an offence. I cannot believe that the hon. the Minister would go along with that.

Why not?

Well, what would happen then? Is this a first step? Does this mean that sooner or later the assistance given to those who are breaking the law—so we have been told—at Langa and Nyanga, assistance in the form of taking them a pot of soup, washing a baby, or taking them some clothes, is actually going to be an offence?

You are talking nonsense.

Well, it is exactly the same thing. The hon. member for Tygervallei does not know anything at all about labour and very little about Langa, so he must not interrupt me. I am asking the hon. the Minister whether that is a correct interpretation of this provision. Will he please elaborate and give us a reply on that. We believe this to be unnecessary and cruel.

The hon. the Minister has referred already to the repeal of certain laws, as enumerated in clause 63 of the Bill. I am sure he has seen this long letter in connection with the South African Electrical Workers’ Association. I am sure all hon. members have received this letter from B. Nicholson, the General Secretary of the S.A. Electrical Workers’ Association in connection with the repeal of a specific Act. They are extremely disturbed by this. Briefly, almost in passing, the hon. the Minister mentioned that he was going to take cognizance of this and that he was going to introduce the same sort of safety measures in other ways. I wonder if he could just elaborate on that when he replies to the debate.

This Bill is important and covers a very wide field. It is encouraging, although it has certain disturbing features to which we will return during the course of this debate, in particular during the committee stage. I want to make a final appeal to the State and to employers.

To the State I want to point out that we are not going to resolve our labour conflict by bannings or detentions. I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister to use any influence he might have to ensure that these methods are not used in order to gag leaders of labour movements. I do not believe that is the answer. It is not going to help in the long term. It only politicizes. It only antagonizes.

Then I should also like to appeal to employers as well. The very fact that new machinery is being introduced and that new reforms are being effected in the labour field places a very heavy responsibility on them. I think for the moment of a circular sent out by a certain very large organization in South Africa. In that circular they gave advice to managers on how to deal with the conflict situation. The first five pages of that circular consisted—without any exaggeration—of a call to battle stations, setting out where people should be placed, how stretcher bearers should perform their duties, how the Police should be summoned, how security should be maintained, and all the rest of it. When there is the risk of life and limb and property one can understand this concern. Then it is well to be prepared. I would have thought, however, that, employers above all, should try to orientate their own work-force, their own personnel, their own industrial relations people—and they are very thin on the ground—to do their utmost to resolve any conflict and to resolve it between employer and employee instead of always taking the easy way out by picking up the telephone and summoning the Police. It is not fair on the Police. It really places them in an extremely difficult situation and it certainly does not resolve conflict in the long term. I should urge that employers take heed of that.

Finally, I should also encourage all workers in trade unions, registered and otherwise, in this extraordinarily difficult times, in this very volatile times, to use every available bit of machinery, every available negotiation method, to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict which is so often inherent in our labour field today.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that the name of the constituency of Roodeplaat has been mentioned here in the House. Therefore, this is actually an historical moment.

For the past 40 minutes or thereabouts, the hon. member for Pinelands delivered a speech that is so moderate that it is actually difficult for me to reply to it. I want to thank the hon. member and his party for their support of the second reading of this Bill. I trust that we will deal with the committee stage too in such a peaceful manner.

The hon. member for Pinelands basically referred to four problems that he and his party are experiencing with this legislation. The first one is the stop-orders that must be approved by the hon. the Minister. Furthermore, they have problems with the question of the head-office of trade unions abroad. The third problem is in connection with the assistance that can be granted to political parties as well as—and this is their fourth problem—the question of assistance to strikers. I should just like to go into three of those problems at the very outset. Later on in my speech I shall try to come back to the question of the stop-orders that must be approved by the Minister.

As far as the question of the head-office abroad is concerned, I just hope that I have followed the hon. member’s argument correctly. The hon. member wants to know why there cannot be such a head-office in Lesotho, for instance. Is that correct?

No, in Lebowa.

Oh, in Lebowa? Very well. I do not really have any problems regarding the hon. member’s attitude when it comes to a non-independent State. I think this is something to which we can give our consideration, because it does not detract from what is stated in the Act. The important thing here is to be able to reach and identify the head-office. One prefers to keep it within the country because it is so much easier.

As far as the other one is concerned, viz. the aid to political parties, I want to point out that this is not a new thing. In the past the position was that political parties could not be financed. But, after all, we know that financing is not just “hard cash”. All we are saying now, is that you may not use your typist, your car at your head-office, your petrol account or your telephone, because these are the very complaints that the Department of Manpower is receiving, viz. that the membership fees are not being put to the proper use. This is the problem. For instance, you have a trade union with 1 000 members with an HNP supporter or Prog as secretary. However, the members do not want the office, car or telephone to be used for political purposes or for an election, but for their own benefit. That is why I think it is only logical that we should not look at the way in which the management and the general secretary utilize these assets, but rather at what is in the interest of the 1 000 members. For this reason, I do not think that there is anything that can be said against this.

As far as strikes are concerned, I think the hon. member for Pinelands is quite correct, from a humanitarian point of view. If people, particularly women and children, are suffering, are hungry and cold because a few hot-heads are striking, I think it would only be an official who has taken leave of his senses who would take action against anyone offering assistance for these reasons. It is quite natural. However, this is not what happens, nor is it what this provision is aiming at. This provision is aimed at those people and organizations—after all, the hon. member knows that there are such organizations—that incite strikes and want to see people striking. They even go so far as to advise people to strike, for instance the World Council of Churches, which makes contributions and offers assistance. It is an attempt to grant stability to our trade unions and employers’ organizations so that they will act in a responsible manner. After all, if strikes took place in a responsible way, no action would have to be taken. Once again, I grant the hon. member that. Since the word “strike” has become a magic word for many of our people—the people now have the right to form trade unions—all sorts of promises are made to people and they have all types of disciples who try to enlighten them, and then an illegal strike takes place. This is true, and it is not always the fault of the employee. What we are attempting to do here is to build the basic responsibility into our trade unions and to prevent those people who are outside South Africa with their tentacles penetrating into the country, from inciting unrest amongst our workers.

Since 1948 South Africa has had a good name for very successful, sensitive labour legislation. When we were a young country, we followed the example of other industrialized countries. We took our example from England, Europe and America. However, something strange has happened in the meantime. Whereas to begin with, we copied labour legislation from the old, established countries, the tables now have been turned and we find that over the past few decades, other countries have begun to follow South Africa’s example. If we look at the Wage Act, the Industrial Conciliation Act, Unemployment Insurance Act and our Workman’s Compensation Act, and one compares them to similar laws in other countries, one is sometimes shocked at what I could almost go so far as to call the backwardness that exists in this sphere in other countries. Then one realizes why a jealous eye is sometimes cast at the laws of South Africa. I want to mention one example only. The hon. member for Pinelands will be aware of it. Do you know, Sir, that in Canada there are seven pieces of legislation that form the equivalent of our industrial conciliation legislation and then in addition to that, they also have a federal Industrial Conciliation Act? One day I asked a professor in Ottawa: How do you implement it? He replied: “Don’t ask me; I simply teach it; it is chaos.” Chaos at this level is the last thing that one can allow, particularly in a country with the complex workers corps that we have in South Africa. In parenthesis, I just want to put the following to the hon. member for Pinelands, for his consideration: When one has a federation, this is the type of mess with which one is faced! [Interjections.]

One would be entitled to ask: Why is the South African labour and industrial legislation referred to with respect? I think there is a basic reason for this, and it is that we have never allowed it to stagnate; we have never allowed it to become archaic. Then, in this regard, one should probably also give credit to a Government that ensures that such things do not happen. I want to say that when legislation is piloted through this House, that legislation must not be legislation that we have been forced to place on the Statute Book due to the prevailing circumstances. Of course, we must also ensure that the legislation makes provision for the future, for future development.

There is no better example in this regard than this legislation that we want to amend today. This legislation has been on the Statute Book since 1956 and this proves to us that this legislation was in fact drawn up with great foresight and insight. We know—the hon. member for Pinelands referred to this too—that the National Manpower Commission is still going to give attention to a few matters, such as the registration of trade unions, of industrialists and of employers’ organizations, the functions of the industrial court and the jurisdiction of the works councils. In spite of this, however, since it is a living organism and we will have to work on it from time to time, I believe that this legislation that is before us today is going to regulate industrial relations in South Africa for a long time to come.

We all know the old saying: “The old order changeth”. After all, you know, Sir, that some of our verkrampte people find it difficult to accept these amendments. I think the hon. member for Pinelands has the same problem. We are talking about Manpower Utilization, but we still think of the Department of Labour. I see we are already talking about Labour relations. I must also admit that I am very sorry about the fact that the term “industrial conciliation” that has been with us for many years, has now disappeared. However, we realize that we cannot stand still along the road of development and progress and we will at least have to learn to accept these names just as we learned to accept the rands and cents.

I do not think there is a single member in this House who has not, when he looked at strikes abroad or when he heard the words “trade union”, wished that the legislator in South Africa would at least be wise enough to stop all types of organization amongst workers. I think many of our people become afraid when they see how an entire country can become paralyzed, how a country’s entire transport system can be paralysed by strikes. However, this is part of democracy and if one believes in democracy, then one must believe that it is the right of the workers to organize themselves and to use that organization to negotiate on their behalf. We must take the good together with the not so good in democracy. Trade unions are here to stay; they are older than we are. I personally support trade unions, but at the same time I support responsible, orderly trade unions under responsible leaders and responsible management. I believe a government should intervene in trade union affairs as little as possible. The Government must set up the machinery for the creation of the trade union. To a certain extent, the Government must act as a regulator. However, the Government also has a responsibility to guard at all times over the interests of the individual employee as well as groups of employees.

Therefore, there is the provision that a body that purports to be a trade union or that acts as a trade union with regard to the service relationship between employer and employee, is going to be considered as a trade union and treated as such. If we are not going to do this, we will have chaos on the factory floor because every group is already in the process of organizing itself. I shall quote an example—the hon. member is aware of it—by mentioning what is happening at Sigma now. A strike of 4 000 workers is on the cards. There is a trade union, but it is not representative. However, the employers said that everything was in order, because if they were 40% representative, they would negotiate with that trade union. This is what happened. However, the next day a so-called “group of 22” arose, that is also negotiating on behalf of a group. The day after that there was another organization that I think call themselves the Coloured People’s Alliance. They also want to negotiate with the management. Who must the management speak to, because on whose behalf are these organizations speaking? This is the type of thing that we must get under control, because if we do not do so, it is going to be too late in this country. Each one wants to prescribe conditions of service, each one wants to determine what wages must be and each one also wants stop order facilities.

In a moment I shall come to the hon. member’s argument, but first of all I want to quote this example. In my area there is an industrialist with a large work force and when someone arrived there and asked whether he could speak to the workers, the industrialist gave him permission to do so. A trade union was then initiated which is in fact simply a loose organization. In due course 200 Black workers were registered and each one paid R2 per week in membership fees. However, the management was never approached. Remember, these 200 Blacks paid R1 600 per month. Two months later the man disappeared with a total of R3 200 from these poor people. This is one of the reasons why we provided that we want to look over the constitution of such a trade union and also want to know where the head office of the organization is situated so that we can reach the officials of the trade union. We want to know who they are. What happened then to those Black workers? They charged at the management and began to throw stones. Complaints were also brought to the attention of the department.

What the Minister is saying now, boils down to the following: Before you deduct money from the wages of the workers for the account of an unregistered trade union, I want to be aware of it and grant it my approval. This gives the Minister the opportunity to see on whose behalf the money is being deducted and who is going to use that money. He also wants to know what the terms of reference of the officers are.

The employers must do this themselves.

Clive Wolfe and Trebla could not have known that that man was going to escape with R3 200. Nor did they know where he was going to escape to. The Minister can in fact be aware of this.

But how is the Minister going to know?

The Minister is going to become aware of it very easily, because before he grants his approval to it, he asks for the constitution of the organization to be submitted to him. He also wants to know where the head office of the organization is. The address of the organization and the names of the people who are in control there, must also be submitted to the Minister.

It is already allowed for.

It may be so that the Act already makes provision for that, but the Act does not make provision for the Minister knowing about each one. The Minister is only going to discover that if anyone reports to him that an organization that is not organized, is in operation. However, the Minister now says that he wants to know this in advance and he wants to grant his approval.

Do you not trust your employers then?

Of course I trust the employers. After all, the hon. member knows what the position is; does he not serve on an employers organization himself? After all, he knows that there are many smaller and larger employers organizations that do not all have personnel officers or people who all know the Act.

I believe that we must take a look at these deductions in practice. What does one find now? One finds that a trade union is registered with a certain employer. He asks a membership fee of R4 per month. Now one of the loose fellows comes along and forms a trade union after he has grouped 20 workers together. He tells them that they have to pay him only R2 in membership fees, because that other trade union is misleading the people; they do not need R4 per month at all. In this way, he is poaching the members of that association. However, he has no intention of ever providing services to those people. At a later stage he disappears from the scene. In the meanwhile, the registered trade union has lost some of its workers because they have been enticed away. Now he complains to the employer. He says: “You must help me to keep my members.”

This is one of the principal reasons why I believe that not only is this good legislation, but that it is being introduced at the right time too. At the moment we are experiencing more problems with the loose organizations that are not under our control, who want to have all the rights, but do not want to accept the responsibilities, and that is why this legislation is essential.

Many of our people do not yet have a sophisticated approach to labour, but now they are starting to share in the workings of the Industrial Conciliation Act and are involved in workers organizations, trade unions, works councils and works committees. I believe that organizations like the Confederation of Labour and Tucsa who have the knowledge and the trained staff at their disposal, should also reach out a hand to these younger trade unions and offer to help them with their skill, without intervening politically or prescribing to them, because the younger trade unions are making many mistakes. I believe that these people can be helped without interference in their domestic affairs. I think that this is very good legislation and that we shall have to look at it again in future since development is continually taking place. I am pleased to support it.

Mr. Speaker, the personality of the hon. member for Roodeplaat has also undergone a considerable change since the name of his seat was changed. He is a very moderate today and we do not even get a “hear, hear” out of him, but I think the problem he is faced with today is agreeing with the hon. member for Pinelands, for to him this is a whole new approach to politics. We in this party find ourselves in the same situation in that we shall in fact support the principles proposed in this legislation at the Second Reading.

†But the interesting feature regarding this legislation is that here we have a synthesis of a nation in transition. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the input factors, it is true to say that the labour field is at the moment a microcosm and to a large extent also a reflection of the political, industrial and economic tensions in South Africa. It is interesting that in a debate such as this on the one field that has the greatest potential for conflict in South Africa, we all agree in principle and on the direction in which we are moving.

I believe that in the amending Bill before the House today there are considerable improvements as regards the implementation of the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission, the Riekert Commission and the Manpower Commission in terms of the direction in which labour legislation and in particular industrial relations legislation should move. It is in fact one of a trilogy of measures that will be introduced in the House. When one looks at the present situation of industrial relations in South Africa and the political milieu in which they operate, I believe it should be appreciated by every hon. member in this House that trade unionism in South Africa is a movement of power. Because it is seen as a movement of power, it is potentially most explosive and, inherent within that structure and development, is a potential for catastrophe which will spill over into all aspects of life in South Africa. Looking at the recommendations we believe that very few people in South Africa who are prepared to act responsibly in the industrial relations field would disagree with these measures. We should also bear in mind that it is not only what is stated in this amending Bill that is important but also what is not stated which has within it the potential for peace or power conflict in South Africa. I shall be illustrating those particular points in a moment.

The one particularly interesting point raised by the hon. member for Pinelands was the question of whether we are going to allow a devolution of power through the trade union movement so that there can be shop-floor negotiations. I think the hon. member for Pinelands will appreciate that this again is an indication of the conflict of trade unionism in transition when it comes to formulating the particular direction it must take. We in this party believe that the process of shop-floor negotiation can only take place at a later stage in the maturation of industrial relations in South Africa because this is, of course, the escape hatch, the modus operandi which the unaccepted trade union would like to use, and I say “unaccepted trade union” in terms of its drive to obtain increased membership. If it cannot compete with the vested, consolidated trade union interests and finds itself outside, the industrial council negotiating situation, it must try an alternative field of operation in which to wage its war. It has been the experience of many people involved in industrial relations—and I include my own experience in this—that pressures for changes to the Industrial Conciliation Act and, in particular, the modus operandi of the mandatory aspect of the negotiating situation in the industrial council, derive from the fact that certain interest groups in the trade union movement—new interest groups in particular—find that they are unable to penetrate the vested trade union movement in South Africa and so gain acceptance among members. They therefore put on the pressure for what I would call “unorthodox approaches” to the negotiating situation. I and my party consequently believe that at this stage the devolution of power in the trade union movement to shop-floor negotiation would not be in the best interests of the workers, the trade union movement or organized industry in South Africa. I say this because the very process of the fragmentation of the collective bargaining instruments in this country has within it the seeds for destroying the good act of faith between employer and employee which is so necessary in South Africa today. If one wants to be brutally frank, one has to admit that one is looking at an industrial relations scene in which it is the disciplined versus the undisciplined situation that has to be contained. One admits to the magnificence of our Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956. The hon. member for Roodeplaat, who has quickly gone to wet his whistle, I think, mentioned the fact that the Industrial Conciliation Act of South Africa is and has been a model of industrial relations legislation throughout the Western world.

Good old United Party.

It really has been recognized by authorities throughout the Western world as a model of reconciliation legislation. But it has had one major defect and the hon. the Minister and his department and every other hon. member in this House have recognized this. I am referring to the fact that it only caters for the needs, aspirations and mechanisms of the White worker. It is now common cause that since the Wiehahn Commission, the Riekert Com mission and the Manpower Commission issued their reports, the worker has come to be seen as someone who must be treated with the necessary dignity and given the rights accruing to him as a worker, irrespective of race, creed or colour. That has been the most significant improvement in our Industrial Conciliation Act since it was formulated many years ago.

If one looks at the clauses in this Bill one sees what difficulties not only the hon. the Minister and his department but also industrialists have to face in the event of a sudden change in the power structure within the ranks of the workers. It is well known that when workers are denied normal political rights—as the hon. member for Pinelands indicated—they will resort to those legitimate bases which are given to them not only to grasp the minds of men but, what is more, also to get hold of their money, to get their hands in their pockets. They can provide a wonderful base to operate from in an attempt to influence events in a country such as South Africa. I do not think it is being malicious if the hon. member for Pinelands and I say that it is political power as well that the leaders of the work force are after. I am not referring to the ordinary member. The ordinary member, the working man, is interested in the welfare of his family and in doing a good job for his employer and in providing housing and education for his children. That is what the legitimate worker’s interests are. But if the leaders of the oligarchy want to lay their hands on the money and the minds of the workers in order to utilize them for what I would call non-altruistic motives and if there are no other bodies through which they can express their frustrations and their political potential, some of which will be in the positive interest of South Africa, they are going to go to the negotiating table to put their views.

I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for producing these White Papers in time for us to be able to study them before this debate and for the detail in which they deal with this legislation. When we study this White Paper we can see that the problems with which the hon. the Minister is still confronted are exactly the problems with which industry is confronted, i.e. the vexed question—and this is really the crux of the matter as far as the debatable points are concerned for we agree on most of this—of what is going to happen to the unregistered trade unions. This is an extremely difficult problem. I do not think we are going to solve the problem of the wildcat strike where one union vies with the other on the shop-floor to see who has the most muscle. There are going to be wildcat strikes. I do not think the process of the registration of the name and address of the head office or the office-bearers or the membership lists or the auditing of their books is going to solve the problem for industry. But then I do not think we can expect that a labour relations Bill such as this is in fact intended to provide all the answers to all the problems which the industrialist and the hon. the Minister’s department are going to have to face in the near future. However, I do think it is a considerable improvement in terms of this Bill that the hon. the Minister and his department have changed stride in terms of their attitude to unregistered unions. We were heading in the direction of open confrontation which could have escalated if the hon. the Minister and his department had persisted in saying that it was totally illegal to be an unregistered union and that they would harass such a union. That is a significant change in terms of this Bill that we detect in the hon. the Minister’s attitude towards the unregistered union. What the hon. the Minister and his department are saying is that they will be prepared to accommodate unregistered unions in South Africa. I believe that has de-escalated the potential for instability in industry and hence, of course, the potential instability in the whole social and political sphere in South Africa. What is interesting, is that the hon. the Minister has said: “Right, you may now operate in South Africa as an unregistered union but the minimum requirement which will be applicable to all trade unions is that you provide us with certain information.” Whether they will all do this is another question.

I agree that one will have unregistered trade unions in the operational field because this is part of the maturation process where the unions themselves will sort each other out; I hope not too much at the expense of the industrialist. But one will find unions surviving through the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest. Those who cannot deliver the goods for the workers are the ones who will be dropped by the wayside by the workers themselves. They will not get the support of the workers because the majority of workers—99% of all workers in South Africa of all colours but particularly Black workers—are responsible people and they will not be taken in for too long by those who have malicious intent in the trade union field.

But now the problem arises for the industrialist. He may be part of an industrial council set-up; he may be party to agreements there which are binding through the mandatory aspects of the industrial agreement. He will then have to abide by the agreement for whatever period of time it is in force. Then one may have the unregistered union attempting to penetrate his work force and attempting to negotiate on behalf of certain sectors of that work force. Thus one will immediately have a clash of interests which will leave the industrialist in a very invidious position. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister can see an immediate solution to this cross-cutting of vested interests by unregistered trade unions unless it is intended by the hon. the Minister that employers as well as employees and organized labour will have access to the industrial court in order to contest an unfair labour practice. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether an employer who is constantly harassed by unregistered trade unions will be able to take action against those unregistered trade unions or their organizers in the industrial court.

Yes, of course.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether in indicating the extended powers of the industrial court in terms of the appointment of officials he envisages that it will be possible for effective action to be taken there to protect the employer against wildcat strikes by the unregistered unions. I believe this is the cardinal problem we face today. One may have the total co-operation of industry and organized labour which are party to the industrial council system at the moment but our greatest problems are in fact going to stem from the unregistered unions.

We will not belabour the point too much here because I believe we are all in agreement that this is very fine legislation and will certainly do much towards the positive promotion of better industrial relations in South Africa. I would, however, in conclusion like to say that I and my party believe that the hon. the Minister and his department have contributed significantly towards the removal of statutory discrimination in South Africa. I believe that it is interesting that the labour field should be the spearhead of that initiative in South Africa. My party certainly welcomes it. It is true, of course, that we will not be able to get rid of customary or vested-interests discrimination in South Africa overnight and that we are still going to have to cross many difficult bridges in the near future and in the medium term. This is, however, demonstrably an act of good faith between the State, private enterprise and organized labour. When this kind of legislation is introduced in the House, the support of the NRP can always be relied upon because such legislation will assist in bringing about that new Republic which we are all positively working for in the interests of every citizen in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Durban North. I am also grateful for the support which he and his party have pledged for the Bill.

I should like to return to certain aspects of the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands. He referred inter alia to the autonomy of trade unions. He was worried that the autonomy of trade unions could in fact lead to there being, in specific circumstances, a White trade union, a Black trade union, etc. He wants membership to be restricted to a specific class of workers, people doing a certain type of work. Here the hon. member has touched on a very important matter of principle which also indicates a difference in principle between this side and that side of the House. The hon. member adopted the standpoint that when the White group for example prefers to remain a White trade union in terms of the policy of the autonomy of trade unions, this is wrong in principle. The hon. member argued that this would inevitably lead to the polarization of Whites and Blacks, and all the tensions inherent in this. Here we have an important difference in philosophy between this side of the House and the opposite side. We on this side of the House believe that the group rights as such of separate groups—if this is the wish of the group—should be protected. It should at least be possible under such circumstances. What the hon. member for Pinelands was in actual fact advocating here today was a system of enforced integration of all trade unions.

That is exactly what I did not do. You did not follow my argument at all.

The hon. member says that is what he did not do. That is however the effect of the objection which the hon. member raised in his argument here today. If we accept the principle of autonomy of trade unions I believe we must also accept that in South Africa there can be exclusively White or exclusively Black trade unions, depending on the circumstances of course. However, I should like to add something to this. I believe that in principle it would be very wrong if we were to argue in this House, irrespective of the nature of the circumstances, that when one has Whites together and Blacks together, but they are separate from one another, it will inevitably lead to conflict and confrontation, and that we can only avoid conflict and confrontation by integrating. This involves a very important difference which I should like to point out clearly.

Another point which the hon. member raised here and about which he apparently feels strongly is the degree of additional control over unregistered trade unions. The question of unregistered trade unions is of course a very sensitive matter. It amounts to a trade union trying, by not registering itself, to place itself to a great extent beyond the discipline of the Act, and especially the labour legislation. In this regard I wish to argue that the State in all respects has the function of creating order. It is the duty of the State to create order out of chaos. The State also however has the duty to take steps to maintain order in circumstances in which possible confusion could arise, which could then lead to chaos, and for this reason the question of the steps to create order taken by the State is not in principle something to which one can accept or choose his affiliation or lack thereof, or even refuse to accept. The State’s functions to create order must be generally applicable. The State must however not create order unnecessary or take unnecessary steps in fields where this is not necessary. However, under these conditions —and without going into details now concerning the measures; they have been thoroughly debated here thus far—I should like to point out the principle that the duty of the State in this connection is carried out by means of the provisions contained in the present legislation. The result of this is that the responsibilities of unregistered trade unions are virtually the same as those of registered trade unions.

We must remember that in South Africa there are people who confuse freedom and licence, there are trade unions and people who sometimes argue that trade unions must be free from the provisions of the Act. However, they are not seeking free association and free trade unions, but are seeking people who do obey any laws or rules, and who in fact wish to lead an unrestrained existence. In this regard I wish to make the important assertion that neither in the legislation under discussion nor in a single other piece of legislation, rule or regulation does there exist a single provision which in any way obstructs any trade union, whether registered or unregistered, in the carrying out of its duty as an organization or body which must negotiate with the employer on the real and primary interests of its members. It is important to note that there is in fact no existing or proposed rule, statutory provision or regulation which in any way hinders a registered or unregistered trade union in the achievement of its actual objectives, namely to bring about a sound understanding between employer and employee and to negotiate proper benefits and other rights for its members. The hon. member for Pinelands gave the impression that he feels a little disgruntled at the fact that trade unions cannot participate in politics. The word “vakbonde” of course does not exist in the Act, although that is the name commonly used. “Vakverenigings” is the correct word.

I do not have a problem with the HNP: That is your problem.

In the Act as it reads at present it is stated that a trade union cannot participate in the affairs of a political party. But a political party is defined as any body which calls for the influencing of public opinion to support or oppose such a group or body. In other words, this does not merely involve supporting a political party or supporting a specific candidate. The prohibition in respect of participation in politics is wider than that. In this connection it is interesting to see how the present standpoint of the hon. member compares with the standpoint he adopted last week in the censure debate. On that occasion the hon. member said (Hansard, 4 August)—

Here the hon. member says the Government must stop effecting ad hoc improvements and reforms, for example in the labour field. The Government must stop effecting that kind of improvement. He is apparently asking for one major constitutional change which will then incorporate all these things. He says, and this is in fact his standpoint, that trade unions should be allowed to participate in politics if they wish.

That is nonsense.

The hon. member is shaking his head, yet he did proclaim the standpoint that trade unions must be allowed to take part in politics.

I did not say that.

He is not in favour of trade unions being prohibited from participating in politics.

No, he simply asked for a clarification of precisely what this involves.

There is a principle involved in the matter. This principle is whether a trade union may or may not participate in politics. What is involved here is what the actual aim of a trade union is, viz. to regulate relations between the employer and the employee, and for this reason I argue that when we wish to stipulate that a trade union can participate in politics, we are creating a sphere of activity for it outside that specific field. Throughout the world today we can see the destructive consequences it can have for industry and for every citizen in a country if a trade union is allowed to operate without restriction in any sphere it wishes and in fact becomes a pressure group outside the normal electoral and parliamentary processes of the country. For this reason I think it is very important that a trade union must be seen as a body which is essential to labour peace, which is essential for good relations between employer and employee and essential for the negotiation of the best conditions and rights of employees, an association therefore with a limited sphere of activity. For this reason we in this House must reach very clear unanimity. If we do not do so, we are creating a force outside the Parliament which could, under certain circumstances, endanger the security and the peace of this country. For this reason it is also important that we take the argument further, the philosophical argument which the hon. member for Pinelands raised today. We now come to the assistance being given to illegal strikers.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pine-lands again argued that virtually all the strikes which took place recently were illegal strikes. It was as though he wanted to tell this House: Accept the illegal strikers as a reality and accept them as a fact, just as you must accept the illegal residents of Crossroads and Nyanga. They are there. Forget that they are there illegally. Forget that they are illegal and accept the strikers as they are. In this connection we must point out that the Act makes provision for a strike. It is possible for an employee to strike and to strike legally. However, before he can strike legally he must comply with the requirements of the Act. There are certain paths of conciliation he must follow, if I can categorize this matter in general terms. There are certain paths of conciliation which a trade union and its members must follow before they can strike legally. The right to strike, Sir, is a right built into this legislation. One can strike legally according to the provisions of the Act. However, it now seems to me as if this is not good enough for some people in South Africa. It seems to me as if some people are not prepared to condemn illegal strikes. What do we get? The hon. member for Pinelands did not utter a single word of censure in regard to illegal strikes; there was no declaration of an inclination on his part to indicate to us that that side of this House wishes to make it clear that they are adopting a standpoint against any person who strikes illegally in South Africa; that they condemn illegal strikes and that the Government must take steps to prevent such strikes in South Africa. This is what we expect from the Opposition. We in this House must make it clear that the Government cannot allow illegal strikes to become a vogue in South Africa. For this reason we reproach them. A strong message must emanate from this House that illegal strikes are against the law and that the Government must take steps to put a stop to them.

The Government has produced a very important provision by means of this legislation. If anyone strikes illegally he is guilty of an offence in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act. What is the practical effect of this? When a man strikes illegally his ability to strike becomes a very important factor. His ability to strike and his ability to subsist and his ability to have an income and his ability to eat and his ability to care for his wife and children become very important factors in the termination of that strike. Now the question is—and it is a very important question which each one of us must ask—must this Government take steps to curtail a man’s ability to strike illegally? Or must the Government say: I am a great humanist. If a man strikes illegally I must sit with folded hands because I do not want anyone to get hurt while he is striking illegally. In principle I feel that in the interests of the country, the long-term interests of the country, the message to the country must clearly be that this Government will not tolerate illegal strikes. For this reason steps must be taken which are perhaps drastic steps. This is precisely what the hon. the Minister has done.

The hon. the Minister has submitted a Bill to this House in which a new subsection (3A) is being inserted in to section 65 of the principal Act by means of clause 48—

the offence being referred to here, is to strike illegally—

I should like to refer at once to the restrictive provision in the Bill. This is where the hon. member was absolutely wrong in his reading of the Bill.

Read a little further.

The Bill is limited to an employers’ organization and a trade union as defined in the Act and to a federation, also as defined in the Act. These three bodies are prohibited from granting financial assistance to an illegal strike. The hon. member then asked if this means that the woman who gives someone a lift or helps someone to ensure that her children are fed or the general public which also helps in such a case are also subject to the provisions of the Act. The answer is of course that this is not the intention of the Bill. It is not the intention of the Bill to hinder people who want to help. The intention of the Bill is to expose trade unions which assist strikers during illegal strikes, and to ensure that such assistance is not given. This is the correct approach.

I wish to suggest that the hon. the Minister give consideration to an important limitation in the section in that it refers only to financial assistance. I refer to this with regard to another section which involves assistance to political parties. Initially the section referred to financial assistance, but in practice this turned out to be inadequate. It was also found that more than financial assistance was being given. As a result we now have the proposed amendment in clause 10(c) which adds a new paragraph (d) which speaks of financial or other assistance. The assistance granted is therefore being far more widely defined.

The question arises therefore—I wish to point this out for consideration—whether the restriction being placed on trade unions regarding assistance to illegal strikers should refer only to financial assistance. I would like to recommend that a trade union be prohibited from giving any assistance to illegal strikers. I wish to suggest that the problems being experienced in regard to assistance granted to political parties and the problems which crystallize in the remedying, new paragraph (d) of section 8(3) will also arise in this connection. In practice it will simply not be effective enough.

I wish to conclude with this thought: Here we are dealing with a fair Bill and with an hon. Minister venturing into new territory in South Africa as regards labour relations. Here we are dealing with a parcel of acts which have been successfully applied in practice. Here we are also dealing with an hon. Minister who has ensured through his leadership, diligence and enterprise that the acts are being applied successfully in practice. However, we also have laws which are formulated in such a way that in themselves they are not a danger to the community as a whole. We are extremely grateful for this.

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I wish to address the hon. the Minister who is dealing with this legislation. I wish to state that this legislation is the first really significant indication that the Government is prepared to bring about reform in South Africa. I shall come back to this point again. At this early stage I wish to congratulate him wholeheartedly on behalf of the official Opposition on the courage and insight he has displayed in introducing this legislation. However he should not draw conclusions from this too soon, because I shall come back to him in connection with a few other points.

Just before the hon. member for Pretoria Central leaves us …

I have no intention whatsoever of leaving this House.

One should rather deal with a man while he is present. I should like to refer to a few points he advanced in reply to what the hon. member for Pinelands said here this afternoon. I shall begin with the last point, which concerned the assistance which may be granted by a trade union to members who may be taking part in an illegal strike. It is perhaps desirable for the Government to prohibit assistance of that nature by legislation, and this hon. member took the matter further by saying that assistance of any nature whatsoever to persons taking part in an illegal strike should be prohibited by legislation.

Assistance by trade unions.

Yes, assistance granted by trade unions. The question I want to put to that hon. member and to the Government is this: Do they want to solve the problems or do they want to cause further problems?

If they are illegal practices …

No, do not put it like that. If the standpoint of the Government or that of the hon. member for Pretoria Central is supported, that could result in action of that nature being regarded by the trade union and its members as provocative. Far from contributing to the solution of the problem, it may only aggravate the problem and could cause the trade union and its members simply to stiffen their resistance to the employer and the Government. This could cause greater frustration and as a result the problem could develop further. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that when a measure of this nature is being decided on, we should also take into account the psychological aspect of the matter. We must consider the effect this could have on the state of mind of the employees, the trade union and its members, because when people go on strike they do not do so without due consideration, although this can sometimes happen. Wilful and mischievous strikes do take place; we recognize this fact. In general, however, workers do not go on strike wilfully or without due consideration. In general, they strike because there is some matter which they wish to bring forcefully to the attention of the employer.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member: Is it not true that the PFP wants to create a force outside Parliament because they are frustrated, since they are unable to achieve anything through Parliament?

I do not think the hon. member really wants a reply to that question. It is such a ridiculous and stupid question that it does not really justify a reply.

Let me put it to the hon. the Minister like this: Our argument is that steps should not be taken here which will make the situation more difficult. A step of this nature, on the basis of which action is taken against them due to assistance given to members of a trade union when they are on strike, although such assistance is essential for them, can only contribute towards further tensions and problems.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central also referred to what we said in connection with financial contributions to political parties that trade unions were forbidden to grant. I do not believe he listened carefully. In any event, he misunderstood completely. We are not opposed to that provision, but merely asked what exactly was meant thereby and what the consequences could be. For example, we said that one would find that there would be political movements or parties that in certain respects, philosophically, perhaps, in terms of principles or policies, would always be associated with certain trade unions. It often happens that a trade union makes a statement, or that a political party states a standpoint, in regard to which the trade union and the political party support one another. We should like to have an undertaking from the hon. the Minister that there will be no interference at that level. We recognize that it would perhaps not be advisable if a trade union were to make a financial contribution to the funds of a political party. I wonder whether the members of the NP have forgotten their past in this regard? I wonder whether they no longer recall their history in this connection? If they were to cast their minds back to the strikes of 1922, they would see …

Those were Smuts’ people.

… that it is on record that the NP played an active part in the incitement that took place at that time which lead to tremendous confrontation and conflict. The NP has apparently forgotten what happened in 1948 when there was a definite alliance between the NP and certain trade unions which are today no longer so friendly towards the NP as they were then, to fight the Government of the day, and successfully too. It is due to that very fact that the NP is now so very much afraid of that trade union that it is trying to build certain provisions into this legislation. I do not hold it against the NP that it repudiates certain actions of the past, because that is not a bad thing, but I do really think that the NP should not be so quick to forget its past.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central said that a reference to the racist concept in the composition of trade unions illustrates a basic difference between the approach of the PFP and that of the NP, and there the hon. member is quite correct, in my opinion. We argue that when one establishes institutions of a political or industrial nature, or institutions of any nature whatsoever, and such institutions are created on a racial basis—for example, vertical differentiation …

That is not being done here.

It is indeed being done. After all, it is the policy of the NP and the NRP that political institutions should be created on a purely racist basis.

Go back to square one.

Go back to school, man.

When one applies it to trade unions, one runs the risk that when negotiations or discussions take place, or when conflict takes place, this is not something which takes place between the employer on the one hand and the employee on the other; it is based exclusively on race. In other words, it is conflict between Black and White. The result is that the cause which ought to be served, is lost. It is set aside completely, and in its stead one has conflict on a racial basis. This is then a very great danger for South Africa. Accordingly it is a fundamental principle of the PFP that all institutions should be established on a non-racist basis. However, the hon. member took the matter further. He said that this amounted to enforced integration. However this is definitely not the case. This is the accusation that we have to endure from the Government, day in and day out, concerning various aspects of our policy. In a country like South Africa with a plural or multiracial community, in which one seeks to eliminate conflict among the race groups and as far as possible tries to bring about co-operation and understanding among the race groups, and where it is imperative to create opportunities for those people to speak to one another and co-operate, it is dangerous to have institutions or organizations with a racial orientation. We say that it ought not to be possible for an organization or institution of this nature to exclude people from membership on grounds of race. We do not say that there should be legislation compelling people of different groups to apply for membership of such organizations, we only say that when people apply for membership, they should not be prohibited by way of the constitution of the organization or the law of the land from becoming members of such an organization.

Say, for example, there is a certain industrial activity in Pretoria Central. Say, for the sake of argument, that it is a factory and that there are 900 Black welders and 10 White welders in that factory. I think it would be quite wrong, for example, to give a trade union in that factory which chiefly represented the Black welders, the right to say: “We refuse to accept the White welders as members.” Surely that constitutes discrimination against the White welders at that factory. This is perhaps a simple example to mention, but I think the hon. the Minister will understand that we in this party have a fundamental principle, namely that we are not prepared to lend our support to any measure which involves any form of racism in this way.

I should like to reply briefly to what the hon. member for Roodeplaat had to say. He tried to be more reasonable and also more friendly than the hon. member for Pretoria Central. I should like to ask whether the hon. member for Roodeplaat was speaking on behalf of the Government when he said certain things here, because we must have clarity from the hon. the Minister concerning certain questions that were raised by the hon. member for Pinelands and replied to by the hon. member for Roodeplaat. The first question was as to where the head office of a trade union could be situated. This is a very important question, because the impression has been created here that as the Act reads at present, the head office of a trade union cannot be situated in a homeland which at this stage is not yet independent, but still forms an integral part of South Africa. This is provided by law, but the hon. member for Roodeplaat said that we could discuss the matter and created the impression that the hon. the Minister may be prepared to accept an amendment to the effect that the head office cannot be situated outside South Africa in another sovereign independent State but could be situated at any place within South Africa.

There is a problem in this connection, and that is that by way of a provision of this nature, the Government intimates that there are certain regions in South Africa which they do not regard as part of South Africa. If the Government does not regard certain regions as part of South Africa, then they do not regard the inhabitants of those regions as South Africans either. That is a question to which we want a reply from the Government at some stage. Hon. members will recall that last year the hon. the Prime Minister, speaking of Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, spoke about “his” country and “our” country. But at this stage it is still South Africa, and we are all South Africans. When the Government includes provisions of this nature in its legislation, it therefore does not realize that this gives offence to the inhabitants of those parts of South Africa, because the Government is thereby intimating that the inhabitants of those regions are not South Africans, that in some way they are citizens of an entirely different country, whereas the reality is that they form part of South Africa.

I now wish to turn to the question of aid to strikers by trade unions. The hon. member for Roodeplaat stated that the provisions in this connection would not be implemented very harshly. I think that the hon. the Minister should reply to that as well.

I now turn to the complained of aspect, namely the deduction of trade union dues by an employer on behalf of the trade union. In this connection the hon. member for Roodeplaat also created the impression that this was a measure which would not be harshly implemented and that the hon. the Minister would not use it as a method of compelling unregistered trade unions to register. Therefore this will not be a restriction on unregistered trade unions. I think it is essential that the hon. the Minister should avail himself of this opportunity to explain to us precisely what is intended and envisaged by this provision. Will the Minister virtually automatically grant unregistered trade unions the right to have its fees deducted by the employers, or does the Government envisage something else thereby? Should this perhaps be seen as a method whereby pressure could be applied to an unregistered trade union to register?

Let me come back to the hon. the Minister. While the hon. member for Pinelands was speaking, the hon. the Minister stated by way of an interjection that the hon. member should not drag politics into this. I hope that this is not an indication that the hon. the Minister considers that this matter does not have to do with politics. He ought to know better than anyone else in this House that in the recent past this very Bill, and the provisions contained therein, caused a polemic, a private quarrel, a conflict within the ranks of the NP. We are therefore dealing here with a political matter which caused a major problem in the ranks of the NP between the hon. the Minister and one of his colleagues.

You are wasting your time.

It is pointless denying it. The hon. the Minister of State Administration made a speech at Marble Hall in which he said that it was specifically in the labour sphere—on that occasion he clearly had this specific legislation in mind—that the identity of the Whites was most jeopardized. Those are not necessarily the words he used, but that is what he meant.

That is where you are making a mistake.

Due to the standpoint he stated there, the hon. the Minister refused to support a motion of full confidence in the Transvaal leadership of that hon. Minister.

No, man.

At that time the hon. the Minister of Manpower was so angry with the hon. the Minister of State Administration, the Transvaal leader, that he refused to support that motion of confidence in him until such time as he further explained his standpoint. This caused quite a to-do in the NP.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: What has all this to do with the Bill?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I think you will perceive, Sir, that we are dealing here with a political matter. The important point is that we must realize that in a community such as ours in this country, in which a major part of the population has so long been denied all political instruments, in which they have had no share whatsoever in the democratic process in South Africa, in which they have had no opportunity, by way of political participation, of making known or achieving their aspirations, and in which, due to the record of the Government, there is so much suspicion of anything emanating from the Government, in which so much resistance and frustration have been built up over the years, it is very important that it be put very forcefully to the Government that when it comes forward with legislation of this nature which is based on fundamental reform, it will not be seen or dealt with exclusively as a technical labour matter, but will certainly be used as a political instrument by those people who do not have political instruments at their disposal.

This legislation, of course, heralds a whole new era in South Africa. Tremendous benefits for all the workers of South Africa could result from it, for example socioeconomic advantages, employment opportunities, improved conditions of service, the opportunity to participate in negotiation for better conditions of service, and opportunities for improved training. However, there are also certain negative possibilities that could result from this legislation. This means that we must be aware of them and that where possible, steps must be taken to prevent this. I think the question could be asked as to what the future of registered trade unions is going to be under these circumstances, and what can be done not to compel, but to encourage unregistered trade unions to register. How are we to enhance and make known the benefits of registration, so that unregistered trade unions will wish to register, will wish to register voluntarily? I believe that attention must be given to this matter. Then, too, what is the future of the industrial councils? Will the legislation not perhaps have to be adjusted at some time in the future to ensure that the industrial councils can continue to play an essential role in the labour structure of South Africa?

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I know that. However, there is a problem in this regard too. The hon. the Minister will become aware of that problem shortly. It is that due to the facilities being created for the unregistered trade unions, there is the problem that the status of industrial councils may be affected to a certain extent. I merely point to this as a potential problem which could be experienced in the future. I should therefore recommend that we look at the matter at this early stage so that we can be prepared to take steps to solve those problems if they should occur.

However I wish to emphasize that this is a very good piece of legislation for South Africa and its workers, legislation entailing tremendous benefits. On the other hand, it is also true that major problems could crop up in the future as a result of this legislation. This of course certainly does not mean that for that reason one should not support this legislation. I believe everyone understands that. The Government, employers, employees, trade unions—the whole structure—will have to ensure that everything possible is done to ensure that this legislation is utilized positively and constructively in the interests of the workers of South Africa, and also in the interests of South Africa and its economy as a whole. The possibility will also have to be considered that certain groups and bodies may act irresponsibly with regard to the new powers and the new facilities that are being placed in their hands by this legislation.

I therefore wish to make an appeal from the benches of the official Opposition to everyone involved in this field—to the workers of South Africa, the trade unions, employers, the Government and all others involved—to join in doing everything in their power to make a success of the implementation of this legislation.

Horace, how is it that you are so sensible today? I really cannot believe that you can be so sensible.

We shall therefore do everything in our power to give the legislation under discussion an opportunity to be implemented effectively.

Hear, hear!

Where problems arise, we shall have to allow the mechanisms of the legislation to be utilized to eliminate those problems. It is not to be doubted that if the workers of South Africa utilize this legislation effectively and constructively, they can derive great benefit from it and in the future bring about major improvements in their working conditions in South Africa.

Then, too, I should also like to refer to one other aspect. A problem will of course also arise because the workers of South Africa have for so many years been denied the right and the opportunity to participate in labour negotiation, to be members of trade unions, to organize trade unions and practise negotiation of this nature. Therefore there is a lack of sufficient numbers of skilled worker and trade union leaders to administer organizations of this nature. Accordingly I wish to point out urgently that one of the most important aspects in this matter is to ensure right from the outset that people will be trained who will have an understanding of what is involved in these matters, people who will be trained in trade Unionism and in the utilization of the means that are now being put at their disposal in terms of the legislation under discussion. I know that matters often go wrong. One is full of hope for the future, and then all kinds of things go wrong. However, at this point I wish to express the confidence that if everyone co-operates positively and constructively to the best of their ability in terms of this legislation, there is an opportunity for South Africa to escape its past as far as all these problems are concerned and to bring about a whole new era of happiness, progress and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, towards the end of his speech, the hon. member for Bryanston made a stirring appeal here, but earlier on in his speech he interfered in the little dispute which arose between the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Pretoria Central, and I think that in the process he put his foot in it somewhat. What is the real issue here? Basically it concerns the principle of freedom of association. I take it that this is a premise which the official Opposition, each of them as an individual member subscribes to. Surely the concept of freedom of association is something they stand for, on which, indeed, they base their whole policy. The concept of freedom of association implies the freedom to disassociate. I am sure hon. members will concede that. Or do I misunderstand the hon. member for Bryanston? If one can associate, surely one can also disassociate. Then that hon. member will further concede …

It is a matter of the choice of the individual.

Yes, the choice of the individual. It is a matter of association. I am the individual; I should like to associate with another individual. I have that right. If I do not wish to associate with that individual, I should have the right to withdraw. Is that not so? Surely, then, I do have the right to disassociate. After all, the individual with whom I wish to associate has the same rights vis-à-vis me as I have vis-à-vis him. Let us just be consistent. When we speak of freedom of association we must also have in mind the freedom of disassociation. They are two sides of precisely the same coin.

Of the individual.

Of course! The individual, ten individuals or 100 individuals, but it is the freedom of the individual to associate or to disassociate. Am I as an individual—and the hon. member must tell me now—also free to associate with another individual because I like his colour? Am I free or am I not free?

The Immorality Act still exists.

If I should wish to associate with someone of my own colour, from freedom of association, do I have that right or do I not have it?

Of course!

If I should wish to disassociate with someone on account of the fact that his colour is not the same as mine, do I have the right to disassociate?

As an individual you could do that.

As an individual I could do that. Then surely I could also disassociate. Then surely ten individuals could do the same. This is the statement I wish to make at this point. If the hon. member wants to go so far as to say that the Government should act to the extent of prohibiting trade unions from refusing to allow people to associate with them as a group of individuals on a colour basis, then we are making a mistake. Then we are not applying the principle of free association consistently. I am not making out a case for either associating or disassociating; I am speaking of a consistent application of the premise of freedom of association. This is what we must consider. One could advance many other arguments; whether this is significant or insignificant, or that we should have only one trade union to a trade. Naturally it would be easier if an employer had to negotiate with one trade union employee than it would be if he had several trade unions. The hon. member for Pinelands could be right. It could be that polarization could sooner become a factor in the process if it were a White and a Black trade union that had to negotiate with the employer. This is quite true, but should the Government then step in and interfere with its basic premise of freedom of association by prohibiting the development of such trade unions? I think we should leave that to the normal functioning of this very concept of freedom of association.

I think the Bill before the House embodies some excellent extensions of basic premises. The first concerns this same concept of freedom of association. As we know, this concept is entrenched in section 78 of the Act, and this has been the case since 1956. However, there were a number of facets in respect of which this basic premise was infringed, and I think the rectification of the definition of “employee” by way of clause 1(f) in the Bill is the most important. We are coming back to a more comprehensive freedom of association. But in conjunction with this, a new principle is being developed, viz. the principle of trade union autonomy, which is really a South African creation. It is really a creation of our community; it is not a concept which has been internationally supported and defended. In a sense it is also an extension of the concept of freedom of association. The concept “freedom of association” concerns individual rights, which we have discussed, but trade union autonomy concerns the collective rights of the group. It also affects specifically the management and the structure of the trade union. The application of this concept lies in the very act of repealing the provisions of section 6, which dealt with the distinction between people of different colours in the same trade union.

A third aspect which I just wish to touch upon and which has been much debated up to now, is the question of the registration or otherwise of trade unions. The point of departure in the Act of 1924, and in the Act of 1937 as well, was that of compulsory registration. The Act of 1956 did away with the concept of compulsory registration and changed to voluntary registration. We have seen how certain developments have taken place which have introduced a dualism into the whole system under this voluntary registration. [Interjections.] No, but traditionally we have these two opposing standpoints; in the first instance, that of a compulsory registration, and in the second, the adherents of a totally voluntary registration. The first argues that one can only obtain participation in the system by entering through the gate of registration, and the second that through voluntary registration one would actually have a freer organization where people would in effect be able to participate in the system without any legislation. However, I think we all agree that the situation in our country is a complicated one and that we cannot simply adopt one of these two simplistic premises. Accordingly, the premise which is in fact being adopted in this regard is a philosophy that registration is not a peg on which to hang rights and obligations, but that rights and obligations are given to a trade union specifically on account of its participation in the system. Here we say that through registration it becomes a body corporate, which in the first place creates security, and in the second place affords it a certain advantage over the others, viz. admission to the system of industrial councils. Consequently the philosophy is to link the rights and obligations to participation in the system, and for this reason the unregistered union, too, is now involved in the same rights and obligations, even if it does not wish to register. The question could be asked: Why can it, too, not take part in the system of industrial councils, and together with this—and this is really the point which was debated—why the prohibition on stop-orders, unless the Minister should positively exercise his discretion in that regard? The hon. member for Pine-lands, too, discussed this and asked this question.

We all agree that the membership fee is the vital artery of every trade union. If membership fees cannot be collected by stop-order the trade union finds it extremely difficult to survive. It demands tremendous organization and a vast input. The problem, however, is that a dualism has developed in our whole system between those who function within the system and those outside it. This aspect was examined by the Wiehahn Commission and the Government dealt with it in the White Paper. It has been said that we should try to achieve uniformity in our whole system.

A new dualism is developing now, because the unregistered trade union movement is now concentrating on factory floor level and on the entrepreneurial level. Pressure is being brought to bear on management—in other words, employers—to enter into recognition agreements with these unregistered trade unions. We must be realistic now. If we were to permit this pressure it would definitely constitute a danger to the orderly functioning of the system of industrial councils. I do not think there can be any dispute about that, the struggle being between bargaining at the industrial level as opposed to bargaining at the factory floor level.

Our answer to this—I believe that here, too, the approach is the correct one—is one of flexibility. We must keep an eye on how these things develop and we must be able to deal with developments meaningfully within a system of order, for the interests involved are not confined to those of two parties. I shall return later to a remark which the hon. member for Bryanston made in this regard.

It can be argued that the refusal to make stop-order facilities available to the unregistered trade union does indeed protect the employer against the unregistered trade union and is also for the good of his employees. There is one of these unregistered trade unions—I think we all agree on this point—which has questionable motives in terms of its demands specifically in the labour field. By handicapping them in their functioning one can ensure a degree of stability, because one can first go and check which trade union it is that one is dealing with before one considers approving stop-order facilities. One can of course raise the counter-argument that the financial statements have to be audited in any case. They are therefore open to inspection by the Government through its department. Such an argument is true, but the statements are not open to inspection by the employer, and he, too, seeks that security with regard to the man with whom he is bargaining for the sake of his own employees.

We have also heard the argument—I think the hon. member for Roodeplaat advanced it—that money disappears. The person in question collects a lot of money and then disappears. Then people say that it is the members’ own fault, because they gave permission for the stop-order facility. But we know that it is a far more emotional matter than that. We need only look at the strikes at Port Elizabeth. These strikes took place purely because of pension rights and the non-payment of certain moneys on termination of service. It had originally been explained to the people and they had accepted it, but afterwards it created great unhappiness.

We should also keep in mind that the employer does not always ask only what the motives of the organization are, but also what the ultimate result will be for his business. This is what worries him. In fact, if one looks at the latest strikes in the Eastern Cape, one sees that very few of these disputes did actually concern problems on the factory floor. They concerned something more than that. They concerned education for their children, housing and transport. What am I suggesting when I say this? I am saying that it happens in practice that people use trade unions for political rights, for rights other than on the factory floor or industrial level. I believe that the hon. the Minister, as well as the Manpower Commission, will have to watch the situation very carefully as far as this is concerned, for I suspect that the time is not very far off when the organized industrial and organized employers’ associations will bring pressure to bear on the Government, since they look after their own interests. This political pressure for certain essentially political rights, pressure exerted by means of the trade unions, could therefore be shifted onto the Government by those who experience it. This of course implies a very grave risk to stability.

There is a second argument as far as the stop-orders are concerned. As I have said, there are not only two parties in the system; things are not as simplistic as that. We think in terms of employer as against labour, but labour is not homogeneous; labour also has multiple interests. It is not a case of people who are able to act uniformly. There is the difference between registered and unregistered organized labour, and therein reside certain vested interests which should receive attention. It is easy to say that this prohibition should not be contained in the legislation, that trade unions should be allowed to operate on stop-order basis. However, it is a fact that the registered trade unions have vested interests, because after all, they compete to recruit the same people as members, and if registered and unregistered trade unions have the same access to employers and are able to obtain funds in the same manner, then what is the point of registration? In fact, some of these trade unions are already threatening deregistration if we should make it too easy for the unregistered trade unions to participate in the system.

As I have said, it was the object of the Wiehahn Commission and of the White Paper as well to achieve uniformity. I have also pointed out the new dualism which has set in at the labour level, and I think the test is going to be: how to accommodate both these trends in practice.

Another aspect which has been debated here is the question of unlawful strikes. Perhaps this does not affect any of the clauses in the Bill directly, but it does affect the underlying principle, viz. what we are dealing with. We are not dealing only with people who are involved in labour as such. We are also dealing with people with questionable motives, and I concede that it is at leadership level. Hon. members have said that the masses are usually interested in basic conditions on the work floor, but these trade unions that do not have the positive motive of the interests of their members at heart, are playing a subtle game. In the first place, they have reversed the battle order on us, and this we must admit. Hon. members have said that all the recent strikes were unlawful. That is true; this happens in practice. Many of the employers are not even aware of a dispute, and before they know it, all their employees have simply disappeared. There is not a single worker on the factory floor, and the employer does not know what led up to it, because a dispute has never been declared. Then, when they want to negotiate, there is no one to negotiate with. They do not even know whom to negotiate with, and days later, someone turns up and says that he has come to negotiate. The employer then asks him: “But what do you want to negotiate about? What is it all about? What is the dispute?” To this the person replies: “We still have to declare the dispute; I have just come in the meanwhile to tell you that I represent the workers and I shall contact you later.” So the employees follow a procedure according to which they first strike, then declare a dispute and then negotiate, instead of arriving at a strike by the usual process of negotiation.

A second aspect in regard to which they show great ingenuity is in choosing the climate in which they seek confrontation. I have a story about a man who was very cold at the beginning of winter and decided that he needed a bearskin to keep him warm. So he went hunting, and met a bear in the snow. As he lifted his rifle, the bear asked him: “What are you looking for?” He replied: “You see, it is now the middle of winter; I am cold and I am looking for a bearskin, but what are you doing here in the snow?” The bear replied that he was hungry and looking for food, and suggested that they walk to the bear’s cave, where it was warmer, to negotiate. So a few minutes later the bear had its food, and the hunter was inside his skin. [Interjections.] This is the problem which we are facing. These people choose the opportunity and create the climate for trouble. The other important aspect is that they distinguish very clearly between strategy and tactics. They are not engaged in ad hoc planning. They are following a comprehensive strategy. What I am worried about is that the employers of this country have not yet thought in terms of a total strategy. One hon. member referred to the five pages in your memorandum which men tions the fact that the aid of the police and the security police should first of all be called in. I think it is important that organized industry should consider a total strategy for dealing with this type of situation.

I shall now conclude. This piece of legislation is a very positive piece of legislation, but it is also a case of a developing process within the legislation itself. We shall have to keep an eye on matters. We shall try certain things and then perhaps make further changes. And we shall perhaps keep certain things back and only insert them later, but we must see to it that the situation develops in such a way that ultimately the employer will also be able to handle labour relations from his side. This I think is the task of the Government. The Government must create opportunities, but also the milieu within which an orderly structure can function.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Randburg. His analysis of the problems that we have to contend with in the labour field in South Africa, problems which were created by the legislation of the past, among other things, and which might still arise as a result of the implementation of this measure, was such that in my opinion there will not be many of us who will be able to raise any objection to the legislation. I want to concede here and now to the hon. member for Randburg and the hon. member for Pretoria Central that in terms of the general interest there could well be conflict between the principle of free association and that of the restriction of membership. It may well be possible to say, on the one hand, that the principle of free association does obtain, but not in cases where State recognition is granted to certain bodies. In other words, where there is State interference, or State recognition is granted in one way or another, there could be deciding factors other than merely the principle of free association. I am merely stating this as a general philosophical point, because there could certainly be conflict in this regard.

I hope the hon. member for Randburg and the hon. member for Pretoria Central will not misinterpret what I am going to say now, but since those two hon. members are such staunch supporters of the principle of free association, I hope we shall be able to count on their support when we seek to have the principle of free association applied in other areas of legislation, for example when it comes to marriages and other such aspects. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Bryanston have indicated that we support the principle of this legislation. The hon. member for Pinelands has indicated the primary principle which we support, viz. moving away from racial provisions in the labour machinery. The two hon. members also pointed out the problem areas, for example the issue of unregistered trade unions. They pointed out another problem area as well, viz. the extent to which the provisions of the legislation will be capable of being implemented in practice. That there are problem areas, we certainly cannot deny. By way of a recapitulation I want to say that there are five such problem areas. There is the question of how we are to deal with unregistered trade unions—for example, what degree of discipline and control should be exercised over them, what rights they should have and what degree of coercion could or may be applied to them, etc. Secondly, there was the question of the deduction of membership dues, with the concomitant problems which have already been pointed out by hon. members on both sides of the House. Thirdly, there was the principle of the autonomy of trade unions. The fourth issue was that of assistance in the event of a strike. Fifthly there was the question of the head office. Those are the primary problem areas which we have singled out and on which we should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply. Although this is not relevant to this Bill, we shall also have to come back to the definition of “unfair labour practices” sooner or later. Let me say to the hon. the Minister, in all honesty, that those definitions on the Statute Book could cause us several unnecessary problems in the labour field.

I believe all hon. members agree with me when I convey the greatest appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his department for the broad consultation which took place in connection with this Bill, for the fact that a draft Bill was published, representations invited and serious attention quite clearly given to all the representations received. The hon. member for Pinelands indicated that there are, regrettably, certain areas which at this stage have not yet been decided on, as indicated in the explanatory memorandum, but we shall probably return to that later. The hon. the Minister—and I hope I do not embarrass him when I say this—really deserves our appreciation for going as far as he did in this very difficult area, and for having taken with him so much of the South African public, not only members of his own party, but members of this House in general —in respect of these changes which he has effected here. It is indeed true to say that in the labour field we have experienced fundamental changes in the past few years. I have no doubt about that. I shall come back later to the question whether those changes have not perhaps come too late. A further question is whether the changes proposed here, will indeed be able to resolve the conflict situation which unfortunately prevails in the field of labour in South Africa at this stage. I can only hope that it will have that effect, but hon. members will forgive me if I say that I have certain reservations on this score. I have no doubt in my mind—this was confirmed, inter alia, by the hon. member for Durban North, and I agree with him—that in this field we are probably dealing with what is at this stage the most explosive element in our situation. It would be foolish to seek to deny the explosiveness of the situation at this stage. Therefore we must ask ourselves whether the measures adopted here, will be sufficient to keep the explosiveness within healthy channels.

There are a number of fundamental principles in the labour field which must become the guidelines, the fundamental premises which will have to be taken into account in any arrangements made by the State in the field of labour relations in South Africa. At this stage I want to single out only two. In the first place it is obviously the ideal to involve all employees in the same labour regulating machinery. This is indeed what has now been achieved here. I shall come back to this in a minute, because a part of the dilemma which I foresee is the very fact that it took us so long to get where we are today. I want to say quite frankly that the existing dilemma is the result of the tardiness with which we moved in this field in the past.

The second fundamental principle is that the available regulatory machinery should be utilized responsibly by the workers of the country, i.e. primarily to deal with a labour situation. The machinery which is created must therefore be used to deal with the conditions, the wages and other conditions of employment of the employees in that particular industry and should not be used for political purposes.

Those are in my opinion the two ideal premises. As regards both those two premises—and they are not the only ones, because there are others as well—due to the course of history we have come up against enormous problems in South Africa. Let me say at once that I am not one of those who simply blames the Government for the development of all those problems.

Let me come back to my first point, viz. the case where the existing machinery is accessible to all workers. If we recall the past, we see that because of the attitude we adopted in South Africa in the past, it was not possible for Black workers to have a share in that machinery. You will recall, Sir, that the Botha Commission did in fact recommend in 1951 that recognition be granted to Black trade unions. The hon. Minister is aware of that report. The commission recommended, too, that the Black trade unions should be separated, in other words that there should be separate Black trade unions. Those were two of the fundamental recommendations in this field. The commission also suggested several protective measures to ensure that the Black trade unions would not misuse their position, etc.

I consider it a tragic mistake on our part that those recommendations of the commission in 1951 were not accepted. I do not want to say that I go along with the recommendations that those trade unions should be separated from the others, but if recognition had been granted to those trade unions at that stage and we did not make alternative arrangements, those trade unions could have been incorporated into the whole machinery of industrial reconciliation legislation for 30 years now. I am convinced that if we had done so, we should not have been faced with a situation today in which, as it appears to me, the Black trade unions have in fact lost all confidence in that machinery. Therefore the problem which confronts us now is how to get the Black unions to accept that the machinery for which provision is made in this legislation, could effectively be used in their interest.

Allow me, Sir, to quote to you what the attitude of the then Minister of Labour was in this regard (Hansard, 4 August 1953, col. 869)—

He goes on to refer to the problems which would result from that. This was in the course of the discussion of the Bill concerning the settlement of labour disputes. He went on to say (col. 870)—

The then Minister of Labour then went on to say that under no circumstances would recognition be granted to native trade unions, as they were called then, because, as he put it, that would endanger the position of the White man. This is the kind of terminology which we have to listen to in this House every day. We are constantly being told that it would endanger the whole position of the White man and of the White worker because, so it is alleged, those trade unions would abuse their position. As a result of this it was the official attitude at that time that recognition would not be granted to those trade unions.

Allow me to add at once, however, that I am not blaming this solely on the policy of the Government. Many employers were themselves not prepared to support the recognition of Black trade unions. Hon. members are well aware what the standpoint of the Chamber of Mines was at that stage. I am now talking about the position in the ’forties. I call to mind for example the major problems which arose with regard to the great strike called by the native mine workers’ union—as it was called then—in 1946, and the attitude adopted by the Chamber of Mines in this regard. Other employers, too, concurred with the view that it would be dangerous to grant recognition to Black trade unions. Even White and other trade unions had similar reservations. Therefore, if I say now that these problems were created, I must put it very clearly that the Government must be primarily blamed because it created the legislation by means of which this could be accomplished. I must add, however, that there were other factors too, factors over and above the policy of the Government which caused a situation to develop in which unofficial Black trade unions have nowadays indeed lost confidence in the machinery of the Industrial Conciliation Act. We are now confronted with the challenge and the problem. What can we do now to regain that confidence?

I do not have the answer to this. I want to make it clear that I do not have the answer to this. However, I am not so sure that coercion, of whatever kind, is going to help us regain that confidence. If we do not foster the necessary trust among those people we are indeed heading for a situation of growing conflict within the trade union movement in South Africa, among our workers. As far as the struggle between employer and employee is concerned—and the hon. member for Pinelands stated this clearly—it will be the employer who will be in the midst of the struggle, a struggle in which he will be crushed, or could possibly be crushed—by the registered trade unions and the Government on the one hand and the unregistered trade unions on the other.

The second principle that I want to state as an ideal, is that all the existing policy machinery will be utilized by the workers for the advancement of workers’ interests and not other interests. As we are all well aware, in debates of this nature in this House over the years it has always been said that we could not create a situation such as that which exists in the United Kingdom, a situation in which, in contrast to other countries, for example America, the labourers have become part of a political machine. We have certainly had industrial peace, chiefly due to the existence of our Industrial Conciliation Act. By means of that Act industrial peace has been preserved over the years. The Industrial Conciliation Act existed, however, in respect of those people who participated in the process, those to whom the necessary machinery was available and who did avail themselves of the machinery because that machinery could be utilized effectively to serve their interests as workers. Because the other people were excluded from the process, however, they were unable to share in that privilege, they did not gain the experience, and the hard fact is now that as the process developed further—and also according to the model of the labour movement we encounter in England and elsewhere—those unregistered trade unions have to an increasing extent moved away from the concept that their power as labourers could primarily and solely be used to further their interests as workers in their specific industries.

When I say this, it does not mean that I approve of it. The fact of the matter is, however, that most unregistered trade unions in South Africa do not regard the utilization of their worker power solely or primarily as an instrument to improve their position as labourers. They also see it as an instrument wherewith to seek to improve in its total structure, the position of the community of which they are members, the community in which they live and of which they form part. For that reason the hon. member for Randburg was quite correct when he spoke about the strikes in Port Elizabeth, which were about education, housing and that kind of thing. It seems to me, as little as you and I would like it to be so, that it is an undeniable reality facing us at the moment in South Africa that those trade unions are not going to use their power solely to further their interests as workers. The question now is: How are we to deal with that situation. Once again I want to say quite humbly that I do not know the answer.

With reference to what the hon. member for Pinelands said, there are two things I want to say. As long as we live in a socio-political structure which does not give the majority of our Black people the feeling that their socio-political aspirations and demands—whatever word we use—are being satisfied by that structure, it will be inevitable that they are going to use the only power really available to the Black population, viz. their power as workers to compel the granting of privileges, changes and progress in the non-labour field as well. This is a dilemma that we are facing. I repeat that I do not have the answer. Nevertheless it would be foolish if we were to base our actions on the principle that those people are not going to use their labour force to effect socio-political improvements as well.

Finally, in this regard I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister and to the Government: we are not going to solve that problem by eliminating, detaining or whatever the true, legitimate and recognized leaders of the Black trade unions. I think we all know that there is a possibility that some of those people are going to exploit the situation for their own and other purposes. I am not trying to ask for protection for those people. Where there are recognized and accepted community leaders of the Black people, people who are active in this field, we are not solving the problem by taking away the leaders of those communities. There will always be others to take their place.

They are not being restricted because they are labour leaders.

Oh yes, they are. That is why; if not, tell us why.

Thank you very much. It is a fundamental point of difference between the Government and this side of the House that if there are other really fundamental reasons why these people are being detained, they must really be made known and in that case, the proper course is to charge these people before a court. It must then be put to them that they have broken the law or whatever. At the moment, many Black trade unions, at any rate according to the information which has been given to me, regard that action as being aimed, not at the elimination of what even you and I would regard as an element dangerous to the state, but as an effort to emasculate the Black trade unions by depriving them of their leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I am participating in this debate because there is so much unanimity. You also know it is a tradition in this House that when the Government and the Opposition agree, we have a long debate just to tell each other how we agree with each other. Sir, nine years ago this month was the last occasion on which I spoke in this House. During that period I was in the Senate. I was in fact here for the short session at the beginning of the year, but unfortunately I was unable to participate in the debates due to ill-health.

What I find very remarkable here is that the word “change” is being used so often. I wonder whether anyone does not want to count how many times that word was used in this House only last week. It has also been used frequently during this debate today. As far as this legislation is concerned we are indeed dealing with radical changes, but we know that change can never come about overnight. Major changes have also come about in this House. When I was last in this House, the UP was still the official Opposition. I just want to say that the present official Opposition and I shall first have to get the feel of each other, for in the Senate, too, in all the years I was there, we first had the UP and then the NRP Opposition. As I say, change has, therefore, not come overnight.

If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I want to deviate for just a moment. The Senate was established in 1910, and I cannot recall a Government since 1910 which has not felt that the Senate has not measured up to what was expected of it. All the members of this House will recall that this was a discussion we held among ourselves. However, despite that need having been felt so strongly, it took 70 years before the Senate was abolished, and even so there was unanimity as regards the fact that the Senate had not fulfilled the expectations cherished for it. That is why I want to say that we should not speak so lightly of change. All of us know that constitutional change is a very slow process and this is also the case with regard to this legislation before us. This legislation did not fall from the sky. This legislation which is before us now also forms part of a lengthy process of which the underlying principles were laid down umpteen years ago.

In the course of my brief speech, I should very much like to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Manpower most sincerely on having succeeded, with regard to this legislation, in taking the White workers of South Africa with him. This is a miracle. There was a conflict of principles in South Africa as regards the recognition of Black trade unions, and it has been conflict of principles for many years. This was one of the points of conflict in the 1922 strike, where blood flowed. The White worker of South Africa did not want this Government or any previous Government to recognize black trade unions, whether registered or unregistered. As I say, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Manpower today. I think he is a Minister who does his work efficiently. I believe that he has acted efficiently in this instance as well At times my heart was in my mouth because I was afraid that since it was a matter of principle among the White workers, he could have encountered opposition. However, he succeeded in taking those White workers with him. I want to add that the recent election demonstrated how effectively he has succeeded in doing so. At this stage I do not wish to reply to the hon. member who spoke before me either, for, as I said, I do not want to become involved in a quarrel now. However, I do want to put forward a few ideas. There is disagreement here, although not vehement disagreement, as regards the fact that trade unions must not be allowed to affiliate with political parties.

In this regard I want to recommend hon. members to go and read the report of the Van der Walt Commission. If I remember correctly, the commission published its report in 1950, but the hon. the Minister can correct me if I am wrong. That commission instituted an investigation into one specific trade union, the Garment Workers’ Union. The trade union had affiliations with the Labour Party in particular. Furthermore, it was one of the trade unions which kept the then Labour Party going, financially speaking. During the war years, however, the trade union transferred its affiliations to the Communist Party. In fact, it openly supported candidates of the Communist Party. Hon. members should really go to the trouble of reading that report, for this legislation is also a result of that report. The report effected major changes, and I believe that it is embodied in the 1952 legislation.

There is something else to be read in it, viz. a matter relating to the funds. The legislation also makes provision for the funds of trade unions to be controlled. If one reads that report one realizes that it is essential that this be done.

Many of us on this side have adopted the standpoint over the years that South Africa must create for itself a national trade union movement. By means of this legislation we are achieving this. The legislation eliminates the colour connotation from the Industrial Conciliation Act and puts the Act on a par with the Wages Act. If I remember correctly, the Wages Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1925 or 1926 and it never provided for any colour distinction whatsoever. The Wage Act. too, was placed on the Statute Book through the efforts of the NP. The legislation we are dealing with at present is now being brought in line with that and our trade union movement is being established on the basis of a national trade union movement. For any nation—including ours —this is unhealthy, and this was proved by the bloodshed as far back as 1922. It is unsound for any country summarily to take over a system and it was also unsound for us summarily to take over the British system.

In later years, however, something far worse came to the fore. In the ’forties in particular, the trend in South Africa was that trade unions wished to side with the communist trade union movement. The legislation which this Government introduced prevented South Africa’s trade union movement from falling into the hands of the communists and the radicals.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and privilege for me to be able to make a maiden speech in this hon. House on such an important subject as labour relations. I think those who have served in provincial councils will appreciate that having served there for 20 years it is very difficult to make a totally non-controversial speech. However, I shall do the best I can. I am at least fortunate in the sense that I can support this Bill with a very clear conscience.

During the course of speeches made by hon. members before me, points were raised that I would have liked to agree with or perhaps even disagree with but, having to make a non-controversial speech, I must not comment upon those points.

I should like to make the theme of my speech a matter that relates to the building industry which, over the next 20 years, will have colossal demands made upon it. Hon. members will doubtless have read that it is anticipated that in the next 20 years we shall have to find something of the order of 10 million homes for South African citizens in the various population groups. Schools, hospitals and various infrastructure buildings will also have to be erected to provide the necessary facilities and amenities for our exploding and increasingly sophisticated population.

In spite of the fine training facilities that are provided by Bifsa and the technikons, I believe that the building industry, as presently constituted, will without further assistance be unable to cope with the situation. The demands upon the industry will be such that supply and demand will come into effect and costs will escalate to an enormous degree. As a consequence, I believe that for many people homes will be an impossible dream in the future and even the paying of rent will be a burden unless we really make some special efforts to resolve certain of the problems that the building industry is facing.

In South Africa we live, as we are very proud of saying, in a free enterprise society, and costs are very clearly related directly to supply and demand. There is no doubt about it that there is very definitely a shortage of labour in the building industry over the full spectrum of labour required. I refer specifically to labourers, operators, craftsmen and supervisors and even there in the management field. They are not available in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of our country.

At present building costs are escalating. They vary in various parts of the country but the escalation is roughly between 20% and 25% per annum, which is far above the average of the normal inflation rate over the past few years. Frankly, this escalation shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, it is generally showing signs of increasing. If this inflation in the building industry is not curbed, as I have said before, we shall not be able to provide homes for our citizens at a reasonable cost. Hon. members know full well the problems that emanate from a shortage of homes. We have already heard, in the censure debate, several speeches on this particular subject. Hon. members will also know that we have—certainly among the less sophisticated elements of our society—a shortage of jobs. I believe that we must do something about this because, if we do not, we are going to encounter rather severe problems. People who do not have homes are not going to be very happy about it. Even if one were to offer them homes which they could not afford they would not be very happy about that either. If we therefore do not take positive steps in this direction we are going to find that we have a large number of hungry and homeless people who are also going to be very angry people. I believe therefore that it is important to establish the need for the various categories of housing that are required so that we can provide homes for the various communities.

One of the first and greatest needs, of course, is to have an extensive recruitment campaign for the building industry. Many of the areas in which the housing needs are the greatest are, in fact, areas in which unemployment is substantial. I believe that with a little ingenuity and a willingness to get on with the job and cut across red tape, rules and so on, we should be able to go a long way towards resolving both the housing problem and the ever-escalating labour problem.

I believe further that in the Coloured, Indian and Black communities in particular there is an enormous reservoir available for this type of work. For years the Indian and Coloured communities have shown great aptitude in this field. They are very good indeed in the building industry. I have employed them in my own business for many, many years and, since the removal of the restrictions of the Black Building Workers Act, the Blacks are also coming along extremely well and are, I believe, very capable of doing good work in the building industry. Sadly, however, for various reasons the White community has drawn away from the building industry. Some believe that the work is too hard and others believe that the remuneration is unattractive. Others again believe that it has no social standing in their community. I believe the White community should have another look at the situation because modern mechanization in the building industry has removed a great deal of the drudgery. Also, very largely perhaps because of the scarcity of labour, the pay is quite good and, certainly for competent people who work hard in the building industry, there are terrific prospects of promotion.

The Building Industries Federation of South Africa, Bifsa, and its training arm are spending a great deal of money on the recruitment and training of labour in the industry. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is one of the very few industries that is making prodigious efforts to help itself. Fortunately the unions in the building industry have also been very co-operative and, as a consequence, generally good relations exist in the building industry between the Government, the building industry itself and the unions. No matter how good their relations, however, I believe nevertheless that their efforts require some supplementing. I believe further that the Government must assist if we are to resolve the massive housing and unemployment problems that are looming up before us.

Hon. members may feel that my attitude towards the housing and employment position in the building industry is a little exaggerated but frankly I do not, because I have seen, over a long period of time, that in spite of the great efforts being made by the National Housing Commission and the Department of Community Development to provide housing, they cannot cope with the situation. The backlog is building up faster than they can cope with the situation.

Training and money are, of course, always serious problems and I know it may be said that we simply do not have the money. However, I believe we must find the money because if one does not have housing and there is large-scale unemployment, one will experience endless troubles of a different nature which will ultimately prove to be considerably more expensive than the cost of providing housing. As far as I can see, there are large sums of money in, for example, the Unemployment Insurance Fund and various other reserve funds, sums which are used to pay people when they are experiencing problems and are out of work. Perhaps it would be better to pay them from those funds to do some work and assist in the building trade.

I know efforts are being made in a number of areas to train people but I believe that if the matter were handed over to the building industry itself and to the trade unions they would be able to do a great deal more than they are doing and would be very willing to do so too because they, above all, realize the importance of what has to be done.

In times of emergency we humans have a habit of being able to overcome difficulties. In a war, regardless of circumstances, we provide the weapons of war and we provide the facilities needed to win that war. The situations prevailing as far as housing and unemployment in this country are concerned are analogous to those of an emergency such as war. We should therefore take the steps that are absolutely necessary to rectify these situations. It will also do our country a great deal of good if we take these steps because it will show that we in this country do not only talk about resolving problems but that we also do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Umbilo today after the very positive remarks he made in his short maiden speech. It seems to me that he is a chip of the old block, for we came to know his predecessor as a sober, well-balanced person, who always made very positive contributions in this House. From the Government side we want to assure the hon. member that we shall always give him a good hearing, especially in connection with housing and its enormous importance, which he mentioned here today. We shall greatly appreciate it if he wishes to help the Government in a matter which we also regard as a top priority. I had a very special experience yesterday, for I drove through Mitchell’s Plain again after two years, looking at the kind of subsidized housing that has been provided there for that sector of our population. We were accompanied by someone from the Transvaal, and we were able to show him how happily the people were living there, the gardens they had planted, the beautiful name-plates on the houses. The people are proud of their houses. I could not help wondering, when we were driving past Crossroads on our way back, why other members in this House and members of the public outside want to fight for the retention of that kind of housing, while one can work for better housing such as that at Mitchell’s Plain. I want to congratulate the hon. member on his very positive maiden speech.

Adam Smith, the founder of classical economics, identified the human factor as the most important component of economic life. He also said that the worker was one’s best investment in the labour sphere and that his value could always be measured in terms of profit. Under the present circumstances, many people are adhering to his philosophy, knowing that it is a scientific fact as well as a practical reality that skilled manpower is of vital importance to the development of every progressive nation or people. The first statement I wish to make today is that natural resources, material means or income as such are not the most important factors. As far as the labour sphere and the economic milieu are concerned, human resources are essential—I would almost say of crucial importance. These resources are indispensable to the welfare and prosperity of nations and peoples.

Allow me to point out briefly to this House the phenomenal progress of Taiwan, a small country with a small population which has virtually no natural resources, but which utilizes its human resources to the maximum, and which is today an example to the whole world of how a country can develop and grow if it utilizes and develops its best resource, its human resource. Can one avoid talking here about labour force, labour force in the sense of labour utilization, based on one single aspect, namely good labour relations? Surely this is what the Bill which is before the House, the Labour Relations Amendment Bill, is basically concerned with. That is the meaning of this legislation.

However, I want to express one reservation, and I believe that not only the hon. members in this House, but the public as well, should take cognizance of this: If the will to establish good labour relations is lacking, this legislation will not succeed, no matter how good its intentions. That is why I am glad that positive notes have been sounded in all the speeches today. It is true that some criticisms of the legislation have been expressed—show me a law which does not have its shortcomings—but the fact is that we are concerned here with legislation which is creating an opportunity for good labour relations so that the country may at last prosper.

I want to make the statement that an evolution of lifestyles is not only being called for, but has already taken place over the past few years, and especially since the emergence of the attitude, the sense and the meaning of this legislation, which, as hon. members all know, was preceded by reports of the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions, which received an enormous amount of publicity and were widely discussed. Its philosophy and principle have been accepted by our people, whether employer or employee, and this has started a revolution, with the result that the lifestyle of many of our people has changed radically.

What has in fact happened? A change has occurred in the way of life of millions of people in South Africa, because a better way of life was made possible for them by the development that has taken place in this field. Accordingly, the possibility of generating a booming market economy from a mere subsistence economy was created as a result of the possibility of competition and the selling of labour. The fact of the matter is that new legislation in the labour sphere has unlocked the gates and allowed the Third World in South Africa to gain access to the First World in South Africa. If, therefore, the Government were not to put into effect the initiatives of the hon. the Minister of Manpower, the commissions he has appointed, the Government White Paper and the legislation involved, then I would go so far as to say that the opposite of the present situation would apply today. Then we would not have achieved the situation where people are moving out of a Third World into a First World, but instead the reverse would have been the case, namely that of a First World which would necessarily have to degenerate into the situation of a Third World. Hon. members are well aware what the implications of that would be for us.

Moreover, South Africa is blessed with a vast wealth of natural resources, the widest diversity in the world. South Africa is also blessed with inexhaustible labour resources, as long as they are correctly developed and utilized. I want to stress that if we were to develop and utilize these virtually inexhaustible labour resources correctly, we could achieve an enormous amount. As I see it, it is precisely here that our greatest challenge lies.

Permit me to put it as follows. All factors generating prosperity, whether natural resources or manpower, must be developed jointly. Natural resources and labour resources must be combined and developed and utilized together to the benefit of South Africa. Permit me to try to put it even better than that. The foundations of our future existence in the broader national context will and must be realized within the next five to ten years. Of still greater importance to me is the fact that the time for laying foundations may pass, but one cannot simply continue to say and hope that everything will come right. If the foundations are not laid in time, the time for doing so will run out, and there will be no opportunity later to rectify what was neglected due to carelessness or ignorance. That we must never forget. The laying of foundations and the development that must follow, will demand sacrifices from everyone in South Africa. It will also demand wisdom and faith in our cause and faith in the future of South Africa.

I wish to state very forcefully that the future of South Africa, as it seems to me, is going to be decided in the labour sphere, on the basis of good labour relations. Indeed, that is the issue underlying the legislation under discussion. I am tempted to say that the battle will be won or lost in this field. I am therefore gratified that the racial and sex connotation, for example, have been deleted from this piece of legislation. A great deal has been said about the racial connotation. Therefore there is one remark I want to make about the sex connotation. By means of this legislation the possibility has now been created, in the department in question, of equal opportunities for both sexes. This is probably something that will eventually filter through to other spheres of our society.

I now wish to touch on several points in the sphere of labour which require our urgent attention. All workers of all population groups, whether male or female, make a living in the sphere of labour. Nowhere else is our interdependence so clearly demonstrated and nowhere is it as closely knit as in the sphere of labour. The broadest area of contact between employer and employee is in this sphere as well. If good labour relations are upset in this sphere, this entails serious consequences for all the people in South Africa, because as everyone knows, it is in this sphere that unrest can most easily be incited and generated. In other words, in the labour sphere, coexistence, co-operation and good neighbourliness simply must be strikingly demonstrated. It is here that the welfare and the standard of living of the entire working community is determined.

We must now consider four realities that we cannot evade and that compel us to recognize their importance. In the first place, if we are to properly understand the entire situation in the sphere of labour, and anticipate what we are to do in future, we must understand that our population situation is unique in the world. In the second place, in spite of the high standard of living maintained in South Africa, our shortage of high-level manpower is disturbing. In the third place, our economic gears are beginning to stick due to a shortage of trained people. We must perceive these things and we must recognize them so that we can do something about it. In the fourth place, our State Administration is beginning to get into difficulties due to an acute shortage of staff. There are simply not enough people to do the work everywhere. These are the realities of South Africa today.

Therefore there is only one answer to this serious dilemma and that is that training, retraining and in-service training of the manpower potential in South Africa and—I repeat—without the connotation of race or sex, as provided by the Act. In this regard all of us from both sides of the House, and also the public at large, must assist and lend their full support to the hon. the Minister and the Government and also understand this situation.

The Labour Relations Amendment Bill as well as other Bills that are to follow later in the week and are related to this Bill, create the necessary opportunity for this, because both the employer and the employee will have to learn to know and understand the laws in this regard. It is pointless making laws if the people involved do not know them and are not aware of the bounds within which they can move.

Then, too, we must bear in mind that laws alone are not sufficient. Legislation alone cannot regulate these labour relations. Therefore it is unfair to expect of the Government and the hon. the Minister to carry the full responsibility. Hon. members heard in this House this afternoon that the onus is now on the employer and the employee to contribute their share and not simply to leave it to the Government to regulate and manipulate everything. This presupposes that the conflict which could arise between the employer and employee in the future must be avoided at all costs. That is the rationale for this new labour dispensation.

Since my time has almost expired I just wish to put a question to the hon. the Minister very briefly, and then conclude with a statement. My question is as follows: Has the abolition of the works committees and the works councils not resulted in the trade unions being deprived of a useful aid or supportive action which would have improved rather than hampered their functioning? My statement is that South Africa cannot survive politically without economic growth, development and welfare, and without the vital changes that have taken place in the labour sphere, South Africa would ultimately have been doomed. In other words, new labour legislation ensures the future of the worker in South Africa, and I wish to emphasize that strongly. It follows from this that the other leg of our security, too, namely, constitutional development, will have to be given concrete effect to without delay. Before hon. members of the Opposition think that I wish to imitate what they said in the censure debate, namely that this Government is moving too slowly, I wish to state very strongly and forcefully that the Government does not operate on an ad hoc basis or in a staccato way, but is consistently engaged in this absolutely vital development in the constitutional sphere.