Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment of the House last night I was making the statement that without economic progress and welfare for all in South Africa, the future does not look too promising. I also said that without the vital changes that have taken place in the field of labour over the past few years, South Africa would have been heading for ruin.

Now we have new labour legislation before us which ensures and secures the position of not only the White worker but every worker in South Africa. From this follows the point that I wished to make last night and bring to the attention of hon. members. It is that the other leg of our national security, viz. constitutional development, will have to be given effect to without delay, or else the progress made in the field of labour, the progress in recent times in the labour sphere, could get ahead of progress in the constitutional sphere, and this could result in the possibility of abuses in the political field. It is essential that we should perceive the relationship between these two developments.

Now I know that it is very clearly indicated in clause 9 that no political activities will be permitted in the trade union movement in the future. However, if we consider the history of the trade union movement in the Western World and more specifically in England and the USA, there are very clear lessons to be learned from those developments. They are that the trade unions in those countries, where they were in advance of constitutional development, eventually established themselves in those countries as political parties and eventually also as political governments. I need do no more than refer to the developments that have occurred in England. At the same time, exactly the opposite happened in the USA. There, constitutional changes preceded changes in the labour sphere. It is clear that the lesson we must learn from this is that political rights must advance ahead of, or precede, other rights if we are not to have the counter-productive result which we most certainly do not want in South Africa.

In conclusion, it is my privilege to support this Bill, but at the same time to advocate the speedy creation of political structures for those workers in our country who do not yet have them.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Brits, and I tried to find fault with what he said. I must say, however, that I could find no fault with it. [Interjections.]

You are making progress, Harry.

I believe the hon. member for Brits gave a very reasonable address to this House. In fact he raised for me a number of the points which I wanted to raise. Let me also point out, that I appreciate the manner in which the hon. member approached this subject. I am more than satisfied with the contribution hon. member’s to this debate.

This is not the last of my congratulations, however. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister as well. I believe it is not only a matter for congratulation. I also believe that the hon. the Minister has proved to us that he is prepared to display a great deal of courage with regard to those things in which he believes. I do not believe that it was easy for him to submit this legislation to this House.

†That is why I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that I regard this piece of legislation not only as a demonstration of his courage but also as an actual achievement on his part. I believe he needed faith to bring it to this stage. I also believe that the opposition that was experienced did not come from only one quarter. I think it is common knowledge that there are very substantial numbers of White workers who feel a little insecure about what the hon. the Minister is doing and who have fears in regard to this matter. On the other hand there are large numbers of Black workers who are showing a degree of mistrust in respect of this legislation.

I must point out though that I believe that the hon. the Minister can say with a substantial degree of conviction that neither the Black worker nor workers of the other colour group should have a mistrust or a fear in relation to this matter. I believe that this piece of legislation is, if properly applied, in the interests of workers as such, irrespective of their colour. I think that if the hon. the Minister and his officials apply it in that manner it will certainly be demonstrated within a very short while that this is the case.

There is no doubt that this piece of legislation will change the working patterns of South Africa, and if it works will encourage economic progress in South Africa. On the other hand, if it fails and if it is incorrectly applied, it can have very serious consequences for industrialists and industry as a whole in South Africa. Therefore we cannot really afford to have it fail. If it is successful, it can have beneficial consequences for other developments in South Africa which should not be overlooked. Therefore if co-operation can take place on the shop floor and can take place around a negotiating table, if White and Black can sit around a negotiating table and have common interests and argue in their common interests, then there is no reason why this should not be seen as an example for the same kind of development in the sociopolitical field. It will then not be restricted to the economic field but will in fact be the “baanbreker”, if I may use that word, for other developments in other fields. If people join together in the furthering of common economic objectives, they will actually learn to understand each other and will learn to work together, not only in that field but in many other fields as well.

However, there is a word of warning that one has to offer here, and that is if the people work together in a multiracial or non-racial union and keep to economic objectives, they will have common ground in that economic objective and they will work together. They will then avoid the broader political spectrum. If they hive off, however, into their own particular racial unions, it will be found that there is far more reason then why those unions and people connected with those unions will enter the more narrow political field. They will find it almost irresistible in the kind of political climate in which we are operating. That is why the appeal that really should be made is that as far as possible all our unions in South Africa should actually be multiracial, or non-racial, with common economic objectives.

I want to say right away that it is not always the case that it is the White union that wants to be exclusive and wants to be exclusively White. I can give the hon. the Minister a particular instance as an example where there are three unions in existence: One White, one Coloured and one Black. The Black union is one of the pioneers in the field. They all sit on the industrial council and the Coloured union and the White union would like to create one union of the three, but it is the Black union which would like to find its feet first and would like to establish itself before it goes into a multiracial union situation. Therefore we must not say, and the impression must not be created, that it is only the White unions who at this stage want to be racially exclusive. I think it is to be found in many cases. I hope, however, that it will eventually be found that this degree of co-operation will come about and that these common economic objectives will be the real issue that has to be dealt with.

When we deal with the possibility of unions entering the political sphere, one of the things that seems to be overlooked is that if one takes Marxism as the best or the worst example, whichever way one cares to describe it, Marxism is not just a political concept; it is an economic concept, and in regard to Marxism, what is trying to be sold there is not only the political ideology, but also the workers concept. They try to put the two together. So when the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet speak about fighting Marxism, they keep stressing the fact that they are fighting Marxist imperialism and Marxist aggression. What is far more important, however, is to fight Marxist ideology. Marxist ideology seeks to bring about a situation where the worker is involved in the political process and where in fact one is selling Marxism, because he believes it will advance his cause as a worker, and at the same time it will actually be furthering all the other causes which are entirely unrelated to that particular worker situation. If one is really going to deal with this therefore, one is going to have to offer a package to the people of South Africa which deals with the economic aspects and which satisfies the worker economically as far as his aspirations are concerned while also satisfying him politically. Marxism is not alone in this. Every socialist country in the world seeks to obtain affiliation from labour-oriented organizations towards labour-oriented or socialist parties. One sees this throughout the world. One does not only have the example of the United Kingdom. One can deal with the Social Democratic Party in West Germany; one can take the political structure in France; one can look all over the Western World and one will see the close connection between trade unionism on the one hand and the political aspirations of the workers on the other. I say, therefore, that we have to view this as a real situation and as a very real problem.

Let us take the position of the United States of America. One does not have this socialist problem in that context there. The unions there all have political interests and on any particular occasion one will always find one or other of these unions endorsing a particular presidential candidate over another. One will find these unions giving funds to particular presidential campaigns. I say, therefore, that to endeavour to separate politics from economics, to separate union activity from political activity, however much I or the hon. the Minister is in favour of doing so, is a most difficult situation to seek to achieve in our modern political world. It is really one of the most difficult things to try to do. I see the new labour legislation, therefore, as being part of an economic system which should be established in South Africa in order to meet a Marxist challenge on every single front where Marxism is in fact offering a challenge to us. I do not see this legislation as an isolated action which is merely being established as an end in itself because, if that is what it is, it is to some extent failing in its major purpose. It should in fact be part of a package which we offer to deprived people, to people who in many cases have not actually enjoyed the fruits of an economic community to the same degree as others have—to offer it to them as part of a package in regard to which there is still quite a good deal more to come and where this is not the end of the story.

There are, therefore, certain questions which virtually pose themselves in relation to this situation. The first of these questions is: What else is going to follow as part of a broad economic and political programme in order to deal with this problem with which we are faced? The hon. member for Brits made the identical point. The people are going to say: This is a package and we should like to see the rest of it; this is just one small part of it and we should like to see how it fits into the broad socio-economic and political structure of the new South Africa that is being established.

The new Republic.

I do not mind whether it is a new Republic or an old Republic or a second Republic or a third Republic; all I want is a happy and peaceful Republic. I am not wedded to any particular description of it.

Gesundheit, Harry!

There are further questions that arise. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he feels that sufficient is being done to enable people in South Africa to qualify to play a meaningful role in the industrial labour field. I should like to give an example of a pamphlet I have in my possession. I have it here if the hon. the Minister wishes to see it. This particular pamphlet has been issued in regard to a complaint in respect of a particular pension scheme. If one withdraws from this scheme after having had only a few short years of service all that is returned to one is one’s contributions plus interest. I also happen to belong to a similar pension scheme and I think that this is a normal provision. I believe it happens in 99 out of 100 pension schemes that if one withdraws from the scheme prematurely one is simply refunded one’s contributions plus interest; one does not receive the employer’s contribution and one does not, of course, receive a pension. This happens if one withdraws from a scheme prematurely at an early age. However, because of a lack of understanding an attempt is being made to use this very issue in order to try to create labour unrest. This can be attributed to one of two things. It is either due to the fact that there is a lack of understanding or appreciation on the part of the workers and their leaders or it is the deliberate distortion of a particular situation. The answer to this type of situation lies in the fact that our workers must be better informed so that they will know what labour relations are all about and also to enable such workers to occupy positions of leadership. Nothing is more dangerous in a trade union system such as is developing in this country than that union leadership does not have the degree of knowledge that is required in order to ensure that there is proper, legitimate and responsible guidance available in the trade union movement. If one does not do that, then the cause of the moderates is again going to be the cause that will be lost, because on every one of these occasions we shall find that the moderate who wants to act in a responsible manner, who wants to see to it that the cause of the workers is advanced without ulterior motives, will be left out in the cold because of the lack of appreciation, among the people who are there to follow him, of what the real issues are and the lack of people who are adequately trained in order to provide the leadership.

The other matter which I think flows almost automatically from this is that the fight is not going to be just between capital and labour. When people say that we are going to enter a difficult phase in regard to negotiations between capital and labour, I want to point out that we are also going to enter a very difficult phase in regard to the struggle for the control of the unions. That struggle for the control of the unions is perhaps as important as any other struggle because if the unions get into the hands of persons who want to use these unions purely in order to further either their personal ambitions or ulterior causes and not really to further the economic causes of the workers, then we are going to have very serious problems in South Africa. The struggle for the leadership of the unions, the struggle for the soul of the worker in South Africa is going to be one of the most important struggles that are going to determine the whole of the scene in South Africa in the years to come.

It is this issue which brings one to the subject which has been offered in this debate, not on one occasion, but on numerous occasions. That is that the normal struggle which takes place between capital and labour in Western countries is, as I have indicated, never restricted purely to the labour field. The question is going to be whether in South Africa there will be adequate political outlets to act as a lightning conductor in order not to have a politicizing effect on the union scene. Therefore the hon. the Minister’s colleagues have a grave responsibility to him to see to it that there is the lightning conductor which will make sure that the labour scene is not politicized to that extent, but that there is a depoliticizing of the labour scene because there are other vehicles to enhance their ordinary sociopolitical causes.

There is another issue which arises from this. We have seen that there is a meeting of various bodies who have objected to the conditions of this Bill. They have objected on various grounds and I am going to deal with some of them. Arising fundamentally from this is that there are some people to whom it does not matter whether the legislation is good; to whom it does not matter whether what one wants to do is excellent or whether the whole progress is something to be welcomed. They simply say that because it is part of the system, they will have nothing to do with it.

What are the objections which are levelled at this legislation? It arises from the concept which is being sold that whatever is within the system, one should have nothing to do with it. This is one of the reasons why, no doubt, some people do not want to register as unions. I think we have a very important task, and particularly those of us who should like to change the constitutional system and other things in the parliamentary manner in which we are trying to do it here. I think that those of us who have that responsibility, together with the hon. the Minister and those who support him have a very important task to perform. That is that we have to teach the people of South Africa, or to get them to understand, that where there is good in something they must accept it whether it is part of the system they would like to change or not. This is a very important feature, because if we are going to condemn everything because it is part of a system, then a process of evolutionary, peaceful change is impossible. The only way in which one can have peaceful and evolutionary change is if one takes the system and improves and co-operates within that system in order to change it and to make it a better system. If one is going to reject everything that is in that system, one can never have peaceful and evolutionary change. The appeal that I therefore want to make from these benches is that when the Government creates something which is good, something which is in accordance with a process of reasonable and orderly social change in the direction in which we think South Africa should go, then we must support it and should not be rejected because it is part of a system. That, to my mind, is really one of the important issues that we have to deal with at this point in time.

I now come to the question of the nonregistration of unions. I can understand the emotional feeling of people who do not want to register, but I want to draw attention to some of the dangers that exist in trade unionism of which I believe people in South Africa should be aware and conscious of because there are many examples of the abuse of union machinery in the world, and this we do not want to see in South Africa. Here I choose as an example the United States. Do we not all know of the problems that existed in regard to the control of finances in respect of unions in the United States? Do we not see how it is being abused? I, for one, believe—and I speak for no one except myself—that the accounts of every single union which exists in South Africa, whether registered or not registered, should be subject to proper auditing in order to protect the worker and ensure that his money is properly used. Let us take another example from the United States. Let us look at the control of unions in the United States that has been obtained by people who are not wedded to the cause of the workers but are in fact involved in the crime syndicates. We cannot afford to have that happen in South Africa. It must be the aim of our unions to help the workers of South Africa, and no opportunity must exist for that type of abuse to take place.

Let us take the example of intimidation taking place. Examples of what has happened in regard to the dock workers in the United States have been given here. It has been pointed out that one has to bribe somebody to get a job and how all of a sudden work becomes the exclusive prerogative of some people to hand out. I happen to believe that everybody in the world is entitled to work if he wants to work. I believe that everybody should be given an opportunity to work. I do not want to see a degeneration of the trade union structure in South Africa. I do not want to see that because of political fear on the part of people they do not want to be registered and that a situation then arises where the kind of abuse can take place that we have seen in other parts of the world, something which in my opinion we could do without in South Africa.

I am not in favour of compelling everybody to register. I do believe that we should have a situation where the employer and employee can come to terms in regard to the matter, but I think we should try to get across to the people of South Africa that trade unions are very valuable and precious things and should be used to the advance of workers and must never be allowed to be abused in the way in which it has been in other parts of the world.

There is another matter which is fairly close to my heart. One of the things for which this Bill has been attacked and one of the reasons given why people should not participate, is the industrial council system. I speak with a degree of experience and knowledge of the industrial council system. In fact, I have the greatest confidence in this system. I think it is an example that could be followed to great advantage in other parts of the world because in an industrial council employer and employee, regardless of race, actually has an opportunity of sitting around a table together. A situation is reached where negotiations take place, not in a spirit of confrontation, but in a spirit of mutual understanding. If, however, one has merely a straightforward union/employer relationship, of necessity negotiations take place as a result of demands that are made, whereas in an industrial council there is a continuous process of improving both the workers’ situation and the relationship between the employer and employee. In other words, the confrontation element which comes about as a result of negotiations which commenced with demands is eliminated to a considerable extent.

The other factor is that the issue between workers and employers is not merely one of wages. There are one hundred and one things that are dealt with in industrial agreements, things which arise from the day-to-day workings of an industrial council and which are of benefit to the workers. Let us take a simple example. There is an amendment in this Bill relating to officials, the question of the agents and secretaries of industrial councils. I speak from experience when I say that I know that the agents of an industrial council spend their time in ensuring that industrial agreements are adhered to. If workers are underpaid or deprived of their leave or some other benefit they should be getting, it is the agents of the industrial council who, in fact, see to it that an inquiry is held. It is they who inspect the employers’ premises and who then see to the prosecution. At industrial council meetings, in many cases, one finds long lists of people who have been investigated for having perhaps underpaid workers or having deprived workers of their rights. In many cases the unions do not have the facilities, the staff or the ability to have such aspects enforced. This kind of agency for the industrial council is, in fact, one of the most important instruments for the protection of the worker. If a union chooses not to join an industrial council, it is actually depriving itself of the benefit of that kind of service for its workers. I therefore want to make an appeal to people. Because the industrial council system can work so well, the unions should join in and play their part by utilizing the benefits that accrue from such an industrial council system.

While I am busy with this aspect, let me just deal with some specific matters and ask the hon. the Minister to give them his attention. I am referring to clause 48. If certain areas are excluded from the operation of an industrial council agreement—for reasons the hon. the Minister is aware of, this is a matter that is very close to my heart—or if the area of operation is going to be enlarged, the fact has to be advertised. Other formalities also have to be adhered to in order to ensure that there is no overlapping with any other industrial council. There is, however, now to be an additional provision in terms of which the scope of the registration can only be varied if the approval of both the union and the employer has been obtained. This is, however, one of the problems. Let me take an example on the Witwatersrand. One could have a particular industrial council which is limited to the magisterial district of Johannesburg. A factory could possibly be established just outside this area, in Alberton. Consequently they could pay lower wages, and the employers who are part of that organization in that part of the East Rand will surely never agree, because it suits them to pay the lower wages. To obtain everybody’s consent, as far as this is concerned, is therefore, in my opinion, impractical. I think that when a case is made out for extending the industrial agreement—in other words if the merits are such that the extension is warranted—and there is no other agreement applicable, the issue of both employer and employee organizations in the area agreeing, though one of the factors that should be taken into account, should certainly not be decisive, because an employer organization that wants to pay the lower wages could virtually exercise a veto. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to re-consider the matter and perhaps deal with this aspect in the committee stage by possibly accepting an amendment in that regard.

The other matter is the question of the moneys recovered from people who have underpaid employees. I find it a little difficult to swallow that when the worker does not get the money, it should go to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I know that the hon. the Minister of Finance is always anxious to lay his hands on money, but my suggestion to the hon. the Minister is that if the employee does not claim the money it should, instead of going to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, accrue to the industrial council to form part of the funds of the industrial council, because it is the industrial council that has taken the trouble to try and collect the money and the industrial council that has carried out investigations and has seen to it that the money has been recovered. In the same way it does not seem logical to me to distinguish between a case where a worker has actually agreed to accept the lower wage and a case where a worker has not agreed to accept the lower wage, as we do in clause 39. The hon. the Minister will know that in most cases where a worker accepts a lower wage, he does so under a duress situation. If the employer is then, by way of a prosecution or otherwise, made to pay the full amount of the wages, it is to my mind irrelevant whether the man has agreed to work for a lower wage or not, because he obviously took that job under duress. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to change that as well so as to see to it that irrespective of whether the worker agreed to work for a lower wage or not, if there was an industrial agreement in terms of which he should have been paid more, then when the employer pays that, the full amount should go to the worker. That is, to my mind, the intention of this type of legislation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, with the possible exception of the specific issues that the hon. member for Yeoville raised at the end of his speech and which could conceivably be looked at in the Committee Stage, I find myself in much the same position vis-à-vis him as he found himself vis-à-vis the hon. member for Brits. I find it quite remarkable to take part in such a lengthy debate in the House in which there is so much congratulation, so little acrimony and so much agreement in principle, although perhaps not on the details of policy.

The hon. member for Pinelands began his speech yesterday by expressing the view that the legislation under discussion was part of an ongoing process and also expressed the hope that this process would continue. I venture to say that this is undoubtedly one of the many hopes that hon. member has that has a very reasonable chance of fulfilment. The appointment of the National Manpower Commission, which is a permanent ongoing commission, is indicative of the fact that what we are dealing with here, is an ongoing, open-ended process. If the hon. member for Pinelands would be prepared to widen his perspective a little, he would see that the South African scene is a changing one, and is changing much more rapidly than his party is generally inclined to concede. This is not only due to the fact that situations are changing much more rapidly nowadays in the world at large, but also because the political debate in South Africa is becoming much more fluid and sophisticated. For example, few politicians nowadays would ever be inclined to use the word “never”. The differences between policy and principle are crystallizing out much more rapidly than in the past. Whilst it is generally conceded that principles are substantially immutable over long periods of time, it is also recognized that policies as the instruments for implementing those principles not only can, but ought to change according to the exigencies of a changing niveau.

This side of the House has long upheld the principle of meaningful worker protection in industries. In the early fifties the Botha Commission saw the best policy to use to implement this principle as one of categorizing certain work categories on ethnic lines. Hence the ethnic references in the principal Act. Now, some 30 years later, the principle of significant worker-protection still holds good, but the Wiehahn Commission perceived the need for other policies to implement this principle, such as equal payment for equal productivity and the complete domestic autonomy of trade unions.

Hence the removal of all ethnic references from the legislation under discussion. I think that everybody in the House has agreed that this is a very substantial change. However, because we are a society in transformation, it is fairly obvious that we can no longer afford to appoint commissions to look at our labour situation only once every 30 years. Therefore I think that everybody also will be in agreement that the appointment of the permanent Manpower Commission is a very, very important step forward, although it has received very little attention in this debate. I would trust that it will be eminently successful in its task of upholding well-tried and proven principles while adapting policies for their implementation, according to the exigencies of the given time.

Since all ethnic references have been removed from the legislation, and since the privileges and the advantages of one of the best pieces of negotiating and conciliation machinery in the world have been extended to all unions, be they White, Brown, Black or mixed, I would contend that there is very little reason for their refusal or reluctance to register. Even if one were to accept the argument of the hon. member for Pinelands and other speakers on that side of the House that this reluctance to register emanates from mistrust generated by past labour policies, I think it is also fair to contend that the alleged causes of that mistrust have now fallen away. Therefore I think that the hon. member for Pinelands would be doing the country, and labour relations in particular, a much greater favour if he were to use his endeavours to try to persuade those reluctant unions to register now, as the hon. member for Yeoville has very positively done, instead of exhorting this side of the House to condone this unwillingness to register. As the hon. member for Yeoville has quite correctly pointed out, there are very substantial advantages in belonging to the system, as they now do.

If one is drawn into the system and one enjoys its privileges and advantages, it is of course only reasonable to expect that one should also meet its obligations, and one of these obligations is in fact to register. The hon. member for Bryanston, with whom I do not very often agree but with whom I do agree on this point, did say yesterday that everybody who is involved in labour relations in this country should be persuaded to co-operate to make this legislation work. I agree with that entirely, but there are various forms of persuasion, and if one form of persuasion is to make it more attractive for unions to register than not to register, I think that that is a legitimate means of persuasion. If this can be done by allowing employers to subtract the dues for registered unions and preventing them from doing it for unregistered unions, I am all in favour of this even though, as the hon. member for Randburg pointed out yesterday, this was not the main motivation for that provision. I think that in given situations a little bit of the stick is applicable as well as substantial amounts of carrot.

*Of course, we on this side of the House cannot go along with the capitulation politics which some hon. members of the official Opposition are often inclined to hold up here.

You are talking nonsense again.

I have not yet said anything about it. The hon. member will be able to establish whether I am speaking rubbish only once I have said what I am going to say. It concerns the question of illegal strikes. Illegal strikes are discouraged throughout the world by all Governments, with all the power and persuasive ability at their disposal. I also believe that it should be no different in South Africa, and therefore I cannot understand why illegal strikes in South Africa should now be condoned, merely because, as the hon. member for Bryanston alleged here yesterday, most strikes in recent times have been illegal, or because most of the strikes were Black people, or because we were not to condone this type of behaviour, it would amount to provocation or that they would consider it provocation on the part of the Government.

I believe that the official Opposition is doing a disservice to South Africa and to labour relations in this country when they try to allege that every piece of controlling legislation that is introduced here by the Government, is provocative or of a Draconic nature, regardless of how fair and reasonable such legislation may be. I think it would be a very good thing, and that they would be doing South Africa a favour instead, if they were rather to point out to those people who are acting in a provocative manner and participating in wild-cat strikes, that it is in fact them, and not the Government, that are acting provocatively in that situation. There is in actual fact no longer any justification for behaviour of that nature because this legislation is in fact putting the best conciliation machinery in the world at the disposal of such strikers too. I feel it is extremely naïve—so naïve that it is bordering on the absurd—to want to allege, as the hon. member for Bryanston did yesterday, that these people, although they are illegal strikers, are not striking without cause, but are merely striking because they have a legal grievance related to their conditions of employment or conditions of service and so on, whilst apparently this is not the case. In fact, the hon. member for Bryanston was repudiated on this point by his hon. colleague, the member prof. Olivier, in no uncertain terms. The hon. member prof. Olivier pointed out yesterday that wild-cat strikes throughout the world, here and abroad, very often have nothing to do with situations within the labour circle or labour milieu, but in fact are often related to the promotion of political objectives. He even went so far as to say, even though it was in a different context, that such people may be guilty of behaviour that is detrimental to the nation, and that he cannot suggest a solution for it. I want to add at once that one of the solutions is of course not to make it easier for such people to act in a way that is detrimental to the nation, but, in fact, to make it more difficult for them to do so. In my opinion, it is a somewhat sickly argument to condone such situations in view of the past, or for whatever reason, and I feel this is very closely allied to the argument that took hold during the Carter régime viz. that one must capitulate with terrorists and that one must negotiate with them because they are supposedly the men with guns in their hands. Now I want to put it clearly that we on this side of the House consider it one of our principles not to capitulate in the face of illegality and lawlessness. If we concede that this must in fact be done, we are not serving any positive purpose in that way. If one were to do this, one would be creating a very dangerous precedent for potential chaos, disorder and anarchy. In this regard, I think that we on this side of the House are now entitled to become a little impatient and even a little annoyed about the unsavoury habbit which the hon. member for Pinelands has begun to develop in recent times, viz. to want to allege that this side of the House is deliberately passing legislation with the intention of prosecuting the innocent dependants of transgressors, to plague them and to torment them.

Where were you at dawn this morning?

With the greatest flights of imagination on earth one cannot read it into this legislation anywhere, as the hon. member for Pinelands asked yesterday, that well-meaning individuals will be guilty of a crime if they were to give a cup of soup or a loaf of bread to the suffering wife and children of an illegal striker.

What happens if they use their funds for that purpose?

Indeed, the relevant clause refers exclusively to organizations, trade unions and federations and organizations which, if one is to believe the hon. member prof. Olivier, would in fact be able to act in a manner that would be detrimental to the nation in this regard. I want to ask whether it is humane and Christian in an orderly civilization to make it easier for organizations to act in such a way that is detrimental to the nation, to the detriment of the community as a whole. Although it is not directly related to this, in the nature of things I also support this curtailment regarding political activities, that take place not only within the country; nor in White politics only, but in Black politics too.

The hon. Chief Minister of kwaZulu is continually complaining about the fact that the radicalization of his youth is favouring illegal political organizations, such as the ANC for instance, and I think it would be a very unhealthy situation if we were to allow, or consider condoning, actions by legislation, when trade unions are guilty of these types of activities. As the hon. member for Durban North quite correctly remarked, there is a high risk of instability in any changing civilization, as South Africa’s truly is. If one is in such a civilization of transition, it is absolutely essential for the changes that are made, whether they be in the labour sphere, the socio-economic or the political sphere, to take place within very definite parameters of orderliness, legality and circumspection.

Since, in my modest opinion, this legislation complies with the requirements in our particular time, it is a great pleasure for me to support the Second Reading of the Bill without any reservation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Benoni will forgive me if I do not directly follow up his speech, because I should like to take this opportunity to thank hon. members of this House for their pleasant reception and in particular the members of the parliamentary staff for their courtesy and helpfulness.

I am quite certain that all members of the House are well aware of the urgent necessity for the legislation that is before us. Our future depends so much on our ability to use our human resources as wisely and efficiently as possible over the next 20 years. By that time our population of nearly 50 million people will require five million managerial, professional and technical people. At that stage our economically active White population will in fact be able to contribute only one-half of that figure which will mean that about two and a half million people to occupy these posts will have to come from our Black and Brown South Africans. That stage is only 19 years away from today.

Blessed as we are in our Republic with a treasure-house of riches in the form of minerals and metals over which we are the custodians for mankind, it is vital that we do not allow ourselves to live off this capital wealth, as it were, and that we repeatedly and vividly remind ourselves of certain serious shortcomings in our performance in other sphere of economic endeavour, especially in the field of labour and human resources.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation in seeking to further improve employer/employee relationships, touches the very heart of a situation which we ignore at our peril. As at 11 January of this year South Africa’s productivity rating showed us to be lagging well behind such obviously poorer countries as Spain and Italy. Out of 11 countries that were compared, we are in fact at the bottom of the list. I wish to mention for the sake of interest one or two countries in the bracket of which we would more likely be in relation to productivity or productive capability. Above Italy and Spain we find that Australia has a productivity rating in comparison with our own of 3,7. Canada has a rating of 4 and the USA 4,5. The scale continues to ascend until we come to Switzerland whose productivity rating is seven times higher than our own. With our annual value per economically active adult standing at R3 435 we find that in the case of Switzerland the figure is R25 577. The figures in most of the manufacturing industries in this country indicate a 50% productivity rating as at present.

In the past the oversupply of unskilled labour and relatively free availability of capital have been the reasons for our acceptance of a low productivity level and, as in all developing countries, under-employment and unemployment have been such as to offer a substantial opportunity for the expansion of output by putting these resources to work and improving the employment situation. However, this is always done at the expense of profit because if output does not rise correspondingly this must in turn affect growth. The rewards on a national level that can flow from concerted productivity efforts would include a high level of economic growth, the satisfying of the worker in respect of a higher standard of living and improved competitiveness in international markets—in fact, an exciting field of endeavour with a great deal of room in which we can maneouvre. Higher productivity, Sir, is not an end in itself but a means of promoting social progress and strengthening the economic foundations of human well-being, an area so vital to this country. The need for sustained profit levels in the interests of further productive investment, i.e. economic growth, is vital. The increase in national income accruing to labour must not be at the expense of profits but must come from increased productivity. A 5% increase in productivity with our gross domestic product for 1980 standing at a figure of R62 397 000 000 would in fact represent R3 billion, which amounts to nearly one-third of our export income from gold.

One can see therefore that the productivity factor is one that we have to look at seriously and continually. There are political, economic and sociological implications which interact one upon the other and affect the scope of improvement in productivity. Of these training has probably the greatest single influence. This, of course, has its beginnings in the constraints locked into the standard of our education. Equally important is the confidence, in the sense of security offered by well-structured labour organizations through whose presence fears of possible redundancy, job changes and greater expectation from labour without reward can be stilled. The creation of conditions in which the collective bargaining power of labour is channelled in orderly and well-informed trade unions to the mutual benefit of all will immeasurable be enhanced by this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to congratulate the hon. member for King William’s Town on his first contribution in this House. He would appear to have studied his subject very well and I trust that he will make many more positive contributions in this House and that he will also be very happy here. I am very well acquainted with his colleagues from Natal because we got to know each other when most of us were serving on the Natal Provincial Council. I do not know this hon. member very well yet, but I trust that in the course of our term of office here we shall get to know one another better.

As regards the legislation at present before this House, the fact of the matter is that the Government is recognizing and, recently in particular, protecting the rights and freedoms of all workers, irrespective of race. This is actually what the legislation before us is concerned with, as are the other pieces of legislation which the hon. the Minister and his department have prepared with so much effort and, I assume, hundreds of hours of work, so that they could be discussed here. We have in general had very positive reactions to these efforts from the Opposition, and many congratulations and kind words. We on this side are very grateful to them for their attitude in this regard.

The reason why the Government is so concerned with the rights of the workers and the protection of those rights is that we in this country—including the Government—believe in the system of free enterprise, the system which allows a man to decide for himself, to be able to negotiate for himself what is best for him and to sell his labour where he can get the highest price for it. This can be to the advantage of the worker, his family and our country. For this reason it is essential—and the hon. the Minister is to be congratulated on this—that we apply this to all productive workers in South Africa. In the course of the discussion of the legislation the various rights of the worker were considered and singled out with a view to protecting them.

If I may point out one or two of them, I should like to mention that the right to work is recognized by the Government. This is a very important principle in South Africa. We also wish every worker to have a reasonable remuneration, and are in favour of training and retraining so that workers can improve their position. Trade unions and workers’ organizations have the right to organize and to negotiate with the employer. By means of this legislation these organizations are accorded protection and a right of existence and workers are protected against unfair labour practices. However, in society, rights also demand responsibility. One must not use one’s freedom in such a way as to jeopardize or destroy another person’s freedom. Without a sense of responsibility there can be no question of freedom.

An important task of the Department of Manpower is to ensure adequate work opportunities for the community. A degree of co-operation between employer and employee is necessary to ensure peace in the labour field. Mutual trust between employer and employee must be constructively and continuously built up. A process of orderly co-operation must be maintained and in order to achieve co-operation there must be constant communication and negotiation. The hon. the Minister has now tabled neutral legislation which, as I have already said, is in no way discriminatory. He is therefore now creating a climate for finding just solutions where problems may arise.

Throughout the world, and therefore in South Africa too, there is unfortunately a great deal of wilfulness and many wilful people in the labour field who make matters difficult. People act maliciously with a certain goal in mind. One can ask oneself why difficulties suddenly arise in a peaceful area after certain persons have appeared on the scene.

Ask Boraine.

I ask this question of all the hon. members of this House and I feel the hon. member referred to could perhaps also think about it. The problem is that we do not really have dissatisfied workers, but rather malicious and wilful persons who are determined to cause instability in this fine country of ours. I should like to refer to the banner headlines in yesterday’s Mercury. “We will fight the law on strike pay, say unions!” In spite of what is offered them, which is to their own advantage and the advantage of the country, a spirit of confrontation is created which is publicized by way of banner headlines in the newspapers. I have already said that this situation is a world-wide situation and it seems to me as if there is only one answer to this sort of thing, and that is to act firmly. President Reagan, the leader of the leading country in the West, showed recently how one must act in the Western world against people whose behaviour is aimed at harming the State by means of illegal strikes. For this reason I wish to emphasize that we—here I have in mind the hon. the Minister and his department in particular—will experience difficulties in the future. We know what is being planned in the labour field. We can give the hon. the Minister credit for having had the courage to pick up the ball and run with it. I really think the hon. the Minister will have to act with great firmness in the future.

I have already said that the hon. Opposition acted very responsibly in this debate. I want to appeal to them to act as responsibly outside this House as they did in this debate with regard to labour interests in South Africa. [Interjections.] I am making this appeal to them because it is in the vital interests of the country that there be labour peace here. We are all involved, every individual who seeks to improve his living conditions in this country. I have already said that agitators are responsible for all hell breaking loose suddenly in places where previously peace had prevailed.

If one takes into account the role of South Africa in Africa, one sees that good labour relations in South Africa are very important. The hon. the Minister pointed out something in a speech recently which I considered very illuminating. He indicated that this small country at the southern tip of Africa is at present responsible for 40% of the manufacturing production in Africa. Twenty-two per cent of all exports from Africa also come from South Africa. Sixty-six per cent of all steel used in Africa is used in South Africa and 70% of the electricity of Africa is used in South Africa. Fifty per cent of all cars and trucks in the whole of Africa are to be found in South Africa. Ninety-five per cent of the coal of Africa is produced here and 38% of the uranium of Africa is produced here, as is 95% of the gold and 70% of the manganese ore. Hon. members will therefore agree with me that the prosperity and improved living conditions of every person in South Africa are very intimately bound up with the industries in our country.

However, we must not only measure our success against countries in Africa. It is our duty to measure ourselves against the foremost countries of the Western world. I should like to give an example to indicate that we must not become despondent and that the hon. the Minister must carry on, because there are very clear indications of the success of his Manpower 2000 project which he undertook in co-operation with his department. I should like to point out that 47 British immigrants arrive in the RSA daily. Last year 8 700 Britons emigrated to South Africa. During the first period this year 10 000 have already emigrated to South Africa and it is estimated that in the course of this year 20 000 people will emigrate to this country. It is important to note that all these figures I have just mentioned do not even comprise 17% of the applications received. Every day we are inundated with applications from people who want to come to South Africa from Britain. Nor should one overlook the fact that the present unemployment figure in Britain is approximately 3 million. It is interesting to note that only about 10% of the applications for emigration to this country that we receive are from unemployed persons. South Africa is a country of first choice. It offers people not only a better home but also better working conditions. Those people have become tired of the constant disputes about labour matters and the strikes occurring in the Western countries, especially in Britain. In conclusion, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he must not allow himself to be deterred by the reaction of the independent trade unions that are ostensibly going to take certain steps out of revenge or are going to remain obstinate. Hon. members of the Opposition are very fond of quoting the leader of the Zulus, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. For interest’s sake I wish to quote what he said the other day in a speech in Johannesburg—

It is a pleasure for me to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Vryheid will forgive me if I do not reply to the speech he made. There is in fact very little to which I can reply, because his speech consisted mainly of a series of clichés about how good it was to have industrial peace and how good it was to have the right to work in South Africa.

Is it necessary to be so catty?

I might say that there are a lot of people who might question “the right to work”, because they are unable to sell their labour in the best market. The hon. member went on about the need to have protection against unfair practices and how we required negotiation processes, and so on. So I do not think there is very much I need to reply to in the hon. member’s speech. In any case, I would like to come back to the Bill, if that is possible.

It seems to me that in South Africa we make advances in the labour field in a series of short, sharp rushes, mainly by repealing legislation which should never have been put on the Statute Book in the first place and which has done very considerable damage to economic development in South Africa while it remained on the Statute Book. I am, of course, referring to legislation placed on the Statute Book as long ago as the mid-fifties when job reservation, and so on, was placed on the Statute Book. In 1979, however, we had the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Act, which this Bill before us now again amends in terms of the principal Act. The 1979 measure at long last partially opened the door for Black workers to join registered trade unions. That was one of the important features of that Bill. It also repealed the absurd job reservation law, viz. section 77 of the original Industrial Conciliation Act. The amending legislation of 1979, of course, contained a number of serious defects, and we in these benches opposed that legislation at Second Reading. Because the hon. member for Pinelands was unfortunately ill at the time, having undergone surgery, I moved on behalf of the party an amendment that this party (Hansard, 7 June 1979, col. 8035)—

1. (1) Limiting the eligibility of Black workers to join registered trade unions to those workers permanently resident and employed in the Republic; and
2. (2) restricting the freedom of association of workers and trade union autonomy by prohibiting the formation of racially mixed registered trade unions.

As the hon. member for Pinelands informed the House, we are supporting the Bill before us today at Second Reading and we do so because it meets the two major objections we had to the 1979 legislation. We could have saved a lot of time if in 1979 the hon. the Minister had perhaps taken our advice and amended that Bill. The Bill before us extends eligibility for membership of registered trade unions to all workers in the Republic, except of course those workers working in undertakings, industries and occupations which are excluded by the principal Act, for example, the workers in State employment, mining, etc. Domestic workers, too, are unfortunately still excluded.

Migrant workers and commuters—“pendelaars”, a new word I learnt in 1979—no longer therefore require ministerial permission to join registered trade unions. That means that some 2,1 million additional workers in the Republic, coming from no matter where, from homelands and from independent Black states, will now have a statutory right to join registered trade unions. Secondly, there is the main thrust of this Bill in clause 1(r), which serves to delete all references to population groups in the principal Act. In addition, section 4B is being repealed. That was the section that forbade racially mixed unions, unless permission or exemption was obtained from the Minister. It was our contention that the original provision ran counter to the ILO convention of 1948 concerning freedom of association and also ran counter to one of the main recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission. To this day I do not understand why those provisions were introduced in the amendment Bill of 1979. Never mind about that, however. Let us come back to the present day and the Bill we are considering now. Clause 1(r) in fact rectifies the position and therefore we are giving this Bill our support.

Then, too, the Bill implements an undertaking given by the hon. the Minister earlier this year when the Wage Act was amended. It implements that undertaking by outlawing wage differentiation on the basis of sex in Industrial Council agreements. We are very pleased about that. The hon. the Minister promised he would do this. I asked him to do this during the debate on the Wage Act and he promised that he would amend the Industrial Conciliation Act to bring it into line. This he has done by means of a number of clauses in this Bill, viz. clauses 21, 32(g) and 62. All of these serve to outlaw any reference to differentiation of wages on the basis of sex. According to information the hon. the Minister gave in a debate on a previous Bill, that means that the differentiation in respect of 40 agreements affecting about 109 000 female workers will be phased out. In other words, it is not going to be an overnight change, but gradually the differentiation will be removed.

For these reasons we are supporting the Second Reading of the Bill, but this does not mean that we do not have very serious criticism to offer in respect of certain aspects of this measure. I want to come to that now. First of all, as other hon. members have pointed out, we are unhappy about clause 5(c), because by introducing section 4B in the Industrial Conciliation Act in 1979, which was the section which prevented the formation of multiracial unions, the State was using its machinery to prevent the formation of multiracial unions and to enforce subdivision of assets, etc., where those multiracial unions existed. We believe that that was very definite interference with freedom of association. Now section 4B is being repealed, but the State now wants us to accept the use of its machinery to advance the cause—as I read it, anyway—of separate trade unions by permitting the trade unions to protect “the rights of particular groups of workers” via clause 5(c).

The White Paper says that the stipulation does not have a racial connotation but must be interpreted far more broadly and therefore does not favour any particular interest group. All I can say to this is: Famous last words. I think that is being completely naïve. In terms of the White Paper it might be thought that we are being completely naїve because I have no doubt whatsoever that in practice the racial connotation is going to rear its ugly head. I believe that the conflict that will thereafter ensue will do considerable damage to industrial peace. I think this is introducing a racial clause via the back door by talking about “the interests of certain groups”, whatever that may be. I believe that the proposed new section 4(4)(c) encourages multi-unionism and will create inter-union rivalry. I believe it will defeat the object of representativeness by allowing the union to define the boundaries of its own representativeness. It allows a union to excise from the main body of workers a section of the workers and to claim that it represents those workers, who are then allowed to form their own separate trade union. Although clause 5 does not contain racial terminology—and I grant that right away—I believe it is undoubtedly going to be used for racial separation in trade unionism.

When it suits the Government, it allows the trade unions to use the machinery of State to manipulate separation in the name of freedom of association. But that is only when and where it suits the Government. Where it does not suit the Government, no such freedom is allowed, as, for example, in the provisions of clause 10, one of which does not allow freedom of association with political parties. There it is forbidden. There the machinery of State may not be used to encourage so-called freedom of association. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that association with political parties is accepted practice for trade unions in Britain, in the USA, in France and, I believe, also in West Germany.

I come now to one of the most contentious provisions, I believe, in this Bill. The one that has aroused the most resentment and conflict among Black trade union movements. It is one that is most opposed by the Black trade union movements. This is a provision which, I believe, is likely to lead to a lot of trouble in the future. That is clause 48, which amends section 65 of the principal Act. The idea behind this is to stop illegal strikes. This is the clause which prevents the giving of money in any way to provide strike funds for illegal strikes. I should like to point out that during the last ten years over a quarter of a million workers went on strike in South Africa, and there were 189 recorded strikes in South Africa, only one of which was legal. All the others were illegal strikes, and I think this is indeed a very disturbing picture of our labour relations. What does it mean? It surely means that the system is not being used. It means that the Act is not working properly. People can strike legally only via the conciliation board or via the industrial councils, and people are simply not using the system. I believe it is because the system is too complicated. I believe the system only provides for major disputes. In fact, most of the strikes are over minor disputes. They are over disputes on the shop floor, and somehow or other our industrial machinery just does not provide for minor grievances. It is geared up to the more skilled workers, to the craft unions which are engaged in major disputes with employers, and not for the minor disputes. Our Act is not structured for minor disputes. It does not suit, therefore, the needs of the vast majority of the workers, who are either unskilled or semi-skilled workers. I believe that what the Government is doing here by forbidding strike funds to illegal strikers—and of course that falls hardest on the dependants of the strikers and not on the strikers themselves—is to look to the symptoms rather than the causes of the trouble. I believe that instead of tightening-up the machinery by depriving strikers of strike funds, what the Government should be doing, is to try to improve conciliation machinery, to simplify it, to leave it more to the bargaining process between employers and employees so as to avoid strikes.

I believe that probably decriminalizing strikes might be one of the important things that the Government should consider doing. Conciliation, if it is going to work, must be voluntary. It will not work otherwise. Briefly, what this means is that the State should encourage collective bargaining rather than prescribe the form that collective bargaining should take. I think we need less rather than more State intervention. I think we should, for instance, leave it to the employer to decide about check-off facilities. I do not think we should have legislation about this. I do not think it is possible in practice to use only the registered unions. I think the person who is in the best position to decide which union is representative of the workers is probably the employer himself. If necessary, there are methods that he can employ to try to determine which of the unions that are competing to be considered representative in his particular industry, should in fact be the declared winner. There are things like ballots and other methods which could be adopted.

I think if labour relations are to assume a healthier complexion in South Africa the Department of Manpower must desist forthwith from two very nasty practices. The first is to stop inviting the intervention of the Police at the first sign of a strike. Stop inviting Police action. It is often the Department of Manpower that calls in the Police at the first sign of any strike or trouble at a factory. Secondly, it must stop arresting and detaining trade union leaders via the security legislation of this country. There are a number of trade union leaders who are presently detained and there are a number of trade union leaders who are presently banned. Absolutely nothing causes more resentment particularly among the Black workers of South Africa than when their leaders are summarily carted off into detention or are banned when they come out of detention. The hon. the Minister can tell us until he is blue in the face that the detention and arrest of these people has nothing whatever to do with their trade union activities. Nobody believes that, and I include myself among the disbelievers. If there were any other good reasons why such people should be detained under the security legislation, I have no doubt that we would have been told in full measure by the hon. the Minister of Justice. I have no doubt that these people would then have been hauled into court long ago under the many laws which the hon. the Minister has at his disposal.

The other practice from which I think the Department of Manpower should desist, because I think it causes a lot of industrial trouble, is this business of influencing employers about whether or not to hire or fire workers who might be involved in strike action. This advising of employers that they should not hire so and so because he is a trouble-maker or that they should fire so and so because he is a trouble-maker is a form of victimization.

What advice do you give them?

I am going to give an example of where this happens. In the case of S.A. Fabrics, where more than 500 workers went out on strike in January this year, the Department of Manpower advised the firm to dismiss all the workers and then to re-engage selectively. It is an old trick. Fortunately the employers were too intelligent to take any notice of this advice. They disregarded the advice. Instead they did the right thing. They went to arbitration; they won an award and everybody was happy as a result of that.

I believe that these practices, the arrest and detention of trade union leaders, the calling in of the Police at the first sign of a strike, have caused an enormous amount of suspicion to be aroused in the minds of the Black workers of this country. That is one of the reasons why they are resisting registration of their unions. It is because they do not want any further control from Government sources. They do not want to be drawn further into the web of the establishment, because they feel that they cannot trust a Government which up until now never appears to side with them when there is any difficulty or any strike action. They have fought shy of registration because they have become deeply suspicious of the Department of Manpower and of the Government itself.

Finally, I see in a footnote in the White Paper that certain matters affecting the jurisdiction of the industrial court—which I think is section 17 of the principal Act—have been referred to the Manpower Commission. I can only hope that this will result in doing away with the absurd situation that emanated from the Raleigh Cycles case. I am sure the hon. the Minister knows what I am talking about. The court is just not operating as a result of this case because of the extremely narrow interpretation that was placed on the expression “the application of the laws administered by the Department of Labour”. Here we have a sort of catch 22 situation where cases are referred to the Supreme Court and where the Supreme Court says: No, no, this is not a case for us; this is a case for the industrial court. However, the industrial court is simply not operating. I hope, therefore, that the National Manpower Commission will deal very rapidly with this extraordinary situation that obtains at the present time.

I think that when we discussed the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Bill in 1979 we on these benches issued a warning in respect of its ambiguous wording. We warned the hon. the Minister that this might happen. Of course, no notice was taken of that warning. We also issued a warning in regard to the impracticability of the major provisions which this hon. Minister is now having to amend in this Bill. I want now to issue another warning, not that I have any hope at all that any more notice will be taken of this warning, than was taken of our previous warnings. Other hon. members on this side have also mentioned this, including the hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members who have spoken. I want to say that if there is to be industrial peace of a lasting nature in South Africa much more fundamental change is required in this country. We have to provide the great mass of South Africa’s workers with a channel other than militant strike action by means of which to express their aspirations and to achieve them. It is no use denying people political opportunities; it is no good denying them channels by means of which they can express their disagreement with Government policies and leave them with the only weapon that they have which is, of course, militant strike action.

I know that the hon. the Minister was very anxious to avoid any political implications as far as this piece of legislation is concerned and for obvious reasons. He has a large number of people just waiting to pounce on him. I understand that. So what did the hon. the Minister do? What he did, of course, was to make his political observations on this Bill in his speech during the censure debate. That is exactly what he did. He reminded us, Sir, that the Government had come into power in 1948 because the workers had confidence in it, in his party. He said that the had again won the election in 1981 with a huge majority because the workers and the electorate once again trusted the NP. He smiles happily and says yes, that is so. Of course, Sir, when the hon. the Minister talked about the workers, he was talking about a very small percentage of the workers of South Africa. He was talking about the electorate, the workers who are included in the White electorate of South Africa. This means that he was ignoring approximately 90% of the workers corps in South Africa entirely. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that unless he wins the confidence of the mass of the workers in South Africa, of those 90% of the workers in South Africa …

You have never defended the White worker.

… he does not have a hope of industrial peace in this country.

When have you ever defended the White worker?

Well, Sir, of course, that hon. member is too dumb to realize that as far as the peaceful future, the industrial future, the political future, any future in South Africa is concerned, the fate of the White man is quite ineluctably bound up with the fate of the Black man in this country. So every time that I make a plea for an improvement in the conditions of the Blacks—everything about them, in their political and living standards—I am making a plea for the survival of the White man. That is a fact. [Interjections.]

I think that the hon. the Minister must have been thinking about the Black workers when he said this in his speech during the censure debate. He said—

And then his voice dropped a little and he added—

I think that when he said this, Sir, he was thinking mainly about the Black workers. I may say, of course, that this is in essence exactly what I said in a speech I made during the election campaign which really infuriated the hon. member for Parys. I see him sitting over there. He was very motivated by that speech, Sir, and he made a very sharp attack on me during the censure debate. Unfortunately, he did not have the courtesy to inform me that he was going to make that attack on me and ask me to be present, in which case I would have been here to listen with bated breath to what he had to say. [Interjections.] As it was, I read the hon. member’s speech. He made a very sharp attack upon me because he accused me of trying to instigate industrial unrest. I issued exactly the same warning during that election speech that I am issuing now, and I am going to repeat some of those words in this House. What I want to tell the hon. member for Parys is that he does what so many members of his party do and that is to confuse analysis with recommendation. When one is analysing a situation, it does not mean that one is recommending that that takes place; one is analyzing the situation.

That is very clever.

No, not clever; elementary. That is all it is.

What I said then which infuriated the hon. member so much was that South Africa could learn a lesson from what had happened in Poland over the last year or so. There the Solidarity Labour Movement wrung concession after concession out of an absolutely confused Communist Central Committee which has found and continues to find that its overwhelming physical and military power is no answer to the crippling industrial power of a militant trade union movement. And that is the truth of it, Sir.

I think it should be obvious to everybody in this country that unless radical changes are made in South Africa, the huge Black working class …

You said “radical changes”, did you not?

Yes, radical changes, meaningful changes, far-reaching changes.

… who is denied almost all human rights of citizenship, of movement, of residential choice, of equal education and of equal opportunity, will seek to redress its grievances by using its increasingly formidable industrial power. That is the warning which I issue now. What I am warning about may not come to pass in the immediate future, but I have no doubt whatsoever that unless the Government takes its courage in its hands and follows through with increasing measures to increase the political channels through which Black people can express their aspirations, and takes radical steps to improve their education and their economic opportunities, the Black working class will follow the example of the Polish Solidarity Labour Movement, and the great military might of the South African Government will not be able to do anything about it because of the tremendous chaos that will be caused in South Africa if it does attempt to do so.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, which I consider to have been an extremely fruitful one, I should like to thank everyone who took part in it most sincerely for their participation.

†I also want to add my congratulations to those already extended to the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for King William’s Town on their first performance here in the House. I wish them very well and I hope that in future they will make their contributions worthwhile contributions.

*To begin with I want to point out that the legislation at present before us is not the final piece of legislation in the process which began in 1979. This process is probably very nearly at an end, but there is still a part of the complete package of legislation in the pipeline and this, it is to be hoped, will be tabled next year.

During the past few years there have probably been very few pieces of legislation before this House that have been submitted after such thorough deliberation, such wide consultation across the entire spectrum of interested parties, and after having been given such in-depth attention over such a long period. It is unlikely that there has been much legislation which, in all its ramifications, has attracted so much interest for such a lengthy period across the entire spectrum, as I said, of interested parties, as this very labour legislation. If in many circles it is called a new dispensation, well and good; then it probably is a new dispensation, because it has been gone into in such depth. This Bill, and legislation which is still to come, will probably show the world, and therefore South Africa too, that the Government does not hesitate or shrink from taking those steps which are in the interests of the security of South Africa and in the general interest of the interested parties and of the public of South Africa.

On this occasion I should like to thank a team which has spent many nights, as a matter of fact many months, wrestling with literally tens of thousands of pages of input material from all over South Africa. I refer to officials of the department, members of the Labour Commission which was appointed, members of the National Manpower Commission and other outside persons who gave assistance. Hon. members cannot form any conception of the work which this entailed, and I wish to convey a special word of thanks today to the persons involved.

Certain portions were published, and after very favourable and interesting reaction had been received, those portions with which we shall continue, were held back. There are some who wish to deduce from this that the Government has taken fright and that we now no longer wish to carry on with them, and I wish to make it clear that it was held back only because we gave South Africa an undertaking, both in this House and outside it, that as regards this legislation we shall try to take everyone with us. Because there is still uncertainty and not yet complete unanimity, we must be given the chance to achieve this unanimity.

To this I wish to add that the Opposition, including the hon. member who has just sat down, are in a dilemma today because they know that the legislation is supported by the employees—I am speaking in particular of those who are on the voters roll. In passing, I just wish to point out, too, that the legislation is supported by the vast majority of those of whom it has frequently been said that they will not support it. Naturally there are two camps, especially in the ranks of the Black trade union members. There is the militant section, and those who are incited not to co-operate, but there is a very large section which has already registered, which would like to co-operate and with whom there is in fact the very best co-operation. They represent literally tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Black workers in South Africa. Therefore I wish to say here and now that it is not true that only White workers support the legislation. One need only attend the congresses to see with what enthusiasm Black trade union leaders support the legislation and express their support every day, and they also express their support to the Minister whose office is always open to them.

My sincere thanks go also to hon. members on this side of the House who support the legislation, amongst others the hon. members for Roodeplaat, Pretoria Central and Randburg, the hon. member Mr. Van Staden, the hon. members for Brits, Benoni and Vryheid. They all made good contributions and also helped with arguments and by asking questions. The hon. member for Brits asked me a specific question which I shall deal with in due course. I thank the hon. members for their very good contributions.

Many thanks, too, for the contributions made by the Opposition. I appreciate it. Some hon. members really made meaningful and positive contributions, for which I am grateful. Having said this you will excuse me, Sir, if I tell this House that I noticed an interesting phenomenon in this debate, something I have seen very seldom, namely that the Government has taken a step here about which the entire world and also that hon. member is kicking up a fuss. We are called upon to remove all racial connotations. But when we do eventually remove all racial connotations, what do the hon. members do? Some of them concede that we are in fact removing them, but say, as did that hon. member, “then the snake rears its ugly head again” and we are accused of reintroducing the same thing by way of our concept of trade union autonomy. I object to this and I am very sorry that hon. members have done this.

[Inaudible.]

Just wait; I am still going to discuss that. What is the position? The hon. member Mr. Van Staden made a very important remark. He has been a member of Parliament for a great many years and because he takes an interest in this matter he spotted a very important point, for which I wish to give him credit. He said that much of South Africa’s industrial legislation does not have a racial connotation. As a matter of fact the Wage Act, which is older than any of us sitting here, never had such a connotation. On the contrary, it is still illegal today to include provisions based on race, colour or creed in agreements with industrial councils. This has been part of the system for many years.

Old Sap policy.

This is therefore nothing new. This has been the case for years in the industrial field, where millions of people work in factories and negotiate for the same wages for the same work. Naturally it is still down in black and white in many places. It is not only I, as the Minister, who say so. Thousands of people have commented on this, including trade unions and also the congresses and caucus of the party I represent here. According to all these people the important predominant principle or umbrella under which bargaining must be done, is the principle of the right to self-determination of groups or communities or interest groups within the connotation of free association. Of course free association is allowed. The hon. member for Randburg had a very good point when he spoke of association and disassociation. He went to the crux of the concept of association. What do we say? In the labour world, with its complexities, one must have a concept which affords safety. What, then, did we do? By recognizing the principle of the autonomy of trade unions we tell a trade union that it is autonomous and that as such it can decide for itself how to conduct its affairs, because it eventually becomes physically and technically impossible for a department to control everything—it is impossible for inspectors to drive around finding out how things work in tens of thousands of factories.

If one were to ask any trade union leader today what a trade union in South Africa would want most if it could make a law for itself, he would say: Give me the right to conduct my own affairs. Hon. members can go and ask them. This autonomy for trade unions has resulted in peace and acceptance. However, it is said that the Government has once again dragged in a racial connotation by way of the autonomy of trade unions.

As already mentioned, there are many bonds, and often they have to do with family groupings. I have in mind for example a certain industry which has belonged to certain families for 200 years now. Those people attach a great value to this and very much wish to protect that family bond. It can however be a completely different type of bond that does not involve race or group at all. National grouping is of course a bond too; it is simply not included as such. I hoped that if it were worded in this way it would afford the opportunity for selfprotection. I hoped that trade unions themselves—not because a Minister, the State or legislation says so—would act in their own interests as a trade union and would jealously guard the trade union bond and the protection it affords. I hoped that it would be construed in this way. It is extremely important that it be construed in this way. If group bonds are not recognized and if the bond derived from national grouping is also not recognized a law will have to be passed to prevent it. If in this country of ours a law is to be passed to prohibit that bond or to oppose it, that law will have to be a law which imposes integration and makes it compulsory. This is the logical outcome. If hon. members argue that we are trying to drag racism into the Act in this way I want to say I do not think it is fair to say so. It is not right at this stage and for this reason I shall leave the argument at that.

Hon. members also asked me to indicate that the investigation into the functions of the industrial court be considered a matter of urgent importance. My answer to this is that the president of the industrial court and the National Manpower Commission have already been requested to consider the future operation of the court. Therefore, as regards this question, hon. members can rest assured that the matter is being investigated.

The hon. member for Pinelands, as well as the hon. member for Bryanston, asked whether the prohibition on the deduction of trade union membership dues could not be lifted in the case of unregistered trade unions because this militates against the principles of self-government and free enterprise. The hon. member for Houghton also said that she did not believe in it. The deduction of these fees is one of the points that is being disputed. In the light of the history of the trade union movement in South Africa it is imperative that we understand a few things. Unregistered trade unions—those trade unions which the whole issue is about—are in fact the bodies in South Africa which are endangering the system of free enterprise which must be protected. What have we had in recent months and weeks? We have had unregistered trade unions acting with the utmost irresponsibility in the field of labour. They acted irresponsibly by way of boycotts, threats of boycotts and by strikes in a way which was unmanageable. This indicates that it is those people in particular who interfere in the system of free enterprise. If we in South Africa want order, we must have order in that field.

I understood the hon. member for Bryanston to say that we must not rebuke people who strike illegally; we must rather talk to these people, otherwise they may become angry and then there will be trouble. Sir, one cannot argue like that in South Africa. There are of course countries where there is such disorder, with the sort of result we see in those countries. That is why we go out of our way to try to create a system and to invite everyone to participate in that system of order. If, however, there is to be order in such a system, and if an unregistered trade union wants to be part of that system and wants to share the benefit of the deduction of membership fees, it can, if it is genuine, do one of two things. In the first place it can register, and thereby become part of the system in an orderly way like all other trade unions. In any case it arouses suspicion if a trade union does not want to co-operate with the State in a system. The moment it decides not to do so, one immediately questions its motives. In the second place, it can apply to the Minister for exemption so that it may, after all, be permitted to enjoy the stop order facilities provided in terms of the legislation.

If it does apply to the Minister for these facilities, what will the Minister do? He may grant that exemption, but who will he consult? He consults the employers to find out whether they have any problems in that connection. He also consults the industrial council and asks them: “You know these people. Do you think this is a responsible trade union? Should we grant them this?” He may also consult other trade unions and ask them: “Do you have any objections to this?” The Minister will therefore first consult all the organizations involved before granting such a concession, and he will do so with due regard to good order.

The point I wish to make is that in the context of the present set-up in South Africa, I cannot understand the argument that the present provisions are unfair. If a trade union has the opportunity to enjoy the full advantages of registration, advantages which can, after all, be worth so much, but that trade union does not want them, then I contend that there is an ulterior motive involved. It does not want the advantages because it has other evil intentions. Let me say immediately that there are a large number of Black trade unions that have registered recently or are in the process of registration. It is interesting that when they see the goodwill and all that this means for them, they are pleased to be able to participate and as a result they co-operate readily.

The hon. member for Yeoville made a very good speech and I shall make a few more remarks in this connection in a moment. One of the things he said which is true, is that the struggle will be, amongst other things, for the leadership of the trade unions. This is the case throughout the world. I concede that this could also be the case in South Africa. But then one must try to have this struggle to take place within the framework and order of an Act. If this does not occur it can cause a great many problems. I concede to the hon. member that it is my conviction—I have said this before—that this is the field in which we may encounter severe problems in the future and in which many serious clashes may take place. I am now referring to the field of labour.

In this connection I wish also to refer to what the hon. member Prof. Olivier said. He said two very important things with which I wholeheartedly agree. He said that in this field we must try at all times to avoid coercion. I agree with this. He also said that we must try to get everyone to use the existing machinery. I agree with that, too. I also agree that if necessary we must further improve the machinery so that everyone will want to use it. But then there must be goodwill on the part of the State and on the part of the participants, including the trade unions. They must simply understand that they cannot, as some people would like them to, take a country in tow by means of coercion, clashes, threats and boycotts. For this reason I say that if people are unwilling to co-operate after we have arranged things as we have done, one must ask oneself what is behind this. We shall go out of our way to be accommodating. But there is one thing we cannot do. We cannot allow a disorderly system to develop which could bring this country to its knees, not under any circumstances. Therefore we shall go out of our way to avoid this.

Hon. members also put further questions to me. It was asked that attention be given to supplementary mechanisms on the level of individual enterprises and that works councils should be given muscle. The hon. member for Pinelands remarked—and I have pointed this out on a previous occasion as well—that the National Manpower Commission was instituting an investigation into this matter. It was also said that it was not the intention to implement the provisions in clause 10 too stringently. The hon. member asked that they should not be implemented too stringently. The hon. member for Bryanston made the same request. It is concerned with the question of affiliation with a political party. I do not believe that we are making matters too difficult here. In terms of the new clause affiliation with a political party, as it is defined, is prohibited. Financial or other assistance applies only to activities aimed at achieving the objectives as set out in the clause. Trade unions or trade union members are not prohibited from making statements on matters such as inflation, housing and matters of this nature. We must understand clearly that a trade union is not being prohibited from engaging in those activities for which a trade union is established. This is what I want to make clear. A trade union is there to occupy itself with the conditions of a worker in his work, with matters such as wages and conditions in the work situation. If a trade union wishes to venture or move beyond that frame, it is occupying itself with motives other than those for which it was established. In that case, so I believe, what was said by the hon. member for Yeoville, a point on which I agree with him, may materialize, viz. that Marxism specifically wants to use trade unionism to move from the economic sphere in which it is moving into the political sphere. Of course this is true.

I want to point out to hon. members today that we in South Africa must prevent this from happening at all costs. Therefore, while we are building up a sound trade union system, we must also guard jealously against allowing that trade union system to be used by others who have ulterior motives, political motives against this country and want to promote matters which are only in their own interests, and with which we cannot agree.

Hon. members, including the hon. member for Houghton, wanted to know from me why the police could not act more sympathetically, why trade union leaders had to be taken into custody. My reply is that the Department of Manpower does not take people into custody. This department has never yet acted against a single trade union leader for having done his duty as a trade union leader. If, however, people who happen to be trade union leaders who happen to be workers occupy themselves with matters which fall under the Police and are then taken into custody, this is not a matter for the department. The department has never interfered in matters of this nature and nor does it intend to do so. The function of the department is to create and maintain order in the labour sphere and to create the necessary mechanisms for that purpose. The purpose is not to intervene. I do not think it is fair—in fact, I think it is dangerous—to keep on trying to create the impression that the Government wishes to get at trade unions by means of this department and its actions. I want to put it to the hon. member that it is dangerous to say something of this nature in this House. That is the type of language which certain persons in the outside world like, the type of language which, when it is used here, is then used against South Africa in the outside world.

In passing I just want to come back to two other arguments raised by hon. members of the NRP. I want to refer to the hon. member for Durban North who asked whether I would indicate whether a worker could appeal to the industrial court in the event of certain undesirable actions by unregistered trade unions. Of course he may appeal to the court. If the business of any employer or class of employers is unfairly affected or disrupted by the actions of an unregistered trade union or if labour unrest is or could be created or promoted by it, the employer will be able to submit the matter to the industrial court or to any other competent court of law, for example by means of requesting an interdict on the basis of an unfair labour practice.

I now come to the question put by the hon. member for Brits, viz. whether the committee system, works committees and works councils should not have been retained as a supplement to trade unions. I commented on this earlier, in this House, too, but may I just point out that mechanisms for negotiation on an entrepreneurial level and their functions are now being investigated by the Manpower Commission and that the whole matter will again come before this House in the light of the commission’s findings and recommendations. This is very important. We are removing the mechanism from the one Act which is going to cease to exist and we are incorporating it in the other Act, with a change in designation and probably with a slightly different restructuring of the proceedings of the commission as well. The National Manpower Commission is looking into this matter now.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister something with reference to what he has just said? As regards the employer’s access to the industrial court, does the hon. the Minister envisage the establishment of industrial courts in various regions soon, for example on the Witwatersrand, in the Cape and in Natal? Otherwise it would in practice be very difficult for the employer to go to the Industrial Court.

What the hon. member is really asking, is: If the court is situated in one centre whereas there are workers throughout the country, what is going to happen? In that case how does an employer gain convenient access to the court? It is now the intention to divide the court, in the sense that it is to consist of a number of judges who are going to preside in various centres or who are going to go to the various centres where cases can then be heard. In other words, they will be accommodated in this way. The court will in future be large enough for this.

I now want to come back to what the hon. member for Yeoville said here. I have already reacted to his remark on Marxism. I am pleased that he raised the question of pension schemes as well. It is true that there has suddenly been great misunderstanding as to the meaning of this term. I really hope that we shall be able to avoid such misunderstandings in future by means of the machinery we are creating. The reason why I am reacting to this is merely to indicate that it is extremely difficult for millions of people who do not understand the sophistication of the whole labour situation, and to identify themselves with and live with the concepts associated with it every day. That is why misunderstandings arise. There was also a very grave misunderstanding among White workers in this very regard. Once again I want to emphasize that in this House we must be very careful about what we say and that we should also be careful with the type of legislation we introduce and must ensure that it is comprehensible to the people who have to be affected.

I think that I have already dealt with the most important matters raised by the hon. member for Houghton. She concluded by saying that if the Minister referred to workers he had only a small group of White people in mind, whereas the largest percentage of workers were not represented here. Of course the South African labour force does not consist of the White labour force only. The labour force consists of everyone who works in this country. It is the standpoint of this side of the House, in the legislation as well, that we try to look after all the workers of South Africa and that, in what we are doing here, we are trying to create mechanisms for everyone to participate in. I give the assurance that as regards all the workers in South Africa it is our intention to ensure that their primary interests will also be the primary interests of this side of the House. We reject any insinuation that we are making legislation in South Africa to suit the White people only. What we are trying to do is to create a dispensation for all the people who are active in all spheres of activity in the Republic of South Africa.

Finally, a point was also made in connection with the question of the head office of a trade union. What we are proposing here now is that the head offices of trade unions are to be situated in South Africa. By that we mean those parts of South Africa in which our law applies. The question was put by the hon. member for Pinelands: Why may these head offices not be situated in the National States as well? There are a few very important reasons for this. In the first place it has been determined in the independent states by means of legislation and in an agreement between them and us, that they are to be autonomous in adopting labour legislation of their own in their own countries. That legislation does not always correspond to ours. In the second place our industrial and factory inspectors do not have access to those countries to follow up matters. In the third place, legislation which has been adopted in South Africa differs from the legislation existing in those countries. That is why I believe that as far as important matters of this nature are concerned, the centre of activities of a trade union must be situated in the country in which they operate. I want to add that I think that if any trade union desires to leave South Africa and to move to a homeland or to Maseru or Mozambique or wherever with its head office, it has ulterior motives in doing so. I want to reiterate what I have said on a previous occasion: I know very well that some of the trade unions have already discussed the possibility of moving out of South Africa to a country outside South Africa so that they may devise things in that country which we in South Africa would not easily allow.

With these remarks then, Mr. Speaker, I believe I have replied to all the arguments raised by hon. members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The purpose of this Bill is, in the first place, in accordance with the Government’s declared policy of rationalization, and in accordance with the Government’s recent White Papers on manpower affairs, as well as commentary that was received in response to the published draft bill, to consolidate the four training laws that are administered by my department. These four laws are the Apprenticeship Act, 1944, the Training of Artisans Act, 1951, the Black Employees In-Service Training Act, 1976, and the In-Service Training Act, 1979. The provisions of the proposed new legislation are also being adapted in order to make provision for the effective training of the country’s total workers corps.

The draft Bill was published on 19 December 1980 in accordance with the Government’s policy of maximum consultation with employers and employees. The constructive criticism that was received from several bodies, proves that the State and the private sector are willing to co-operate, and I want to express my gratitude for this to the employers and employees of South Africa.

At the moment, the Republic is experiencing a serious shortage of skilled workers in a variety of fields, whilst at the same time there are large numbers of unskilled workers who are unemployed. In addition to this, it is estimated that 200 000 new workseekers enter the labour market annually—some of them are properly equipped, but most of them are inadequately equipped for the demands of a modern technological century and a diversified, rapidly developing economy.

The most important characteristic of the consolidated Act, is that it entrenches the tripartate involvement of employers, employees and the State in the training function. In accordance with the principles of free enterprise, the responsibility for training is placed chiefly upon the shoulders of the private sector and the maximum amount of freedom is granted to the private sector to arrange their training actions in such a way that they will best serve their own requirements and circumstances.

The role of the State in the sphere of training is three-fold in nature, viz. firstly, the establishment of a legal and administrative framework which will bring about orderliness, co-ordination and the maintenance of standards. Secondly, the support and encouragement of the training efforts of the private sector by, amongst other things, the granting of financial assistance in some form or other, and thirdly, the supplementation of the training efforts of the private sector by establishing Government institutions for the training of specific categories of workers.

I have no doubt that the legislation that is before the House at the moment, will make a meaningful contribution towards the development of the total manpower resources of the country and in this way, towards the economic development and increase in the standards of living of all the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa and of the national States that are or were part of the Republic of South Africa.

I have already laid an explanatory memorandum on the subject of the Bill on the table and I should now please like to give further details regarding the most important provisions of the proposed Act.

Clause 1 contains the definitions and I should like to refer briefly to some of the definitions which, amongst other things, give an indication of the scope of implementation of the proposed Act, and what sort of training will be affected by it.

The word “industry” is defined in such a way that it includes every possible undertaking or activity and even a division or part of an industry or group of industries, including work in private households. A broader meaning is deliberately being given to the expression concerned, so that the machinery of the Act and the training facilities and incentives for which the Act will provide, will be able to be utilized over as broad a spectrum as possible.

With a view to the promotion of good relations on the shop-floor, the expression “training” has been defined in such a way that it includes training in labour relations as well. There is a need for proper training in labour relations and by including this in the definition concerned, it will be possible to implement the machinery of the Act and the incentives that are being envisaged with regard to training, in the sphere of training in labour relations too. As a result of this, a fairly comprehensive definition of “labour relations” is being embodied in the Bill which, amongst other things, includes matters such as negotiations in respect of remuneration and other conditions of employment of employees, the prevention and settlement of labour disputes, the application, interpretation and effect of legislation administered by my department, and the management of the affairs of trade unions, employers’ organizations, federations and industrial councils.

The term “workseeker” is also defined because special provision is being made in the Bill for the training of workseekers, that is to say unemployed people who are seeking work. Hon. members will agree with me that unemployed people who are properly trained for specific tasks, will be able to be placed in positions more easily than those who are untrained.

Clause 2 determines which persons and bodies are excluded from the scope of application of the proposed Act. These provisions have more or less been based on the corresponding provisions of the existing training laws, with the important difference that the agricultural sector and private households are not excluded from the scope of application of the new Act. In these two sectors, particularly in the agricultural sector, there are also special requirements for the training of work forces, and the Government is of the opinion that the Act should therefore be applicable to these sectors as well.

The two existing in-service training laws contain provisions in terms of which mining undertakings are excluded from the scope of the application of those laws. The result of this is that such undertakings cannot lay claim to tax concessions in terms of section 11sept of the Income Tax Bill with regard to their training expenditure. The reason for this exclusion is chiefly due to the fact that gold mines receive other concessions with regard to tax, to which other sectors of industry are not entitled. An exclusion with the same scope is contained in clause 2 of the Bill, although provision is being made for myself, with the approval of my colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, to make known by way of an announcement in the Gazette the relevant provisions applicable to the mining industry or any part thereof, or with regard to any category or group of employees in the service of, or persons involved in, that undertaking. Therefore, the impression that mining has been totally excluded, is not quite correct. This provision enables me to accommodate those classes of mining undertakings that may possibly be entitled to lay claim to the tax concessions with regard to training costs.

As soon as possible after the Bill has been passed, I intend consulting with my colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, with regard to this matter in order to establish to what extent the mining industry can be included in the provisions concerned.

Clause 3 up to and including clause 8 contains detailed provisions regarding the establishment of a National Training Board, the powers and activities of this board, as well as the appointment of committees of the board, the appointment of sub-committees and related matters. The National Training Board will consist of representatives of the State, employers and employees who will be appointed by myself and will also consist of persons who have expert or special knowledge or experience of manpower training or development. The board will act as an advisory body with regard to the application of the Act and the formulation of policy regarding training in an extensive labour sphere and that is why it is essential for training experts to serve on the board.

The proposed board will replace the present National Apprenticeship Board, the Co-ordinating Council for the In-service Training of Black Employees and the In-service Training Board, and will therefore bring about rationalization. Furthermore, it should fulfil an important role in the coordination of all forms of manpower training, with regard to which a definite need has existed in the past.

The board will be able to appoint an executive committee as well as committees that will be drawn up on an industrial basis and which will be able to fulfil the functions of the existing apprenticeship committees as well as other training functions with regard to the industry concerned. Provision is also being made for the appointment of subcommittees which may carry out certain duties on behalf of the board, subject to the prescriptions and control of the board.

Provision is made in clause 12 for the appointment of a Registrar and one or more Assistant Registrars of Manpower Training. Their functions include, amongst other things, the registration of contracts of apprenticeship, group training centres, private training centres and training schemes as well as the approval of courses offered by such centres or under such schemes for the purposes of tax concessions.

Clauses 13 up to and including 26 contain what are in fact the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act with regard to the designation of trades for apprenticeship, the laying down of conditions of apprenticeship and other prescriptions with regard to the training of apprentices. A small number of amendments, of which some are merely of a textual nature, has, however, been made to the provisions concerned in order to eliminate certain bottle necks and shortcomings that complicated the administration of the apprenticeship system.

Clauses 27 up to and including 30 embody the system according to which adults are trained as artisans in terms of the Training of Artisans Act and in terms of which artisan status can be granted to persons with the required skill in and experience of the work of an artisan. However, the provisions of that Act have been deviated from in the following two important respects.

In the first place, the Bill makes provision for formal training to be offered not only in trades, but also in any other profession if it is considered to be in the public interest. Manpower shortages are not limited to artisans only. For several years already, there has been a serious shortage of technicians and the proposed change will put me in a position to implement the training facilities concerned with regard to this profession as well as any other profession in which considerable shortages exist.

Secondly, it is provided in the Bill that, after consultation with the National Training Board, I can make arrangements for the training of who are minors who have already completed their first training period or period of service in terms of the Defence Act, 1957, or in terms of section 34A(11) of the Police Act, 1958.

Persons who have completed such service or training, are usually approximately 20 years of age, and the trade unions allege that for various reasons such persons are not prepared to serve out an apprenticeship. If such persons have to wait until they come of age in order to be allowed to participate in the relevant training schemes for adults, they may possibly not be at all interested in such training at a later stage, and that is why I consider it essential that provision should be made for their training.

Clauses 31 to 34, which are contained in chapter IV of the Bill, provide for the registration of training centres and schemes, as well as for related matters, and chiefly entail the provisions of the Black Employees’ In-Service Training Act and the In-Service Training Act. As hon. members know, tax concessions can be granted to employers who undergo training costs in terms of those two Acts.

As far as chapter IV is concerned, it is interesting to take note of certain aspects.

Provision is now being made for the registration of group training centres by the Registrar of Manpower Training at the request of a group or association of employers in a specific industry and area. Furthermore, provision is being made—and this is being done in clause 58(7)—for the existing eight public centres to be considered as registered group training centres for the purposes of the proposed Act.

Just as in the case of the existing public centres, such centres will be able, with my approval, but after consultation with the National Training Board, to impose levies on employers in order to help to defray their costs. Such levies will be able to be instituted in accordance with the provisions of clause 39. Group training centres will also be able to train the unemployed, and other than in the case of the existing public centres, will be able to act independently and autonomously.

Training for which provision is being made in industrial council agreements, has been excluded from chapter IV because industrial councils are autonomous bodies, because they have the machinery of the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956, at their disposal to maintain training schemes or centres and because such schemes or centres of industrial councils are established and maintained by means of collective bargaining, and therefore it is not advisable to place control of such schemes and centres in another Act apart from the Industrial Conciliation Act.

Then I want to draw attention to the fact that the registration of private training centres will no longer be obligatory, except in certain cases where such centres provide training in labour relations. Industrial councils, educational institutions and registered trade unions, employers’ organizations and federations will, however, not be obliged to register as private training centres with regard to such training.

It is also specifically provided that training in labour relations by private centres that are obliged to register, must be presented in accordance with courses approved by the Registrar of Manpower Training. This provision is necessary, not only to ensure that the content of the courses is acceptable for purposes of tax concessions, but also to be able to ensure that the training will be meaningful and in the interests of labour peace.

Since such a tremendous need for meaningful training in labour relations exists, further provision has been made in clause 35 for awarding grants-in-aid to registered trade unions, employers’ organizations and federations that provide such training. The grants will be allocated on such conditions and according to the basis that I shall determine with the approval of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

As a result of requests from various circles for active attempts to train the unemployed, a provision has been contained in clause 36 in terms of which, after consultation with the National Training Board, and with the approval of the Minister of Finance, I can take measures for the training of workseekers and other persons if I am of the opinion that such arrangements are necessary and desirable in the public interest. This provision enables me to make suitable arrangements for the training of the unemployed, with a view to relieving shortages and with a view to facilitating the placement of the unemployed in positions, I shall announce particulars regarding training schemes for the unemployed in due course.

Since facilities for the training of Black employees who are employed in certain sectors or regions in the White areas of the Republic, such as border areas, may be situated in the self-governing or independent national States only, I thought fit to include provisions in clause 37 of the Bill in terms of which the Registrar of Manpower Training, after consulting with the National Training Board, can recognize such training for tax concession purposes for employers in the Republic of South Africa whose employees are trained there.

For some time already, the Hotel Board has been running a training school for hotel workers in Bophuthatswana and I feel that employers in the Republic of South Africa who send their workers to the school, should not forfeit the advantages of the concession merely because the training is being undertaken in a neighbouring State.

A provision of considerable importance is contained in clause 38. This clause provides for the establishment of a Manpower Development Fund from which training centres and schemes that are registered in terms of this Act, or are established in terms of clause 39, or in terms of industrial council agreements, can be financed by means of loans.

The Fund will obtain its moneys from interest on the loans that are granted, donations that are received from the private sector and other sources and from moneys which Parliament votes to the Fund from time to time. In the latter regard I have already approached the Minister of Finance for assistance to the Fund. Loans will be granted only after consultation with the National Training Board.

In the nature of things, the proposed financing system contains considerable benefits for those industries and employers who want to train their employees, but do not have the necessary means at their disposal. Consideration will be given to making loans available from the Fund at reasonable rates of interest, and where possible, on a long-term basis.

Clause 39 empowers, me after consultation with the National Training Board, to impose a levy on employers in general or on any category of employers with the purpose of achieving one or more of the objectives of the proposed Act or for the financing of any training scheme for which specific provision is not made in the Act.

A decision has not yet been made regarding the imposing of a general levy. The National Manpower Commission is in the process of investigating the desirability or otherwise of such a levy and any decision in this regard will depend largely on the findings of the Commission and the Board’s view of the matter.

Another important aspect of clause 39 is that the provisions of clause 48A of the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956, that provide for the financing, by way of levies, of training funds established by a group or association of employers, are embodied in this clause.

Such funds do not fall within the system of industrial councils and therefore I am of the opinion that the relevant provisions actually belong in the proposed new Act. However, as I have already said, levies may be imposed for the purpose of group training centres in terms of this clause.

The rest of the provisions of the Bill are aimed at streamlining the administration of the proposed Act and with a few exceptions are similar to those contained in other labour legislation. The four existing training Acts which I have already mentioned and section 48A of the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956, are, for instance, being repealed, as well as those sections of the Defence Act, 1957, and the Police Act, 1958, that provide for reductions in the training periods of apprentices who serve or undergo training in terms of those Acts. Hon. members will agree with me that, strictly speaking, those sections belong in the proposed new Act.

To ensure that certain acts performed in terms of the legislation to be repealed, will not be made null and void as a result of the repeal, clause 58 provides that those acts are deemed to have been performed in terms of the proposed Act. In this regard I am referring amongst other things to the registration of contracts of apprenticeship and training schemes, the establishment of apprenticeship committees, the designation of trades for apprenticeship and the publication of conditions of training for apprenticeship.

Sir, the Bill may be considered a milestone in the history of manpower development in our country. The ultimate implementation thereof will be of tremendous benefit to the economy of the country and the welfare of its residents, and I trust that it will enjoy the support of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to the hon. the Minister or the House that we of the official Opposition will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. I suppose that to have the support of this side of the House for two Bills in a row, both of such significance, will come as a great shock to the hon. the Minister and his colleagues.

You will have to support the other ones as well.

I think that those who suggest that we never support the Government in anything should at least pause to note that we have, yesterday and today again, given our support to the Government.

This is such a wide-ranging Bill that one could spend a great deal of time on almost any of the issues that are covered by it. The hon. the Minister and his department in the Explanatory Memorandum and in the very full introductory speech have made it totally unnecessary for me simply to repeat what has been put to the House in this connection. I should like to emphasize just a few points. Firstly, the emphasis on the urgent need for training at all levels is as common today in South Africa as, I suppose, to use an American phrase, motherhood and apple pie. This has, however, not always been the case in our country. It is difficult today to find anyone who is not aware of the need to train and retrain, but for generations South Africa has neglected opportunities of training the vast majority of its work force. It was not too long ago that the Black workers in particular were regarded as “replaceable units of labour”. If an industrialist had a problem with a group of workers, he could simply send them back whence they had come and order the appropriate number of such so-called “labour units” to replace them. Labour was cheap and in the skilled area replacements could in large measure be handled by the White worker. All this has changed quite dramatically and there is hardly a conference, whether it be financial or economic, at which we are not reminded of the need for trained manpower, such reminders usually being accompanied by fairly alarming projections into the future. It serves no purpose belabouring the wasted years, but at least we should pause and take note of that, so that we shall not repeat the same mistakes in the future.

In the July issue of a business brief from one of our major banks in South Africa there is a discussion on the business outlook in South Africa. There is a mixture of optimism and pessimism about this. The main reasons for pessimism given were, amongst others, declining profit margins, labour shortages and likely financing problems. It is worth noting that, of all those who responded to that particular bank’s attempt to assess the confidence or pessimism in the business outlook for the future, short-term future, the highest percentage with a pessimistic outlook was 22% of the respondents and they attributed their pessimism to “likely labour shortages”.

There are two key ingredients in any economic development plan: The first is capital formation, and the second is labour. The economic development plan predicated an average annual growth rate of 3% in the labour force in the non-agricultural sectors of the economy. By contrast, employment actually increased by 0,9% in 1978, 2% in 1979 and 3,3% last year. It appears unlikely that over the complete business cycle of that economic development plan, i.e. from 1978 to 1982, employment will increase at an average annual rate of more than 2,2% or perhaps at most as much as 2,5%. Even more important, however, it seems unlikely that the supply of skilled labour will show an increase of more than 2% over the complete business cycle. During the 1970’s the supply of skilled labour increased at an average annual rate of only about 1,8%. There can be no doubt that both the public and the private sector have expedited their training programme. It takes time, however, to train skilled workers and, if the projected downswing in the economy becomes a reality, it will probably retard this process once again.

Therefore, I think that we must once again warn industrialists of the folly of setting aside training in a time of downturn. It is common practice—the hon. the Minister knows it well—that in a boom period there are numerous complaints about the lack of skilled and semi-skilled workers, but there is no time to train, while in a downturn industrialists will tell us they cannot afford to train. This only perpetuates the problem, and I do hope very much that if this does occur in the future, we will not have the same old excuses again. It is reasonable, therefore, not to put the average annual increase in our labour resources over the complete business cycle above 2%. This means in turn that it is going to be extremely difficult to achieve the annual growth rate for the South African economy of 5%. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the renewed emphasis on training and the co-ordination and regulation of the training of manpower by the department—in general terms, and in terms of this Bill in particular—will serve as a spur and a strong encouragement to make the best possible use of our available manpower resources.

The Bill itself has a number of essential features. The hon. the Minister has already emphasized these. I will mention some of them briefly. The first one is that it combines the various training Acts. I want to mention them in order to emphasize how wide the scope of the Bill is. It combines the Apprenticeship Act, 1944, the Training of Artisans Act, 1951, the Black Employees’ In-Service Training Act of 1976, and the In-Service Training Act, 1979. All these are combined now under one co-ordinating head. This, I believe, is good and right. It is hoped that this will militate against the delays which sometimes take place as well as the overlapping and even dualism which we sometimes encounter in our whole labour system.

Secondly, it provides for an entirely new tripartate body—the National Training Board that is to be composed of the representatives of the State, employers and unions. Thirdly, it provides for training committees which are required to be representative of all employer and employee groups in respect of all aspects of training. Fourthly, it provides for a Manpower Development Fund. This last one is most important. Organizations that are interested in developing or establishing training centres or schemes can now be eligible for low interest loans from the fund.

Clearly the need for large-scale funds is a prerequisite if this whole emphasis on training and re-training is going to succeed.

Together with this Bill before us today, we should also take into account the recent Government White Paper which deals with the recommendations made in the report of the National Manpower Commission on high level manpower in the Republic. Unfortunately, while the Government has accepted the qualified admission of some Blacks to White universities and technikons, it appears from the White Paper—and if I am wrong I should obviously like to be corrected by the hon. the Minister—that its policy remains and that separate provision should as far as possible be made for the training of the different population groups.

I believe that if my interpretation is correct this is shortsighted in the extreme and will actually prove to be counterproductive. I urge the hon. the Minister and his department to reconsider this decision and to make every facility for training open to all. When one bears in mind that in less than 20 years six million skilled workers, and sometimes some people even talk about seven million—let me be conservative as I usually try to be—will be needed by industry, then there is no place for what I would call ideological niceties which in any way will hamper or hinder the training of manpower. This observation is reinforced when one bears in mind that of the six million additional workers required, 81% will be Black, 8,1% White, 8,8% Coloured and 2,1% Asian. Our labour crisis in South Africa is compounded by the fact that the skilled labour shortage co-exists with an oversupply of unskilled labour with unemployment variously estimated at between one and two million workseekers. Therefore the skilled worker/unskilled worker ratio in South Africa is far higher than in any other industrial country in the world. Of course, we have peculiar and particular problems, historical and otherwise, and so I suppose that one must accept that to be the case. That means that we should give far more emphasis to the widest provision of training at every possible level. It should be obvious to all that a further relaxation of Government controls on the movement of labour and on formal and informal economic activity would to some extent ease this particular problem.

The explanatory memorandum rightly emphasizes the most important feature of the legislation before us, namely that it leaves the training and retraining mainly on the shoulders of the private sector, that is—and this is important—on the employers and on the employees. The merging of the four existing training Acts will hopefully reduce red tape and streamline the vital job of training.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that there is one further development which deserves his serious consideration and that is that of the National Manpower Commission. At the present time it is clear that technical training at every possible level is necessary, that the training of apprentices rightly falls under the Department of Manpower and that there is a move now to co-ordinate this. However, I put it to the hon. the Minister: Should we not move towards a situation where all technical training—and I mean all, namely technical schools, technical colleges and technikons—should also fall under the Department of Manpower? I am aware that this may sound revolutionary and I also know that the De Lange report is in the hands of the hon. the Minister of National Education. But I believe this makes a great deal of sense and would assist South Africa to meet the critical demands which face us over the next 20 years and beyond. The key advantage would be that technical training and education would not be dispersed under four provinces and four different systems of education and control but would come under the direction of the proposed National Training Board as a vital and integral part of this ever-expanding and forward moving Department of Manpower. I urge the hon. the Minister to give serious and urgent attention to this proposal or at least to recommend to and instruct the National Manpower Commission to consider the advantages and the possible problems contained in such a proposal. We welcome this further development by the Department of Manpower and we shall give this legislation our support not only at the Second Reading and the other stages of this Bill in its passage through this House but also outside the House.

There are only three problem areas that I should like to mention in regard to this Bill. I have already mentioned this to the hon. the Minister. The first one is in relation to clause 31. I am not sure whether I am on firm ground here and I should like to put this to the hon. the Minister in the form of a question. As far as tax deductions for employers who embark upon training schemes for workers are concerned, as I understand the position it is possible at the moment for a twofold deduction to be made, namely 42% plus 42% making an 84% deduction possible. I am not too sure about this but it seems to me that the implication of clause 31 may be that these people will no longer be able to claim their 42% plus 42% but rather just 42%. I shall be grateful for some clarification of this point.

In the second instance, I want to refer to clause 33 which involves what is probably my most serious criticism of a quite excellent Bill. This clause excludes unregistered trade unions from giving training in labour relations. I do not think we can ever overemphasize the need for training in labour relations. I have said this elsewhere and I shall say it again: We are very thin on the ground; there are very few people in management or in labour who have the skills in this area that are so necessary. I think that to introduce a limitation of this nature will be self-defeating. Because we are committed to this vital aspect we should encourage training in labour relations wherever possible.

In the third instance, I wish to refer to clause 39. In so far as the imposition of a levy is concerned, many industrial councils already impose such a levy and I assume that no additional levies will be imposed on employers who are already paying such a levy. I wish to put that to the hon. the Minister in the form of a question as well.

I want to state finally that we are grateful for and we welcome this move. We believe that it is a further step in the process of regularizing our whole labour relations structure. We welcome this legislation and we congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to hear from the hon. member for Pinelands that his party will support this legislation in all its stages. The fact that he and his party support this Bill shows us that the hon. the Minister and his department have done good work. This legislation is also the result of the Wiehahn report and the Government White Paper that followed it.

The hon. member referred to pessimism that supposedly prevailed among industrialists due to a possible shortage of trained workers. He maintains that at present, approximately 1,8% of trained workers are being supplied, whereas the market needs about 2%. I think our estimate is that after this legislation has come into effect, approximately 3% of trained workers will enter the market annually. We support him in his appeal to the industrialists to see to it that that training does in fact take place and not to be neglectful in this respect. Our industrialists must realize that money invested in the training of their workers is money which may not yield dividends directly, but which is a longer term investment. The training of workers also gives rise to higher productivity and improved employer/employee relations.

As regards the plea which the hon. member addressed to the hon. the Minister that technikons should also fall under the Department of Manpower, I do believe that there is a clear dividing line between the activities of the technikons, which offer technical training on a specialized basis, and the ordinary in-service training in a specific subject. Personally, I see the technikons as part of the function and task of the Department of National Education.

I am not very fond of agreeing with the hon. member, but I do think that his last appeal, namely that attention should also be given to training in labour relations, is very important. Particularly since we are now going to be faced with the fact that the trade unions must be registered, it will become very important that attention be given to the issue of training in labour relations.

The Bill aims at the training and retraining of our workers’ corps. The aim of the Bill is to ensure fully skilled workers, in that unskilled and semi-skilled workers must be trained. In the fourth place, the Bill also envisages the re-training of skilled workers. It is true that standards change and improve, and this applies to factories and other industries as well. Therefore it is necessary that skilled workers be re-trained so that they may adapt to altered circumstances. Through the re-training of skilled workers we must ensure that we also keep abreast of new developments.

One of the most important characteristics of the Bill is the fact that it is in three parts. It places the responsibility for the training of employees on the State, the employer and the employee. In the case of the employee, of course, this is done through the trade unions. Accordingly this is the reason for the provision that trade unions must register and that exceptions can only be made with the permission of the Minister.

The Bill contains provisions which seek to combine four Acts, namely the Apprenticeship Act, 1944; the Training of Artisans Act; the Black Employees’ In-Service Training Act, 1976; and the In-Service Training Act 1979. This is the result of the directive that rationalization should be carried out. The four previous Acts were controlled and administered by various Ministers, but by combining the Acts the administration and control thereof are placed under one department.

Another characteristic of the legislation is that no distinction is drawn on the basis of sex or colour. Moreover, the provisions of the four previous Acts which had stood the test of time are being retained in the Bill. They are only being made more streamlined in order to adapt to a new era.

The Bill makes provision for all categories of work, from the unskilled apprentice up to the manager. The legislation covers a wide field, so that even farm labourers and tractor drivers can be trained in terms of the Bill. A further important new characteristic of the Bill is the establishment of a National Training Board. In the old dispensation there were three such boards, namely the Apprenticeship Board, the Black Employees’ Council and the Council for In-Service Training. Therefore rationalization is taking place in this field as well and accordingly the legislation is being made more streamlined.

The composition of the National Training Board is such that three interest groups, namely the State, the employers, and the employees through their trade unions, will be represented thereon. The latter two groups include the people who are in industry. However, the Minister may also, if he deems it expedient, appoint as members of the Board other experts with knowledge of the field of training.

Another important function of the training board is to co-ordinate and promote the activities of training institutions. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister referred to the fund. The training of workers is now being boosted by the establishment of the Manpower Development Fund, because in this way financial assistance can be furnished in the form of loans for training centres and schemes which are registered in terms of the Manpower Training Act, or for which provision is made in an industrial council agreement. This fund will be administered with money voted by Parliament, with interest obtained on loans and with donations which may be made.

The Bill also seeks to combat unemployment, and provision is made therein for the training of unemployed people. This of course is done on the basis of co-operation between the Minister of Manpower and the Minister of Finance. We believe that this step is in the public interest.

Successful training entails the advantage of improved achievements on the part of the individual or the group, particularly if training is planned so as to improve the quality and adapt to modern circumstances. Therefore training and re-training is an on-going process which will always be necessary in our complex society.

To ensure economic growth for the future, we must see to it that there is an adequate number of trained workers of the right quality, at the right time and at the right place. This is a challenge, and we accept it. By putting this legislation into effect we shall be doing our duty and ensuring that there will always be adequate trained manpower to meet the needs of the country. By doing this we shall also be ensuring that the economic growth of our country will not be handicapped by a shortage of trained workers.

It is also our task and our calling to see to it that there is a labour market, particularly for our unskilled and semi-skilled labour. If South Africa is able to maintain an average growth rate of 5% over the next few years I believe that there will be adequate employment opportunities for our steadily growing workers corps. We therefore trust that the economic growth will be such that an average growth rate of 5% can be maintained.

Training in industrial relations with a view to ensuring labour peace is also part of our problem, and accordingly attention is also given to this kind of training. South Africa is a country blessed with substantial mineral resources. We have a growing economy and we live in a civilized country, but that still does not mean that a country is a large country. Therefore our greatest potential lies in our people and our workers corps. If our people have the desire to learn and be trained, South Africa could develop into one of the greatest industrial countries in the world. Therefore it is our task, which we are carrying out, to develop, utilize and preserve our manpower resources.

We must recognize that at present South Africa has a large labour force which will grow so rapidly in the future that the economic capacity to create sufficient employment opportunities will be lacking. Therefore it will also be our task to have quality labour in this country. In this way we shall be able to develop a sound industrial country due to the quality of our workers and the work we produce. It can be shown that the work value of a person with only primary school training is 43% higher than that of an illiterate person, whereas the market value of the same person would have been 108% higher if he had had secondary training. However, when such a person has undergone tertiary training, his work value is 300% higher. The development of the manpower resources of South Africa contributes towards achieving national targets, and by retraining we shall help to alleviate poverty, because we shall be helping the worker to increase his productivity and his income. This process also increases employment opportunities for the worker, particularly in the event of scarcity of work. In this way his vulnerability to unemployment is also reduced. Greater work satisfaction and personal satisfaction, and better attitudes between employers and employees, are promoted. This offers the key to the improvement of quality in general and of the living conditions of a country and its community. The worker of today and of the future in South Africa will come face to face with growing challenges, which he will only be able to overcome by dint of hard work. We accept the challenge of our calling to create opportunities so that the workers in South Africa may be enabled to undergo thorough training.

We on this side of the House therefore support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Alberton must please forgive me if I do not react directly to what he had to say. The reason is, of course, that we all agree with the points he mentioned here.

However, one of the aspects mentioned by the hon. member does perhaps call for comment. I am referring to the fact that it has been said that with this piece of legislation, as well as with the preceding measure, we have entered a new era. Of course, we all agree that in a certain sense we are in fact entering a new era with these measures, but we must not fail to realize, too, that we are also concerned with a new kind of vision here. It is the combination of the new era and the vision of the hon. the Minister—and possibly of the great majority of the Cabinet members—which has made it possible for us to debate this piece of legislation here today.

Would the hon. the Minister please inform us when the sixth report of the Wiehahn Commission is tabled? We are looking forward to it with great interest, because it concerns one of the most important aspects in the training and job structuring situation in South Africa, i.e. the mining industry.

†I should like to tell the hon. the Minister once again that we appreciate the fact that he and his department saw fit to produce a very adequate White Paper and that he was able to give us this White Paper before the Bill was tabled and debated. One of the things my party particularly appreciates is the fact that the hon. the Minister saw his way clear, at a very early stage of this session, to introduce this trilogy of labour Bills, each fitting so neatly into the other. One should, of course, debate this particular Bill, the Manpower Training Bill, against the background of the Bill that we have just been debating, the Labour Relations Amendment Bill, and the one we hope to be debating later this week, the Guidance and Placement Bill. I think that these three fit together very neatly, like three pieces of a jig-saw puzzle. When the hon. the Minister decides to open the sluice gates, he really opens them for the fertile development of training and manpower structuring in South Africa. We certainly cannot say that the hon. the Minister and his department are slow in coming forward in this respect. In fact, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on keeping a promise he made in this House two years ago about seeing to it that this particular Bill, which incorporates the four Acts concerned, would actually be introduced. When the hon. the Minister said he was going to take over a section of the activities of another department, regarding Black training, and was going to bring it into his department, we were rather sceptical, but we would now like to congratulate the hon. the Minister, in all sincerity, on the fact that it was possible to merge these four pieces of legislation into the one before the House today. What is also interesting—and I think this will be appreciated by all interested parties in South Africa, not only political but also economic parties—is the fact that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to develop a concept which involves this tripartite relationship between the State, employers and employees. The very fact that this is the starting point, a vision which the hon. the Minister has or, to use the Afrikaans word, the “uitgangspunt” which the hon. the Minister used, indicates the sincerity and desire on the part of the Government to make sure that this Bill will actually bear fruit. We believe it will and consequently we shall be supporting the Bill in its entirety.

What this Bill does for training in South Africa is merely to start the process of providing South Africa with skilled and semi-skilled workers. It is rather like the driver of a motor vehicle who has demisted his windscreen and for the first time can clearly see the obstacles in the road ahead. We believe this is a magnificent Bill that goes a long way. Because of the new vision, the new direction, embodied in the Bill, we shall be supporting it. We must not, however, lose sight of the fact that all the Bill will do is to start the process of training through tripartite co-operation. It is in no way going to solve the problems. There are many problems that have to be solved along the road, some of which I shall be posing as questions to the hon. the Minister. This Bill will now make it possible for us to see the road ahead and the obstacles more clearly, in particular the structural difficulties which South Africa faces in trying to develop a greater pool of skilled manpower. The Bill is certainly the first stage.

I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that he is an extremely brave man to have suggested in the Bill, and in the White Paper in particular, that gardeners and private household workers will now also be subject to formal training. From my experience with the household servants I have had and the gardeners who have worked for me in the past, the hon. the Minister will have to do a very good job to beat the housewife at the training she provides. No doubt the housewives’ lobby will come and knock on the hon. the Minister’s door for the tax relief and concessions that have been offered to industry. It would, at least, be a tremendous step forward if we could also harness those workers in an orderly manner.

I should like to discuss the difficulties that are going to arise as a result of the fact that we now have this Bill which makes this type of approach possible. These are structural problems that have accumulated in the background over many decades in South Africa. There will be no short-term solution to these problems, despite the magnificence of this Bill. To a very large extent there are historical, sociological and political reasons that have brought about certain structural problems which will make the provision of skilled workers in South Africa a monumental task in the future. We have, on previous occasions mentioned to the hon. the Minister that one of the greatest restraining factors in the development of skilled manpower in South Africa lies in the fact that the majority of Black workers in South Africa who are currently incumbents of the positions classified as “unskilled” are there because of a low level of literacy. Over the past three years I have asked the hon. the Minister to pay attention to this factor when it comes to finding the finance and providing tax concessions for training. I believe the hon. the Minister is still of the same opinion and that is that adult literacy training is a function of one of the two departments of education and not the function of the Department of Manpower. Unless the hon. the Minister moves away from that particular standpoint, however, I am afraid the possibility of developing an adequate trained and skilled labour force will be reduced. The people who require the training, the Black people who, as the hon. member for Pine-lands indicated earlier on, will form 81% of the skilled labour force in the future, at present only have an average of six years’ formal education, which in normal parlance is up to Std. 4.

We have massive under-employment and unemployment in South Africa which, quite correctly, we shall have to reconcile through training, but where is the basic raw material going to come from? It can only come from the Coloured, i.e. the Indian or the Black South African population because there are not sufficient Whites to be employed in this sphere. However, if these people do not have a basic formal training in reading, writing and arithmetic, they are not going to be available for training by means of the facilities made available by this Bill. This is the dilemma with which we are faced with. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has changed his point of view and, if he has, what provision is being made for the financing of adult literacy training programmes in industry whether collectively or individually by companies. I notice particularly that in terms of clause 31 it will be possible for groups of employers who form a training centre to obtain fiscal relief or aid from the Government. My question to the hon. the Minister is whether he will also, possibly through the hon. the Minister of Finance, make provision for adequate fiscal incentives for in-house or in-service training centres to be set up for adult literacy training. Unless we do that, we are looking at pie-in-the-sky. It is not possible for the Black labour force to be trained to high degrees of skill unless they are given this basic literacy training.

The reason for this is very simple. The training facilities available for Blacks in South Africa in the formal sector, i.e. in schools, are totally inadequate at the moment, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Although expenditure in the Department of Education and Training will obviously rise over the years, we will have this problem with us for at least the next 15 years before adequate formal education can be provided for Blacks. That will be too late. We shall have a low growth rate in the gross domestic product and we shall of course experience all the social and political ramifications of unemployment. My question to the hon. the Minister is whether he is going to provide adequate fiscal incentives for adult literacy training. How does he intend to approach this matter?

I should like to deal with a further restraining factor. In order to cope with the demand for skilled and semi-skilled workers, it is going to be necessary for industry, because of the qualitative problems we have with adult literacy among Blacks, to undertake a restructuring of jobs. I think this is a problem we are still going to have to deal with to a very large extent in the near future and I shall tell the hon. the Minister why. If the Black citizens of South Africa do not have formal educational standards comparable to those of the Whites, one is going to have to restructure jobs in order to use the skill that is available. I refer to the basic formal education of six years. What will therefore have to happen is that where at present in industry a man requires, say, post-standard 8 basic training to be apprenticed to do a certain job, that job will have to be broken down into at least two categories of work—that which requires a standard 8 education and that which can be done by someone with a relatively lower educational standard. This job restructuring will have to take place in industry. In other words, one is going to have to redesign the technician’s job and the engineer’s job in order to be able to utilize people who only have six years’ formal education.

This is going to produce problems, firstly in the training of those people. It will not be possible to train them in technikons as we know them today. For that reason, of course, in-service training centres will be provided, but one wonders where the tutors, the teachers, are going to come from. They will have to be drawn predominantly from the White sector or possibly from the elite of the Black sector who are of course in very short supply at the moment. Do we have an adequate supply of tutors for this training?

More important than that is the question of wages which is going to bedevil the process from here on. We are of course not saying that this Bill should not be accepted. We support it. We are merely saying to the hon. the Minister that these are the problems to which we must apply our minds now, the problems which we shall have to overcome if we are to reap the benefits provided for in the Bill. If job restructuring is undertaken and the technician’s job is broken into two halves with the top half being done by a man with a high formal education and the bottom half by a man with a lower formal education, one is then going to have the problem of adequate compensation in terms of wages and the effect this is going to have on industrial relations. The attitude of the trade union may be that one is now undermining the journeyman, and if they get the idea that we are now undermining the journeyman because of job restructuring, we are going to find ourselves with a whole new ball game in industrial relations. We should be prepared for this. In this respect forewarned is in fact forearmed.

I also believe that the whole question of wages, equal responsibility, equal pay etc., has been accepted by the State, as we have seen from the amendments to the Wage Act. Therefore, as far as legislation is concerned there will be no problem. It is, however, the effect which it is going to have on vested journeyman interests which could cause problems for us in the future. I should also like to tell the hon. the Minister that we believe that the establishment of a National Training Board is absolutely essential. It is a very sound move, particularly because it is going to be regionalized as well. I should like, however, to make an appeal to the Government, and particularly to the hon. the Minister, because it is his responsibility. I want to appeal to him to see to it that the National Training Board does not become a control-oriented paper factory; that it will in fact emphasize and pay attention to the positive aspects of promoting training in industry; and that it will also move away from the sort of bureaucratic approach of becoming a controlling body which will in fact be an impediment to training. The board should have a positive orientation towards stimulating industry and towards helping industry and employers to solve their problems instead of merely hassling them with a paper flow. In other words, I am appealing here for a follow-through, a real follow-through by the National Training Board in order to see to it that all the stages of training are fulfilled.

I should also like to refer briefly to the question of the levies which will be imposed on the industries for training purposes. We do understand why the mining industry has been excluded from this Bill. The hon. the Minister has of course established a fund there, a very good fund, I believe, for the mining industry to utilize for its training. The question of levies, I believe, is particularly important. What happens in practice today is that 20% of the companies in South Africa—which are the large public companies the other 80% of companies being very small companies, being virtually family businesses—have been the training source for most of the other companies. They carried the burden of investment even long before tax incentives and fiscal incentives were introduced. The bigger companies like Anglo-American and Barlow Rand—I can name a host of them—have done this on their own, obviously to provide their own skilled workers. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see to it that those companies which in the past have been pirating the trained workers from the companies that have undertaken the training, will also be seen to be making a contribution by way of a levy to the fund. That is why my party prefers a levy by industry type rather than by an industry being associated with a training centre. In other words, all organizations which, for instance, employ electricians or electrical technicians should be required to pay into a fund which will be utilized for the training of that type of worker, whether they are associated with a training centre or not. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to pay particular attention to that factor.

I should like to complete the full circle by telling the hon. the Minister that I think the idea of providing training for unemployed people as well as for employed people is an excellent one. While a man is unemployed one can thus at least get him positively involved in preparing himself for employment. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what provision he visualizes will be made for the adequate aptitude testing of such people before they are taken in for training, otherwise we are going to have a huge wastage factor. We could even be training a hundred people entered to receive training in a particular skill, only to find later that there is an 80% failure rate in the first instance and that the other 20% become disinterested and move off. I know we will be coming to the Guidance and Placement Bill at a later stage. I should, however, like to ask the hon. the Minister, in relation to this Bill, what provision is going to be made for adequate aptitude testing, in particular of unemployed people.

I should also like to comment briefly on the request by the hon. member for Pine-lands that technical colleges should preferably be placed under the Minister of Manpower’s control. We in this party have thought about this quite often because we believe that tertiary education should be separated from formal, primary, secondary and high school education. However, we do not visualize that it will promote efficiency if the Minister of Manpower is now to be saddled with the responsibility of formal educational institutions, technikons or universities. We believe that that department is a very specialized department and should remain in the department in which it is, not because we do not think that the hon. the Minister can do the job because of a lack of skill but simply because it will be a question of two departments now forming not a homogeneous department but a heterogeneous department, and I think we shall experience problems because of this. However, I should like to support their view that the technikons of South Africa be open to all races and that the only qualification should be academic proficiency as a standard of entry. It should be left to the technikon boards of control, on a regional or local-option basis, to decide whether they would like to take in members of the other race groups, for the simple reason that every year there are going to be fewer and fewer White pupils entering these huge complexes that are being built at the moment. We are most grateful for the fact that in Natal we shall be spending something like R200 million in the next five years to build a most magnificent technikon. However, with the decline in the birth-rate among the Whites it is likely to become a White elephant in one generation.

We shall therefore have this facility, and as there are other people in South Africa needing training—I am thinking now particularly of the Natal area—I believe that entrance should be open so that all race groups may go to one technical college.

After all, they have to work on the same shop-floor.

Yes, they will work on the same shop-floor, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti very rightly says. I should also like to point out to the hon. the Minister that what the hon. member for King William’s Town said in his very excellent maiden speech today, is that if we want to improve the quality of life in South Africa, we must look at worker productivity as this relates to worker income and to the satisfaction of needs. If we can achieve the fulfilment of those three needs, we will have gone a long way towards producing a generally improved quality of life in South Africa.

With that in mind I should like to restate the fact that the NRP emphatically supports this Bill but I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the structural problems we shall be facing despite the fact that the Bill has been passed.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on a very good Bill. I do not think I can do better than to quote the hon. member for Pine-lands and the hon. member for Durban North. These two hon. members conveyed their congratulations to the hon. the Minister by speaking of “a quite excellent Bill”, in the case of the hon. member for Pinelands, and “a magnificent Bill”, in the case of the hon. member for Durban North. I should like to associate myself with these remarks because I think that it is indeed a very good Bill we are debating here today and I also think the discussion is on a very high level.

To begin with I should like to react to a statement made by the hon. the member for Pinelands as well as a statement made by the hon. member for Durban North at the end of his speech. This is the suggestion that the possibility be considered of placing technikons, technical colleges, technical schools and also the National Training Board under the Department of Manpower. I do not wish to write this off immediately but it is a far more complex matter than we can debate here today across the floor of this House. It is true that it does not form part of the Act. The hon. member for Durban North pointed out that these are two specialized directions. In the specific Bill before us we have a challenge which is particularly specialized and which is dealt with exceptionally well by the legal prescriptions it contains. On the other hand we have technikons, technical colleges, technical schools and for argument’s sake other schools as well which are specialized in their own specific direction and which I think are being dealt with very well by the Department of National Education and the Department of Education and Training. I would therefore like to tell the hon. member for Durban North at once that if he argues that most Black scholars receive only six years training and that for this reason they will find it difficult in the training programme now incorporated in this legislation, this is partly true. However, what the hon. member lost sight of—and I do not think he really did so because he must be aware of this—is that the Department of Education and Training can even at this early stage boast of excellent progress made during the past year or so in respect of the education offered to Black children. For this reason I feel that we must not adopt the standpoint that this legislation must establish the absolute ideal tomorrow. But this legislation must, in conjunction with what is being done by the Departments of Education and Training and National Education, eventually combine to achieve the ideal we are striving for and which we should like to achieve. I do not think we should now cause this specific legislation to miscarry by anticipating problems. I say this with due respect for the hon. member for Durban North. He mentioned a number of matters which might go wrong. I concede that one must consider this but it is a pleasure for me to be able to say that I am convinced that the various departments are already working on these aspects. In this way we shall eventually solve the problems which are at present bothering the hon. member for Durban North.

I would also like to react to the statement by the hon. member in connection with adult education. As a matter of fact, in the programme of Education and Training provision has been made—for a number of years now—for Black adult training. Basically I agree with the hon. member that when you can do this you can act more effectively in respect of the technical training contemplated by this specific legislation. But, this is already being done.

I want to tell you, Sir, that South Africa is blessed with many good things, not the least of which is a good Government! [Interjections.] We are blessed, inter alia, with exceptional mineral wealth, with skilled people especially in education, as well as with a prosperous economy. However, it is also true that South Africa suffers from a shocking lack—as I shall call it—of a sufficient number of trained and efficient workers. When I say workers I am not referring to workers of a specific colour group; I am referring to all workers because it is an indisputable fact that 81% of the workers we are going to need in the years ahead will be people of colour. I therefore include them, as does this legislation. I should also like to say that labour in South Africa, as in the rest of the world, has become expensive, and poorly trained workers make that labour even more expensive because their work is inefficient and therefore lacks the necessary productivity one would like. I think this is something which we in South Africa can no longer afford. At the same time we must also guard against adopting haphazard procedures in the training of workers. I think this would be short-sighted; I think this would be irresponsible and also unsystematic. For this reason, Sir, I believe that it is the standpoint of this side of the House that training must be related to the actual requirements of the economy. We are all aware that Manpower 2000 has also received particular attention in this respect.

In South Africa I am afraid there is also a tremendous striving amongst people of colour for academic training at tertiary level. This in itself is not wrong but I think it would be irresponsible to train people in a specific academic direction only to find that there is no demand for their labour. I say this would be irresponsible; as a matter of fact I think it could also be the cause of dissatisfaction and, to put it even more strongly, rebellion and revolution. At present too many Whites and non-Whites are studying at our universities merely because there is an exaggerated academic status attached to university training. In contrast there are far too few students attending technikons or technical colleges at which they can receive excellent technical training, something which this country really needs at this moment. We must get away from an exaggerated status in respect of academic training and we, the parents, must begin attaching particular value to technical training, which is definitely not inferior.

For these reasons there is at present an urgent demand for more efficient career-orientated training and retraining of our available manpower. The responsibility arising from this rests, as hon. members before me have already said, not only on the shoulders of the State but especially on those of the employers. The legislation we are now discussing only provides the legal framework—this is consequently the contribution of the State—within which the employer and the employee can operate to achieve what we would like to achieve at training level.

The Bill wants to make it possible for the right number of people to be available at the right time at the right place and with the right quality of training.

One will not succeed in doing that.

I agree, but that is what we are aiming for and may still achieve by means of the Bill, especially if there is the necessary co-operation from other departments.

The challenge is therefore to supply an adequate number of trained and high-level manpower and also of course to create job opportunities for the growing body of unskilled and semi-skilled workers. It is interesting that at the very beginning of the Bill, i.e. in its definitions—it is very clearly indicated that the Bill aims at involving the whole of the labour field. And it is for this reason that the word “industry”, as indicated by the hon. the Minister, is very widely defined so that it can even make provision for private households which therefore also implies domestic servants and gardeners, as the hon. the member for Durban North has already indicated. In addition “training” is defined as any training which has as its aim the improvement of the proficiency of any person for any work performed in or in connection with any industry, and includes training in labour relations.

The scientific and systematic character of manpower training is in my opinion clearly reflected in clause 3 of the Bill in which provision is made for a National Training Board which will consist of experts who possess special knowledge and/or experience of manpower training or development. I think this proves that this side of this House is very much in earnest in about having people available there who know what is involved and who want to achieve what is best for the labour field. This is also why the Training Board can, inter alia, be served by committees which will provide the board with specialized knowledge so that the Minister can be given the necessary specialized advice.

By virtue of the functions of the National Training Board, namely to co-ordinate and to promote manpower training, clause 13 provides that the Minister may, on the recommendation of the board, designate any trade for purposes of apprenticeship and may also lay down the conditions of apprenticeship for the apprentices. I believe that this is exceptional progress and it also makes the existing provisions we find in the Apprenticeship Act far more streamlined, as has already been indicated by the hon. the Minister. We thank him for this change, too, which has been effected by means of the Bill.

Clause 21 ensures the standard and the quality of the training and reveals strong discipline in respect of attendance of courses and practical work. I think this is important because if we find it in ordinary schools, technikons and universities, why should we not also find that some apprentices are also inclined to play truant, not attend classes and stay away from work? Clause 21 makes provision for extending the period of apprenticeship by the same number of days as an apprentice was absent from his work or course so that he eventually will work the correct number of days or will attend the correct number of classes.

The great emphasis placed on training is clearly reflected in clause 30 in which the Minister being empowered to train persons who are not apprentices or juveniles in any trade or profession if he is satisfied that this is in the public interest.

I should like to associate myself with speakers before me who pointed out that the responsibility for training lies with the employers, as I said a while ago, but this means and involves the employers having to be prepared to put their hands into their own pockets. Clause 31 provides that the Minister may at the request of the controlling body of a specific group training centre impose a levy on employers to defray operating costs. I am aware that some of these training centres are experiencing difficulties and I am now thinking specifically of Boskop where Black farm workers are trained. That specific training centre is experiencing problems because their operating costs are probably higher than those of other training centres owing to the training which they provide. For that reason they will be compelled to either increase their fees or to obtain more money from some source or other so that they can train an adequate number of workers. The problem is however that if the fees are too high a smaller number of workers will come forward for training. I am therefore pleased, if I understood this correctly, that it will also be possible for Boskop to qualify for the grant-in-aid as defined in the Bill. If I am wrong the hon. the Minister must please correct me in his reply.

Clause 33 ensures and protects the quality of training in labour relations in that it prohibits a private person from running a private training centre. I am very pleased that this aspect has also been covered by the Bill. It does not mean that a private person may not run a training centre but that such a centre must be registered and the registrar must give such authorization. I have no quarrel with this. It would however be dangerous if we were to allow any private institution to give specific training without any control.

I shall conclude by associating myself with the hon. member for Durban North in his reference to the importance of the Manpower Development Fund mentioned in clause 38. I think the existence of such a fund is important and I am very grateful that it is now being introduced. I can only express the hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will be well disposed towards the matter when money is made available for the Manpower Development Fund so that there will be sufficient funds for the capital outlay and requirements for the great task envisaged by this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Virginia will forgive me if on this occasion I do not respond to his remarks but leave that to some of my colleagues.

It is a great pleasure to be a member of this distinguished House. It is my privilege to represent the constituency of Cape Town Gardens here, a privilege not least because this hon. House falls within the Cape Town Gardens constituency as it is now constituted. Gardens is also the home of a number of prominent places of worship, among others the Anglican St. George’s Cathedral, the Groote Kerk, the Great Synagogue and the Roman Catholic St. Mary’s Cathedral. Unfortunately it has no major rugby stadium. Nevertheless I do believe that few constituencies are as representative as the constituency of Cape Town Gardens is of South Africa’s three great interests, namely politics, religion and rugby.

The Bill under discussion today is in my view of great importance because I believe that the best investment South Africa can make is in education and training. This is an aspect that will pay for itself many times over and will yield dividends in terms of economic growth, social stability and improved human relations. In my view it is almost impossible to spend too much on education and training because such expenditure will result in enormous short-term and long-term benefits. It has, in fact, been estimated that in straight economic terms expenditure on education pays for itself seven times over. The provisions of this Bill have the potential for making a considerable contribution to the training of skilled and semi-skilled workers, and I hope that the Manpower Development Fund, provided for in this Bill, will be generously supported with funds appropriated by this House.

I should like to look at some of the benefits. Firstly, in economic terms, expenditure on education and training will result in greater prosperity for all our people through faster economic growth. The dramatic needs of South Africa for skilled and semi-skilled workers are increasingly being acknowledged. I want to remind hon. members of just a few of the startling statistics: Over the next 20 years eight million people will enter the labour market; to provide jobs for these people we shall need an economic growth rate of about 5%; to obtain a growth rate of 5% we shall need at least six million skilled workers by the year 2000, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Pine-lands earlier this afternoon; without that growth rate, the percentage of unskilled workers will increase from 53% to 58% of the work force—and we all know that “unskilled” all too often means “unemployed”.

Training is therefore a key to growth in our economy, to broadening our tax base by increasing the number of economically productive people, to raising our standards of living and to having more money available to tackle the problems of housing, poverty and education itself.

Education and training, however, not only facilitate faster economic growth but also reduces the need for Government expenditure in certain areas. The more skilled and semi-skilled people we have, the less will be the demand for State-subsidized housing, food, medical care and pensions. In other words, the State derives a double financial dividend from investments in education and training: It has more available revenue whilst at the same time there are fewer demands on its resources. This point is, I believe, often overlooked when the problems of providing education and jobs for our growing population are confronted. I say this not because I underestimate the magnitude of the challenges facing us, but because there is a tendency on the part of some people to give up the task as hopeless before we have even begun.

There are also, of course, unquantifiable but very real dividends to be derived from the enrichment of the lives of people who are realizing their full potential, economically and as human beings. I have no doubt that the community as a whole reaps immeasurable rewards when its citizens enjoy the self-respect that comes from the recognition of their abilities and their individual worth.

Expenditure on education and training is, in my opinion, the single most important type of expenditure as it alleviates financial, socio-economic and, if properly handled, political problems as well.

When it comes to providing for our manpower needs, the training and use of young people alone is not enough. This afternoon I should like to identify three groups of people whose potential I believe is often sadly neglected. The first of these are women, and particularly the married woman …

Hear, hear!

… whose ability to contribute to our economy is frequently underestimated or ignored. Thousands of rands are often invested in the education and training of a woman whose skills are subsequently grossly underutilized because of prejudice or inflexibility on the part of employers. Many highly skilled women cannot find suitable employment, merely because they cannot work entirely conventional hours.

Then there are adults with little or no formal education to whom other hon. members have referred this afternoon, people who often have the aptitude and sometimes the experience to perform tasks beyond those allotted to them. Relatively small investments in training and retraining would result in enormous increases in productivity, job satisfaction and the earnings potential of this very large group within our labour force.

Thirdly, there are the senior citizens whose skills and experience are often discarded because they have reached an arbitrarily set age limit. Many of them would like to continue working, some simply because they wish to remain active and others to protect their standards of living against rampant inflation. In practice, however, the contribution that can be made to our economy by many pensioners is lost.

As a young developing country, South Africa prides itself—and rightly so—on the innovation and improvisation employed by our entrepreneurs in adapting to local conditions. We must, however, realize that we need to use all our manpower and skills to best advantage. We must provide and recognize all skills, ranging from literacy through to high level qualifications, because they are all in short supply. Where necessary, we must also make provision for retraining. In the past we have not shown the necessary innovation and flexibility in utilizing the talents of these three groups I have mentioned this afternoon. I hope encouragement and guidance will be given to employers so that no skills, however humble, will be wasted.

In supporting the Second Reading of this Manpower Training Bill which clearly makes a contribution to resolving our manpower problems, I want to make a plea: firstly, for the maximum possible investment in education and training at all levels and, secondly, for greater recognition of the potential of women, adults without formal education, and senior citizens to make a far greater contribution to our economy than they are being allowed to make at present.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to welcome the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens to this House. The outcome of the election in that constituency was indeed a less than pleasant experience for us on this side of the House, but now that the hon. member is here …

Only temporarily!

… even if it is only temporarily, it is a pleasure for me to welcome him here. I also want to congratulate him on the speech he made this afternoon. The points he made are points on which every hon. member of this House could essentially agree with him. The point he made pertaining to the necessity of training in the economic growth process of South Africa was in fact the first point I wanted to mention in my own speech. But the hon. member put the point well and I shall now have to approach it from another angle. The hon. member may feel welcome in this House. All of us experienced as newcomers that there is a cameraderie in this House and even if we oppose each other at times, there are cohesive factors as well. Consequently we welcome the hon. member most sincerely.

A great deal has been said on both sides of this House about the legislation under discussion. A great deal has been said in support of the hon. the Minister and his department for the competent way in which they prepared this Bill.

I examined the aim as formulated in the White Paper on Part 2 of the Wiehahn Commission report. In it the general aim of the Government in regard to manpower is formulated. Let me read it (para. 2.1)—

The concepts “developed”, “utilized” and “conserved” are then defined as follows—

If we analyse these three ingredients of the objective, we find the concept of “training” contained in each of them. On the basis of that fact I consequently want to state why there has also been general and wide support for this well-prepared Bill in this House this afternoon. Training is, therefore, an essential and integral part of a satisfactory labour force in this country.

Furthermore a great deal has been said about the utilization of trained manpower in South Africa’s growth process. Constant reference has been made to the figure of 5% as being the minimum average growth rate over the next 20 years. A lack of trained manpower could result in an unfortunate vicious circle with certain disastrous results. If there is a shortage of trained manpower this inevitably leads to a lower economic growth rate and this in turn inevitably leads to greater unemployment and consequently to fewer employment opportunities as well, specifically for trained labour. The training of manpower across the whole spectrum of the economy is, therefore, an essential prerequisite and one of the primary building stones to ensure growth in the economy. Perhaps one should also include potential manpower here. I shall make a further point in that regard in a moment.

When we speak about training, I should like to emphasize two points. The first is training in accordance with the actual requirements of the country’s economy. Accordingly proper research must be carried out into the demand and supply of skilled workers in specific sectors of the economy, and training must be geared to that. As far as potential manpower is concerned, I believe that one must develop an interest, probably at school level already, in certain fields in which the present supply of manpower is manifesting shortages or limitations. It is important that interest must be stimulated in such directions at school level already, i.e. at a very early stage. It is important that that interest should be created, for it is a fact that not all sections of the population develop an interest at home for all the technical directions and possibilities which exist today. Such interest must be created where it is lacking today.

Secondly, I want to say with regard to more advanced and improved training that the existing manpower should be utilized systematically and that trained manpower should be utilized within the work situation to the best ability of the individual worker.

As far as the Bill as such is concerned, I should like to emphasize the following points. Some of them have already been emphasized by hon. members on this side of the House, but I gladly do so again. The first one is the relationship between the State and the private sector, which also includes the employer and the employee, as it does in fact find expression in the Bill under discussion. I believe that the hon. member for Durban North raised valid arguments on this matter, as did other members. But I maintain that it is impossible for the State alone to fulfil the essential function of the training of the labour force. If this were the expectation we can accept in advance that we are not going to achieve the aim. That is why it is important that the responsibility in this respect be divided between the State and the private sector by means of the Bill. The State, I believe, fulfils its responsibility by providing the necessary framework, incentives, as well as the augmentation of training efforts. Consequently I want to express the hope that these services which are being provided by the State will be implemented with the least possible administrative restrictions so that the private sector, true to the principle of free enterprise, can indeed accept the full responsibility of discharging its duty, too, with regard to training.

But, if we were to be unable to bring about and literally carry through the partnership in practice, we could not achieve success in the long run. In discussions on this aspect one often hears the reproach, on the part of the private sector as well, that administrative restrictions sometimes imposed, not only in this sphere, but in others as well. That is why I believe it is important that we as a Government should search our own hearts as well, in order to ensure that the least possible administrative restrictions are imposed on the implementation and application of such a sound measure as this.

The second point I should like to emphasize is that of training in labour relations. I believe this is indeed one of the most important aspects in the Bill under discussion. Even in its first report the Wiehahn Commission found that South Africa had a considerable backlog in this sphere. According to the commission it is important that South Africa’s training be given a distinctive character in this sphere, with effective control over and influencing of the nature and the quality of the training that is being provided. I believe it is only natural that this reference should be made to the distinctive character and unique nature of the problems with which we are dealing in the South African labour structure. I believe the Bill gives proper effect to this aspect, which was raised in the first report of the Wiehahn Commission, by embodying the concept of training in labour relations in the essence of training as such, by way of the definitions clause.

I believe that this aspect is of the utmost importance because apart from the cost of labour as such, troubled race relations are one of the most restricting factors as regards increased employment by industrialists. This is one of the most important restricting factors which is probably at times the cause of a tendency on the part of industrialists not to bring about greater employment themselves. The risk of poor labour relations will merely compel industrialists to greater mechanization, which results in fewer employment opportunities. In view of the potential conflict situation which we have in our labour structure as well, it is important that the soundest and most peaceful labour relations possible exist in the working milieu in order to eliminate as far as possible that very restricting factor in the creation of employment opportunities by the industrialist.

The third aspect of the legislation I should like to touch on concerns the National Training Board. The mere fact that a coordinating board is to be established to replace the previous three councils is to be welcomed. In our efforts to co-ordinate we often tend to bring about the very opposite. We so often call for co-ordination and then achieve exactly the opposite because everyone simply wants to co-ordinate again in his own area and in his own sphere. Here, however, we have an example of constructive and effective co-ordination. The different functions which exist under the various councils are now being combined under one body and can now come into their own there. The extension of the constitution of the board to provide for the appointment of training experts, who have special knowledge with regard to manpower training or development is an important addition to the constitution of the board. If the board, as is being envisaged, wants to fulfil its function with regard to research properly, it must have this expertise, in its own ranks as well. That is why it is commendable that provision is being made for this extension.

The function of the board is defined comprehensively and in full in the Bill itself. Indeed it is also the intention that these functions are to be carried out in consultation with the National Manpower Commission, as it has already been stated in the White Paper. In order to meet the requirements of manpower training on an ongoing basis, a system of evaluation and control is certainly necessary. It must in that way be ensured that training continues to take place in the most systematic way. Adjustments in respect of training patterns and courses must be provided in time in order to be able to meet the essential need at the right time. That is why evaluation of the existing process, of the existing training pattern and courses, still an ongoing matter, must receive attention. In this regard one need only refer to the extended function which is also being allocated to the training advisers in terms of the Bill. In that way, too, a useful purpose can be fulfilled, for these people, if I understand this correctly, can carry out that evaluation and control specifically on the factory floor.

The last point I should like to broach relates to the registration of the group training centres. I think all of us agree that the creation of a framework within which manpower training may take place is the most important function which the department can perform in this specific matter. This registration procedure of training centres is indeed the most important means which the department can provide within this framework. At the same time an offer of assistance must be made to the private sector by means of these levy schemes, in order to provide the necessary funds in that way. It is important that on this point too, the whole idea of training should come into its own in the partnership between the State and the private sector. At the same time it is also important that the centres must function autonomously and independently as far as possible, for in that way we ensure that the training can indeed meet the practical requirements, otherwise they are of academic interest and are not conducive to the systematic and effective utilization of that training, which we should so much like to see it.

Finally I believe that this is a comprehensive Bill. We may indeed convey the congratulations of everyone in this House to the hon. the Minister and his department on this fine piece of legislation dealing with manpower training. It makes an important contribution towards the implementation of the Government’s aims in regard to manpower, as I stated them at the outset.