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

Two days ago we had the fifth part of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation, and also the Government’s White Paper on that report. I intend to spend the next 15 minutes or so looking at that report of the commission and at the Government’s response to its recommendations. The report clearly covers many important aspects of labour legislation, and it is quite impossible for me to try to deal with this exhaustively. In many ways the report of the commission and the Government’s response indicate further advances in labour reform. Therefore, overall it is to be welcomed.

While I am referring to this report, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he could tell us in his reply when we could expect the report which deals with the mining industry. Clearly, the mining industry covers a wide scope of the labour field and employs hundreds and thousands of people. Whilst I commend the Government’s awareness of the key role that can and must be played by women in the market-place, it is our view that the Government is short-sighted in some of their responses to the commission’s recommendations. This will be dealt with, however, in much more detail by another hon. member of this party.

Without being churlish, I want to express my regret at the delay in taking action regarding several important areas. I believe that the danger inherent in the department’s work is the Government going around in circles with one commission’s recommendations being referred to yet another commission. Whilst I can appreciate that some of the matters with which we are dealing are pending, I would warn against an ever-increasing tendency for bureaucracy raising its head in matters of labour review and labour reform.

An example of this delay is in respect of the commission’s recommendations concerning exclusion of persons from the scope of the Act, namely those occupied in farming operations and also domestic servants in private households. The Government has not yet made a final decision on this. It has deferred it, however, in order that an investigation can take place and that the parties concerned can be consulted. This is a matter which has been raised many times in this House, and not only here, but elsewhere too, and I hope that the consultation with all the parties concerned will be swift and with a minimum amount of delay.

Only yesterday we heard the hon. the Prime Minister tell us of how many people were involved in domestic service in South Africa. Of course this involves thousands of people, and I would hope that we can have a speedy report and, I hope, also a very favourite report along the line of the commission’s recommendations. I am sorry too that the commission’s recommendation regarding the introduction of peaceful picketing has been turned down. This is a well established custom in international industrial action. It is my view that if one allows this here it can actually build discipline within the work-force if they are given an opportunity of alerting both workers and the public to the particular conflict in which they are involved.

Are you going to say something about The Argus picketing too?

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to respond as seriously as I can and therefore I take no notice of the hon. member for Simon’s Town. He does not deserve any attention. [Interjections.]

On the other hand I strongly endorse the Government’s acceptance of the commission’s recommendation to resume the submission of annual reports to the International Labour Organization. This is a very small part of a very large report, but I believe it is a very important part, important to South Africa because I believe it is important, to project as widely as possible the new deal which new deal which is coming about in labour relations. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will comment on how he rates South Africa’s chances of getting back into the International Labour Organization, and whether he feels that we are actually doing enough simply by appointing labour attachés in Brussels and Washington. It is my view that we are not doing enough, but I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s comment on that. I say this because it must be seen against the background of the possibility of labour organizations in many parts of the world being used as a lever against South Africa. It is therefore imperative that when we have good news—and I believe we have some good news in this field—we make it known through every available channel. Therefore I am glad that the commission has recommended along these lines and that the Government has accepted that.

I am particularly disappointed that the Government has turned down the recommendation that “unreasonable refusal to recognize a union which has been registered and”—I am quoting now from the commission’s report—“which has been proved in a secret ballot to be adequately representative, should constitute grounds for the submission of a complaint of an unfair labour practice to the Industrial Court”. There is no doubt that workers generally will regard this as being loaded in favour of recalcitrant employers. I am strongly of the view that voluntarism should be a cardinal principle in our labour relations philosophy, but when an employer deliberately sets his face against incontrovertible evidence of representativeness, I have no doubt that it should be regarded as an unfair labour practice and that an industrial court should come into play. I really cannot understand the reasoning behind the Government’s reply in the White Paper, but I hope that the hon. the Minister and his department will think again and that the Government will think again about this. I stress that voluntarism should, of course, remain a cardinal principle, but when we talk about unreasonableness, then I think that some action should take place, and when we are talking about the key role that the industrial court could and should play in South Africa, then here is one glaring instance where it should come into play. Unfortunately the Government has decided otherwise. On this subject I want to express my relief that the commission recommended that the existing voluntary basis for the registration of employers’ and employees’ organizations be retained in our legislation. I am glad that the Government has accepted this recommendation, but I am disappointed at the possibility of this being replaced by a system of compulsory registration. It is not there yet, but I have an ominous feeling that this is the direction in which the Government is moving.

The registration—and I think this is a very important point—of organizations by the State is a controlling rather than a facilitating function and in many free-enterprise based economies no such registration takes place, for example in West Germany, Holland, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom. It is probably known that in the United States and Canada a process of certification exists while the registration of unions as organizations takes place in North America by registration under the American equivalent of our Companies Act. I hope that the Government will not move to a position where it forces all unions to register. Such compulsion would fit ill with the notions of self-government and voluntarism which have for long been part of our labour relations philosophy and are emphasized by the Government itself in its own White Paper. Maybe I am seeing a spectre where one does not exist, but the comment in the Government White Paper which refers to the many representations it has received, suggests to me that there may well be a move in this direction. I want to suggest that if registration is to be enforced, it must be linked to the enforcement of the unions’ collective bargaining rights. One cannot have the one without the other, i.e. if representativeness is part of the registration requirement, it should result in automatic membership of industrial councils where they exist. That is the first point. In addition, employers should be compelled to recognize unions where there is clear evidence that they are representative. I do not think one can take away with the one hand and give with the other. One must be fair to both the employer and the employees. I would think that the ideal situation would be that registration should remain voluntary, but that control should be matched with benefits, thus inducing the unions to make the decision to register voluntarily and for positive reasons rather than anything else. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister and the Government to resist the temptation to use the big stick. I believe that this would undo much of the good that has been done in regard to labour reform and wöuld heighten the suspicion and the distrust already present and retard progress towards even greater industrial peace.

There are three other aspects I want to discuss in regard to this report. The first of these is the reference to the closed shop which appears on page 28 of the White Paper. It is clear that the report of the National Manpower Commission is going to be tabled in Parliament in due course and I do not wish to anticipate it. On the other hand, the Government itself has told us in its own White Paper of its reaction to and of its acceptance of the commission’s recommendation to reverse the former decision of the Government which will mean that the closed shop will now once again be recognized. This is a very tricky situation. Although we will have another opportunity to debate this matter under the legislation that will obviously flow from this recommendation and so I do not wish to devote too much time to it now, I want to warn the hon. the Minister—I think that the report of the National Manpower Commission indicates an awareness of this fact—that there are dangers here, very real dangers, and that that is why the commission states that the Department of Manpower should make every effort to publicize the existence of the protective measures on every possible occasion, particularly in terms of race, colour or creed. I believe that there are ways in which the closed shop could be abused in order to introduce discrimination by the back door. The hon. the Minister does not want that to happen and neither do I. I believe. Sir, that this would be a very bad thing indeed for our labour relations.

The second comment I wish to make deals with the question of fair employment practices which I believe ought to be incorporated in our labour laws. I know that the Government has stated that it accepts the six basic elements of fair employment practice namely, the right to work, to associate, to bargain collectively, to withhold labour and to protection and development. It seeks to provide for these basic elements in our labour legislation. However, I am strongly of the view that these six basic elements should not only be reflected in our labour law but should also appear there in specific terms—that they should be there as part of a labour code in our labour legislation. I hope that the hon. the Minister and his department will give some consideration to this matter.

In conclusion, Sir, I wish to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. I hope he will not tell me that this is something which is beyond his province as I believe it affects him and all of us very deeply. I refer to the fact that there is a constant attack on and victimization of the South African Allied Workers’ Union in East London. This is a union which is actually recognized by Hoover. Two of the men concerned were recently detained and today’s newspaper from East London tells us that they are now subject to section 6 of the Terrorism Act. I know that this matter falls under the Department of Justice and that it is a matter for the police but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that this affects his department fundamentally. I want to repeat an appeal I made to him earlier in the session in regard to our labour law when I said that we were not going to solve our labour problems by arresting and harassing trade union leaders. All I want to ask today is that the hon. the Minister be aware of this and use his personal influence to ensure that this sort of matter will not be handled in this way.

Mr. Chairman, I really think we have witnessed history here today, because this is the first time in all the years I have been in this hon. House that the chief spokesman of the official Opposition has devoted his speech on this Vote entirely to the White Paper of the Government and a report which has not yet been embodied in legislation before this hon. House. To me it is indeed a feather in the cap of the Department of Manpower, the hon. the Minister himself and therefore the Government too, that the chief spokesman of the official Opposition did not express a single word of criticism of what has been given effect to in the past or what has already been embodied in the legislation with regard to labour matters or manpower utilization in South Africa. The hon. member resorted to a number of clichés. He was in a difficult situation because there is the question of domestic servants and farm workers on the one hand, and compulsory registration on the other. The hon. member knows, after all, what security measures or what regulating measures have been incorporated in the legislation and were recently agreed to by the House as far as registration is concerned. The hon. member knows, too, that this is one of the subjects referred to the Manpower Commission for further investigation.

The hon. member again raised the issue of “should we not perhaps have a labour code in the South Africa labour Law?” Surely the hon. member knows that all the regulative measures in the form of legislation in fact comprise South Africa’s labour code. A few additional codes could perhaps be incorporated, which need not necessarily have the power of law. This is true, but to seek to introduce a code based on the principle of the European system is something which in my opinion is not going to work.

I do not believe there is a single member present who has been here for three years who will not agree with me when I say that the department of labour as we knew it has in the meantime undergone a total and radical change. It is being totally and radically renewed. When one looks at the budget, one notes that an amount 76% greater than that of last year has been allocated to the Department of Manpower this year—R51 million as against R29 million. This is not due to inflation alone but is indeed an indication of the increased activities and responsibilities of the department.

It will be recalled—the hon. chief spokesman of the official Opposition will also remember this—that over the past two years we have piloted no fewer than 11 labour Bills or labour amending Bills through Parliament. In addition, two have been published for comment and will be introduced next year. Indeed, it is envisaged that whereas in the past the department administered a total of 14 Acts, there is going to be a new flexibility in the operation of the department and the number of these acts will be reduced to eight, so that there may be more flexibility and consolidation as far as the legislation, too, is concerned.

One asks oneself: Why this metamorphosis? There are a number of reasons for it. A number of new complications and developments have occurred in the labour sphere throughout the world, including South Africa. In South Africa, too, we have had to take cognizance of this, and it is fortunate that at that stage there was a Minister with vision who saw that it was necessary to tackle the situation without delay, that cognizance had to be taken of these sophisticated new trends in the labour world, and a start was made in good time. I think that at this stage we can be proud of what has been achieved.

One could also ask oneself how the department has changed. At this stage I am not going to refer to Black trade unions, because that has been discussed ad nauseam. One calls to mind bodies such as the Labour Court, which has been introduced in the place of the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court was a tribunal, in contrast to the Labour Court which is a judicial court. Then, too, there is the National Manpower Commission which is something unique in the history of South Africa. In the short period of its existence it has already produced a very interesting report, packed with data. It is notable that the hon. the Minister has now also become the head of the Productivity Advisory Council and Institute, which are doing very important work. Hon. members will be interested to note that the institute has developed a new method of measuring productivity and it enjoys international recognition. I think this is a feather in the cap of the department.

I do not want to go too far with these new things but let us dwell for a moment on the National Training Board, which is to be responsible for the training of all races and colours. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to appoint to the National Training Board not only academics but people from the private sector as well. If the hon. member for Houghton were here now she would probably have been pleased to hear my next request to the Minister, because I want to ask him to appoint at least one woman to the training board, since parity between the sexes is now being effected. I also wish the hon. the Minister everything of the best with the new Manpower Development Fund, and I hope that he will kick off with at least R10 million.

The vision and enthusiasm of the hon. the Minister has infected the private sector to such an extent that the “Manpower 2000” effort was a unique achievement in the history of South Africa. It was successful to such a degree that employers began to realize that employees are more than a number on a computer slip; they are people with their own circumstances and needs. Industrialists and other employers became so labour-conscious that they established a Manpower Institute for Southern Africa, for which we must be grateful.

I referred to Black trade unions, and many people outside this House want to know how this is going to work. They ask whether this is not going to mean the start of a series of illegal and legal strikes, whether it will not paralyse our economy at some stage, and they also ask the question: Have you who make the laws not perhaps created a monster, and are you sure that you will be able to control this monster?”. Well, only the future will tell who was right and who wrong. However, in my opinion, it is the responsibility of the hon. members of this House to call upon all trade unions and employers’ organizations to act responsibly at all times in the interests of labour peace and in the interests of their members and of the industry in which they are involved.

However, I want to deal in detail with the Black trade unions which have not yet had a great deal of experience in this field, and I want to appeal to them not to allow themselves to be misused by external affairs and influences. I want to call upon them not to forfeit their birthright and become a political agitation group, because that can very easily happen with people who are inexperienced in labour matters or in the functioning of a trade union or even an employers’ organization. Neither the country as a whole nor the new trade unions can afford anything of the kind, and we ought not to allow anything of the kind to happen. With responsible trade unions and sympathetic employers’ organizations in South Africa, the labour situation can only be favourable, in spite of our complex labour set-up. It is therefore essential, if we are to have economic growth in South Africa, that we have maximum peace on the workshop floor and at the labour level in general. I believe, therefore, that we who are members of this highest Council Chamber of South Africa must convey the message that there ought to be no politicking in labour matters.

Mr. Chairman, although the hon. Speaker is not in the House at the moment, I cannot pass up this opportunity of thanking him for seeing his way clear to accept this high office. I came to know the Speaker, and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, in another council chamber, and I therefore know that his particular characteristics equip him exceptionally well for the office he now occupies. My best wishes go with him in his work. Another member of this House has also attracted my attention, and that is the hon. member for Groote Schuur.

†He will remember how he, in a different position to that which he occupies today and also as a member of a different party, addressed me when I was occupying a non-party position. I was so often challenged by that hon. member—always, and I must pay him this compliment, in a perfectly parliamentary manner—that I am glad that that will not now be my fate.

*I must also thank my predecessor in this House, Mr. Potgieter, who also represented the Port Elizabeth North constituency for about 15 years. He concentrated mainly on pleas for more State assistance for housing for the less affluent of South Africa. There are about 600 dwelling units in this constituency built since he became its member of Parliament. I think those dwelling units are lasting proof of his dedication.

I indicated that I wished to speak during this Vote in order to raise a matter relating to the legislation on compensation. Section 7 of the Act provides that when an employee suffers an injury in the course of his work as a result of an accident he does not have a claim against the employer but against the fund. Section 43 further provides that if such employee can prove that the injury resulted from the employers’ negligence, he can claim a larger amount from the fund. In other words, he can apply to the commissioner for a larger amount in compensation. Section 43(3) of the Act provides, however, that even in that case the maximum amount which can be granted as compensation to such a worker shall only cover the financial losses which he suffered or which he is deemed to have suffered. I feel that these provisions are unfair. In my opinion this is contrary to what we usually call common law. Suppose a worker in a factory loses both eyes, his hearing or his legs. The loss in income in such a case would not be the only loss he suffered. He is now only half a man, or less than half a man. In order to illustrate how drastic this restriction is—and there are many lawyers in this House—one can compare that person’s position to that of someone who suffers a similar injury in a motor accident. A person injured in a motor accident is able to claim not only a part of his loss of income, but his entire loss of income, and in addition he can put in a claim for general damages, as it is called, which is frequently more than the compensation for direct financial loss. Unfortunately such cases occur in practice. I personally know of a case of a man who was a driver. The brakes of his trailer failed. He drew the attention of his employer to this, but the employer none the less ordered him to drive. There was an accident which was a direct result of the brakes being faulty. The man was seriously injured. Nine months later he is still unable to return to work. For the rest of his life that man will suffer as a result of those injuries. I know that this is all detail, but the principle is that that man will no longer be able to lead a normal life. He can no longer act in the same way towards his family, nor can he continue to make the same contribution as a member of society. It is totally inadequate to compensate him only for his financial loss. The loss that man suffered is far greater.

I realize that counter-arguments can be advanced when I say we should amend the Act to make provision for persons to retain their common law rights. One of the obvious arguments would be that the fund is not financially strong enough to carry additional claims. A second argument would be that only employers contribute to the fund and it would therefore be unfair to pay employees from a fund to which only employers contribute. A third argument which could be raised is that if such a worker were to seek legal advice, he would run the risk of losing everything. I wish respectfully to contend that none of these three arguments hold water. As regards the first argument, it is surely easy to strengthen the fund by collecting larger contributions from employers. I think it would be impractical to claim contributions from employees, for the simple reason that employees’ contributions would probably be measured in cents, and the administrative burden resting on employers who collect such small amounts would not make it worth while. I think employers would prefer to pay the additional amount themselves.

In addition, certain employees who earn more than a certain amount in income are excluded from the provisions of the Act. In that case many employers already have insurance to cover themselves against possible claims by that category of employee. In certain cases employers therefore already take out additional insurance and already bear the additional costs. In conclusion, as regards the argument that the employee is running a risk when he seeks legal advice, I readily concede that. I wish, however, to suggest that in view of our sophisticated legal profession, this is hardly a risk factor which need be taken into account. I have researched the position in England, because the English laws have often served as an example to us. I found that the employee has not been deprived of this right in England. I also looked at the Wiehahn Report, but found that unfortunately the Wiehahn Commission did not voice an opinion on this. I therefore wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider this matter, that we should not deprive the employee in this country of his common law rights.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North is a man who has had a long career in public life, and now he has had the opportunity to deliver a maiden speech in yet another council chamber in the Republic. On behalf of this side of the House I want to wish him everything of the best for the future here in this House. We trust that he will make a sound contribution and that we shall be able to get on well with him. The hon. member mentioned the fact that he got to know an hon. member on this side of the House in the council chamber of the Cape Provincial Council and that a peaceful and correct relationship existed between the two of them there. It is on record that the hon. member for Groote Schuur during his term of office in the provincial council requested on 15 occasions that matters of urgent public importance be discussed. However, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, who was the chairman of the provincial council at the time, afforded him the opportunity to do so only once. Moreover, the hon. member ordered the hon. member for Groote Schuur to withdraw from the chamber on eight occasions, and three select committees were appointed to investigate certain matters arising therefrom. So there was indeed a peaceful and correct relationship between the two hon. gentlemen!

†Mr. Chairman, I have very little time and I still want to speak very seriously to the hon. the Minister of Manpower. He has on numerous occasions been congratulated with the enlightened and good legislation which he has been able to bring to the House. He is now equipped with legislation which, if it is correctly applied, if it is applied with insight, courage, ability and competence, can make a tremendous contribution to improving the way of life of many thousands of South Africa’s workers, contributing to a more stable economy and in fact bringing about—and this is possibly the most important aspect of all—better relationships and understanding between the various races in our country. But then there are certain things which the hon. the Minister must guard against to the very best of his ability. In the very short time at my disposal I cannot refer to all of them, but one of those I want to refer to is the following. The hon. the Minister must insist that he, as the Minister of Manpower, and his department will administer every aspect of the laws under his control in South Africa, and nobody else. If he does not do that, if he stands meekly and lamely by and allows other people or organizations to interfere, intervene or subvert his laws and his department, he will find that he will be dealing with chaos rather than with success.

I want to refer particularly to the Department of Police and specifically to the Security Police section of that department. I think that the hon. the Minister must speak to the hon. the Minister of Police at the first possible opportunity and tell him not to stick his nose into his affairs. I want to point to an incident which took place in East London recently. In East London there is the S.A. Allied Workers’ Union, which is an unregistered union which has recently been formed. It already has 20 000 members and in fact represents approximately 90% of the workers in the East London area. Obviously, it is an effective union and an effective organization in terms of its representation of the workers in that area. Because it is effective, because it is in fact achieving results and because the Security Police do not like this particular union or its activities—they have not broken the law and they have not been charged—a particular member of the Security Police took it upon himself to …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Manpower Vote.

I am doing so, Sir. I am talking about a manpower matter and I am telling the hon. the Minister in which way …

Order! The hon. member is referring to the actions of the police.

Yes, in interfering in the affairs of this department.

But that can be dealt with under the Vote of the Minister of Police.

No, Sir. I must submit that you are totally wrong. If I am speaking about this department’s activities …

Order! The hon. member must abide by the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on this? I am saying that this department has certain responsibilities and I am warning the department that its responsibilities are being undermined by another department.

The hon. member may refer to it briefly, but he must return to the Vote …

Can I give the details?

No. The hon. member must return to the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, can I give the details so that the hon. the Minister will know what the details are? Can I ask the hon. the Minister …

Order! The hon. member must abide by the ruling of the Chair. He can deal with this matter under the Vote of the Minister of Police.

Sir, I am talking about a labour matter. I am not talking about a police matter, but about a labour matter in which the police have interfered.

The hon. member has referred to that and he must now return to the Vote.

I want to direct an appeal to the hon. the Minister and I would ask him a few questions. Has the hon. the Minister seen the relevant document that was distributed by the Security Police? Can he say “yes” or “no” please? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman …

The hon. the Minister can give a full answer afterwards. He need just say “yes” or “no”. He cannot make a speech now.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It will assist the discussion if I just tell the hon. member that the police did not poke their noses in my department’s affairs.

Well, I am now completely confused, because I … [Interjections.] I am confused, and I believe South Africa is going to be confused, because I hold here in my hand … [Interjections.] I hold here in my hand a document which was drawn up by a security policeman and distributed by hand. It bears no letterhead. It is not identifiable. It was distributed, however, amongst employers in East London by a member of the Security Police.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must now return to the Vote. The hon. the Minister of Manpower …

Mr. Chairman, I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he flew to East London …

Order! The hon. the Minister of Manpower is not responsible for the work of the hon. the Minister of Police.

I am not saying that he is responsible.

Order! I order the hon. member now to return to the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am asking the hon. the Minister now whether he flew to East London and asked employers there to hold out against the unregistered trade union concerned, or whether he participated in any way in encouraging employers to give preference to registered trade unions, or whether he discouraged in any way organizations and employers as far as the unregistered trade union in question is concerned. This, we see, has left a very bad taste. It has bedevilled the affairs and the work of the hon. the Minister, and he will now find that he is facing suspicion on the part of the workers in that part of the country. He will also find that it is going to be very, very difficult indeed for the work of his department to be effective and successful in that part of the country because of the unwarranted interference by the Security Police. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is so symptomatic that it always has to be the hon. member for Bryanston who has to strike a jarring note in a debate here, that his recent behaviour does not surprise one at all. Of course, the hon. member is so accustomed to inciting and subversion in the ranks of his own party that he cannot believe or accept that a body like the NP Government is not faced with this in its own ranks. However, we will grant him his pleasure and forgive him, because for the rest this debate, as well as the legislation that has been dealt with on this subject thus far, there was evidence of unanimity of action. Another problem of the hon. member for Bryanston is, of course, the fact that he can never accept that the Security Police of South Africa are acting in the interests of the country. He will always see such action as undermining the rights of people. However, I leave the matter at that now.

When we discuss this particular Vote, we must take into account, in the first instance, the unique set-up which exists in South Africa. We have a tremendous consumer potential, a wide variety of minerals and natural resources, and—allow me the indulgence of saying this—thanks to the brilliant achievements of my own constituency, we are also on the way to complete independence from imported crude oil or liquid fuel. What makes it even more remarkable, is that this process has been subjected to strict economic requirements, which also comply with the standards of the private investor. In other words, other factors are present for the maximum development of the enormous potential of South Africa.

It is already part of history that in recent years South Africa has been one of the most brilliant stars in the firmament of development of the world. This Vote deals with the most important component of this whole process of development, viz. manpower. Appropriate evidence states that our growth rate has been reduced by between 3% and 4% as a result of a lack of knowledge in our labour process. Then I want to point out that training primarily begins at school. Without criticizing the Department of Education and Training and the Department of National Education—for whose standards I have a high regard—I want to convey to the Committee the opinions of business and industrial leaders who are considered to be authorities in their fields. I am going to sketch them briefly. They say the educational system in South Africa has not yet been adequately adapted to the needs of the modern technological century. The business and industrial life does not need theoritians who can memorize and pass examinations, but thinkers who can apply theory in practice as well as practical specialists and technicians who can be put to use at once. A slightly more complicated picture is closely bound up with this in South Africa at the moment, and this is the picture with regard to productivity, which in its turn is very closely bound up with the question of training. If we look at the value of the rand in terms of earnings per capita of the economically active population, then the position is more or less as follows: In Britain it is R9 325 with an index of 2,7. In Australia, which is a more comparable country and is not an old industrial country, it is R12 778 with an index of 3,7. In South Africa it is R3 435 with an index of 1,0. Therefore, one realizes at once that skill is closely bound up with the question of productivity.

I just want to quote a few more figures here, without tiring the House with them, with regard to the shortage of White staff structures in South Africa. There is a shortage of 16 120 professional, semi-professional and technical workers, and a shortage of 9 799 in the service industries. This spells out one thing only: The logical solution in South Africa is training, please note, with a capital letter. Now the question arises: What has already been done in this regard? This is an important question. During this session, a speaker on this side of the House referred to the fact that a very meaningful package of labour legislation has been piloted through this House, which should put into effect what we want to achieve and what we must achieve in South Africa in order to achieve a maximum growth rate. In accordance with the Manpower Training Bill, the Training Board, to which an hon. member also referred, was established. In future, this Board will take over the duties of the following bodies: The National Apprenticeship Board, the In-Service Training Board for Whites, Coloureds and Asians as well as the In-Service Training Board for Black workers. The function of this board will be to co-ordinate and rationalize all forms of training and to carry out extensive research with regard to all facets of training, which in itself is an enormous, mammoth task. They must also take a close look at training outside South Africa and learn from it, if it can benefit South Africa, which is also a very important task. They must also take an in-depth look at the training of the unemployed. I just want to refer to the fact that this is an entirely new sector, but it is one for R9 million has already been voted in the past year. Furthermore they will have to make recommendations regarding the application of funds from the Manpower Development Fund, which is a very fine channel for the hon. the Minister and his department. The Training Board will advise the hon. the Minister on all these matters. The Training Board is not a body without teeth. It also has public arms, which amongst others will consist of the so-called public in-service training centres, of which there are already eight and of which satellites are being established at the moment, which are going to be progressively increased, without a doubt. I want to mention one of them only, viz. Chandor, near Krugersdorp, which has trained 1 343 Coloureds in the past year in the spheres of business management, engineering activities, clerical work, sales techniques, etc. These institutions are subsidized by the department which also provides them with equipment to a large extent.

Another important aspect is the important tax concessions that are made with regard to training requirements of entrepreneurs. Concessions of up to 200% are granted in respect of certain training expenditure. Then I want to express the opinion that the commercial and industrial sector should be more training motivated and should not wait for artificial stimulation on the part of the department, because training is also in their own interest, just as it is in the interest of South Africa and of the Government.

I have now referred to the instruments that have been created for the meaningful co-ordination of training, and now I want to refer briefly to the criticism by the business and industrial sector with regard to the professional maturity of our school leavers. I want to express the hope that there will be on-going co-ordination and liaison between the various departments, viz. National Education, Education and Training and Manpower, in order to identify these shortcomings in the educational and training process as a whole and to eliminate them.

In conclusion I want to extend my hearty congratulations to the hon. the Minister and his department for the brilliant success that has emanated from their Manpower 2000 project which was actually a motivating action for making the employer and employee in South Africa aware of the absolutely primary importance of training as such and the improvement of the skill, the technological skill of its workers. This led to the so-called Manpower Foundation which is being piloted by the private sector and which has assumed such proportions that it is continually gaining momentum. We can foresee the day when we will reach the stage that I spoke about—where it will no longer be necessary for the State to encourage the private sector with tax concessions and other artificial stimuli to undertake and initiate training, but that they will do so themselves in their own interest and in the interest of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the previous newcomers in their words of appreciation towards the hon. the Leader of the House and the hon. the Prime Minister and other senior members of this House for the pleasant and friendly way in which they have welcomed us as newcomers to the tradition-filled ranks of this House and the way in which they have made us feel at home here. Thank you very much for this.

Mr. Chairman, I feel very proud and honoured to be able to represent the Caledon constituency in this House. I want to say at once not out of courtesy, but because it gives me pleasure to do so, that I have a great deal of appreciation and respect for my predecessor, oom Japie de Villiers who represented Caledon in this House for so many years. Now oom Japie has also seen to it that an eye will be kept on his successor. He has done so by making sure that his son in law, the hon. member for Pretoria East, who is sitting here next to me—luckily he is not here this afternoon—is close by to keep an eye on me and that he will be able to do so at fairly close quarters too.

I said that I am very honoured to represent Caledon here for a number of reasons. Firstly, the special link that my forefathers had with the National Party in Caledon in the past and particularly in the forties when the name of my grandfather, the late oom Lampie Fick, was practically synonymous with Caledon and with the struggle of the National Party there in those years. Some of the older hon. members of this House and the hon. the Prime Minister in particular will remember that it was a losing battle at the time and that is why it is ironical and that is why I am humbly grateful that I can stand here in this hon. House today completely unopposed.

There is also another reason why I am particularly honoured to be able to represent Caledon here. I want to refer to what the hon. member for Paarl said in his maiden speech here. He said that he represents the most beautiful constituency in this House with the possible exception of Vryburg. I want to say that I represent the best constituency in the Cape and I am not quite sure whether there is a possible exception in this regard or not, and I want to tell hon. members why this is the case. Sir, 350 wool farmers in my constituency produce enough wool to manufacture 650 000 men’s wool-mark suits. Looking at this in another way, this is 65% of the total market of wool-mark men’s suits in South Africa. When one is warmly dressed, one also wants to have a full stomach. We have 248 wheat producers and they produce enough wheat to provide our total population of 25 million people with bread for 11 days a year on the basis of average consumption, or on a rationed basis, for approximately three weeks. To put it differently, these 248 farmers produce enough wheat to provide themselves and their families as well as another 700 000 other people with bread for 12 months of the year.

One cannot live on bread alone, and that is why there are also 230 barley producers. 290 million litres of beer are made from the barley that they produce. It does not actually matter, but in 1980 the hon. the Minister of Finance gained the considerable sum of R100 million in excise duty from these 290 million litres of beer.

Once we have had something to drink and our stomachs are full, there is usually still place for pudding. For this reason there are 157 producers of deciduous fruit in the Caledon constituency and they produce approximately 40% of the total export value of deciduous fruit in the Republic of South Africa.

It is a great honour to be able to represent such a constituency, one in which we and our family have been involved for more than 150 years without a break.

With regard to manpower utilization there are a few brief ideas I should like to raise. The responsibility of the extraordinary and progressive individual in a group or community is the subject that I should like to deal with. History has proved time and again that the laurels always go to the community or groups of people in which the talented, strong individuals receive recognition and are allowed to forge ahead. We are not talking about boasters and perverse people now; we are talking about people who have a clear vision of what they want in the future and who then put their energies into striving for their goal.

As Whites in South Africa we are probably more aware than any other population group of the importance and the benefit of the strong individual and the responsibility that accompanies that leadership. The great natural resources of Southern Africa lay fallow here until people who had the ability to see the possibilities and then had the boldness to utilize them arrived here. The developed countries of the world comprise approximately one-sixth of the total world population and these countries have increased their industrial production by nearly 140% over the past 20 years. In contrast to this, we find that in the less developed communities of the world, population increased more rapidly than the economic growth and consequently there is a relative deterioration in the expectations of life of the average members of those communities.

The true significance of and the underlying reasons for the industrial revolution that has already been in progress for 200 years in the West and for a slightly shorter period in South Africa, must be emphasized in all companies and circles in the industrial and political sphere here in South Africa. It is the enterprising individual, the creative intelligence and the responsible leader that is the key to success.

It is necessary for the development of our South African labour force and particularly for the development of our Coloured groups and peoples, that the tremendous importance of the extraordinary individual should be very strongly emphasized in these communities. The entire prosperity of our own community as well as that of the people of colour depends on the extent to which the extraordinary people in these communities are developed, encouraged and suitably remunerated. There is a tendency amongst the nations of Africa today to equate everything and we shall have to guard against this tendency taking root here. There is a tendency to eliminate the distinction between people, with the result that the person with extraordinary intelligence disappears into the masses. In this respect we shall have to help to develop our Coloured communities so that they too will realize that a nation or community can only continue to exist if every individual in that nation or community is prepared to make an economic and spiritual contribution in accordance with the demands that he makes of his community. Since the coloured nations of South Africa will soon have to have an extensive say in matters with us, they will have to realize that those who insist on their human rights like parasites can mean that popular leaders who want to give the masses what they demand, may be responsible for the country to sink into a position of disorder, inflation and economic exhaustion. We shall have to teach these groups to guard against a democratic say in places of employment and in politics and the demands of undeserved human rights do not plough under the God given talents of the intelligent, extraordinary people in their ranks.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to congratulate the hon. member for Caledon on his maiden speech. He obviously knows how to conduct himself in a council chamber, and it was very interesting to listen to the glimpses of history from that part of the world. Now we also know where the hon. the Minister of Finance derives a major part of his revenue! I paid a visit to the hon. member’s constituency quite recently and therefore I have personal experience of the hospitality of the people of that region. It is also interesting to learn that the hon. member’s family have been living in that region for a very long time and have made a major contribution to the development and the prosperity of that part of the world. We wish the hon. member for Caledon happiness and success in this House and we will be listening with interest to his speeches in future.

†Just before dealing with the matters raised under the hon. the Minister’s Vote, I should like to refer to something which the hon. member for Pinelands said. I understood him to say that he believes that in England trade unions do not have to register. I would, however, like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that they do have a registrar of trade unions in England. Trade unions have to register and have to submit copies of their financial reports to the registrar of trade unions. Perhaps the hon. member would like to have a look at that particular aspect.

In the first place I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that it is very interesting to have a look at his budget for this year. As the hon. member for Roodeplaat indicated earlier, there have been quite substantial increases in the amounts allocated to the hon. the Minister’s department. Despite the fact that there has been very considerable increased expenditure, one should, however, take note of the fact that the increases in expenditure revolve essentially around new provisions made for training of unemployed persons and for placement and guidance centres.

It is interesting to note that approximately R14 million under the new items, representing some 27% of the total budget, is going to be allocated for the new training functions and the guidance and placement centre. I therefore want to tell the hon. the Minister that I hope he has been listening to what I told him before, and also what the hon. member for Sasolburg said earlier today, and that is that the real need in the training of industrial workers in South Africa, as a prerequisite for the improvement of productivity and employment opportunities, lies in the question of adult education. I have said this to the hon. the Minister on many occasions. He has probably heard it so often that he has by now reached saturation point, but I should nevertheless like to draw his attention, once again, to the fact that there is really no point in introducing new legislation enabling infrastructures to be set up unless one has the human raw material that can benefit from the training thus established. I think the hon. the Minister will now begin to discover in practice that this is a stumbling block and that some of the R9 million that is being made available for training will have to go towards solving this problem, or at least towards an attempt at initiating a programme of adult literacy training.

We believe, in this party, that the additional R14 million, which is indicated in the report as additional expenditure, is really an investment for positive innovation and action programmes in South Africa. It is a very welcome breeze that is blowing and it is very refreshing to see this change in emphasis in the allocation of moneys to Ministers by this House. I say this because in the past—and I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me—moneys allocated in terms of the various portfolios were predominantly expense-orientated, being there primarily for the control of functions, etc. In this case we believe that the additional R14 million is well justified because that money is required for positive action that is investment-orientated. It is, in fact, an investment in the future welfare of the workers in South Africa, which directly and indirectly will lead to very sound future prospects for South Africa.

I want to take this opportunity to make a particular appeal to commerce and industry to re-examine their training priorities. The way is now open for them, the necessary infrastructure has been created for the proper guidance and placement of workers and the necessary tax incentives are there for companies to use for the training of their workers. The fact that our legislation is now predominantly non-discriminatory means that there are very few impediments to the upliftment of the quality of life of our workers. I also want to make a particular appeal to private enterprise, in all sectors of the economy, to see the upliftment process as a partnership in prosperity. The State cannot do it alone, and I do not believe private enterprise can do it alone either. This partnership in prosperity is now becoming a reality in South Africa. I particularly want to emphasize that it is an equal partnership, with equal responsibilities, between the State and private enterprise. I therefore want to appeal to industry to re-examine its training needs and its contribution to the upliftment of the total training pool.

There is, however, a second very important partnership in South Africa, and that is the partnership that exists between labour and employers. I shall be referring to that again shortly when I deal with the White Paper that the hon. the Minister’s department has tabled. The question of mixed trade unions and that of freedom of association are all very valuable contributing factors to the success of that partnership between the labour force and private enterprise. I believe that this second, and most important, partnership is a partnership to ensure peace in the labour field. I think one has to look at the background to the present situation in South Africa to see how important it is for all parties to make a contribution towards the training and upliftment of the work force. The hon. member for Sasolburg has also referred to this, and the National Institute for Productivity clearly indicated, in its annual report for the period up to March 1981, how sadly lacking South Africa is in worker productivity. It is obviously a fairly complex matter that cannot be dealt with in a simplistic way. One of the most important input factors must be the quality of training that workers have received in the past. One can only wonder how we have managed to date to have the growth rate we have had in this country when certain input factors have been as dismal as they have been.

In commenting further on the important relationship between trade unionism and the employer, I should like to say that certain of the recommendations in the 5th report of the Wiehahn Commission are obviously ones that we all accept, and so we shall not be focusing much attention on those aspects. In conjunction with the hon. member for Pine-lands, my colleague in the Opposition in regard to labour matters, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that there is a certain amount of logic in terms of the department’s reasoning which is difficult to fathom. In the first place, with reference to the recommendation on page 20 of the White Paper, which refers to paragraphs 4.23.1 and 4.28.1 of the report, the hon. the Minister’s department accepts fully the principle of freedom of association. I think the hon. the Minister himself said that in the past. Yet, when we come to the question of the conducting of a secret ballot to establish the representativeness of a trade union, I think the hon. the Minister’s thinking has veered slightly from his intention in freedom of association. It is, of course, very important to establish objectively, preferably through a secret ballot, the representativeness of a trade union. I think that is absolutely important. In fact, the hon. the Minister himself says this is desirable. Yet the hon. the Minister has rejected the recommendation of the commission in respect of the conducting of a secret and officially supervised ballot to determine the numbers within a particular trade union. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister what his thinking was in rejecting that secret ballot. I should also like to point out to him that he has, by implication, accepted that there should be an objective measure for establishing representativeness in trade unions, because on page 23 of the White Paper it is stated—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he visualizes that they can, in fact, take the necessary action through the system of conciliation boards, and how can one establish that they are sufficiently representative. I think there is a bit of confusion here regarding this question of establishing representativeness. On the one hand the hon. the Minister accepts that it is necessary while on the other hand he rejects the recommendations of the commission in establishing this. I should like to point out further that when it comes to an unfair labour practice, i.e. where the employer consistently refuses to recognize or enter into negotiation with a registered trade union, the hon. the Minister’s attitude is that that particular trade union may not go to the industrial court and lay a complaint of unfair labour practice.

Could you just elaborate on this?

Yes, I shall come back to this point.

The hon. the Minister has rejected the commission’s recommendation that a secret, officially supervised ballot should be held to establish how many members in a particular work-force belong to a particular union. When the employer consistently refuses to recognize a registered trade union because it says that that trade union is unrepresentative, the hon. the Minister says, on page 23 of the White Paper, that the recourse for that union, or for the employer, is through the system of conciliation boards. They cannot lay a complaint with the industrial court, but they can go to the conciliation boards and take action through those boards, provided they are sufficiently representative.

I want to know from the hon. the Minister how he is going to establish what is sufficiently representative for action through the conciliation boards if one does not have a secret ballot. I think it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. It is imperative that one should have an objective mechanism for establishing how representative of the workers a union is. I think it is also terribly important for the employers to know who represents how many workers. The employers are going to be consistently badgered by a diverse number of unions who claim to represent the workers. How on earth is an employer going to establish who represents how many workers?

There may be an alternative method of discovering this. The hon. the Minister will know that it is now compulsory for all unions, registered or unregistered, to submit registers of members and proper books and accounts. So it may be possible through that register of members to establish how many members a union actually represents. It may be possible, but there are two provisos: The one is, of course, that the unions concerned do submit registers, and the second is that one will have to establish the validity of the membership register. In so many cases I think the unions may be tempted to assume that people support them, perhaps because they attend a meeting or have initially paid a minimum sum for subscription to that union. Let me say that I think it would be best if we were able to conduct secret officially supervised ballots to establish the strength of a union. This is also going to help the employer in deciding which union he should negotiate with and which one he should not.

Flowing from that, the hon. the Minister has indicated through an opinion appearing in the White Paper that, in fact, a registered trade union may not appeal to the industrial court on the grounds that it is an unfair labour practice if it is consistently refused entry to a particular organization. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what would happen in law, in terms of the Acts we already have operative in the country, if an individual member and employee decided that it was an unfair labour practice for his employer to prevent the union he belongs to from becoming involved in the negotiating settlements in his own company. Would it not be possible for an individual to go to the industrial court and claim that that is not a fair labour practice? We must remember that there is the principle of freedom of association, to which the hon. the Minister subscribes, as we do. The individual can therefore join any union of his choice. If his union is then not allowed by the employer to become party to the negotiating settlements in his factory, could that individual go to the industrial court and lay a charge on the grounds that that is an unfair labour practice? This strategy could well be employed by unions. Their individual members could go and lay a charge rather than they themselves, because they would in fact be prohibited from doing this.

I also want to say to the hon. the Minister that we believe that the principle of voluntary registration is a good one. I believe that under the present circumstances it would be counterproductive to try to force the various embryonic trade union movements to go for a compulsory registration and that at this stage, in order to facilitate the transitional phase from no trade unionism for non-Whites to full representation, it is a sound principle to stick to voluntary registration for these unions, provided they fulfil the statutory obligations in regard to membership lists and other documents concerning accounts.

I should also like to say to the hon. the Minister that the vexed question of closed shops is one we shall have to feel our way through. There is, of course, always the danger that, once one has the closed shop principle in operation in industry, one can prevent other unions from gaining access to that industry, not directly but indirectly. If one already has a strong union represented within an industry and all employees working in that industry have to join it, it is of course going to be very difficult for another union to gain their allegiance and loyalty, because the overwhelming number of people will obviously belong to the union that got there first. Nevertheless, we are prepared to concede that the closed shop principle is an important one for the trade unions, and we shall have to watch developments there very carefully.

Finally I should like to raise a further matter with the hon. the Minister, a matter which flows directly from the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission. I refer to the question of what is going to happen to the new fledgling trade union which obviously will not at present be a member of an industrial council. We know what the procedure is for a union to become a member of an industrial council. If the hon. the Minister, however, fully supports the principles of freedom of association and the voluntarily nature of acceptance by industry itself of which trade union they want to associate with, does he not then realize the real possibility of a conflict arising between the trade union members of an industrial council and those who come and knock on the door of the industry and claim that they represent a certain number of that union’s workers and that the said union must now negotiate with them as well? If we fully subscribe to the principle of freedom of association it becomes a very real possibility that that problem might arise. How are we going to reconcile—or how does the hon. the Minister visualize he can reconcile—the conflicting interests of the trade unions that are already members of an industrial council—they were there historically; they are still there now—and the new trade union that obtains the loyalty and support of a sector of the workers in the same industry where they are members of the industrial council as well.

I believe we are going to have this problem and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister how he foresees we can in fact reconcile the possible conflicts which will arise. It is a very real possibility that trade unions and employers are going to become involved in this conflict when it comes to the recognition of trade unions on a voluntary basis.

In the final instance I should just like to tell the hon. the Minister that we welcome in particular the provisions which now make it possible for a young man who has military obligations to complete his apprenticeship first before undertaking military service. I believe that is a very strong and positive movement …

Hear, hear!

… and that it is going to be welcomed by a very large number of people. Not only will it benefit the individual, but the military service itself, I believe, will benefit from the fact that it will now have fully qualified journeymen joining them. I am sure they could do with these men’s services as well.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North put certain questions to the hon. the Minister with regard to the Fifth Report of the Commission, as well as the White Paper. Since the hon. the Minister has more time to speak than I have, I shall leave it to the hon. the Minister to reply to the hon. member’s questions. In any event, the questions that he put to the hon. the Minister were in connection with more technical aspects.

The ’eighties presents us with tremendous challenges. During this period we shall have to lay the foundations in the labour sphere if we want to combat the future situation, particularly in view of the special national composition of this country. Therefore, in order to lay this foundation properly, we shall not only have to make sacrifices, but we shall also have to display a great deal of wisdom and insight. In the wide spectrum of the national relations in South Africa, labour relations in this country have the potential for conflict and friction. However, if this matter is approached in the correct way, it can also provide the opportunity for peaceful coexistence. Labour relations can mean evolution in the labour sphere, which points to a natural, progressive and gradual development in the labour sphere. However, it can also mean revolution, which will mean rebellion, as well as the overthrow of everything that already exists, which will of course be with a view to achieving revolutionary objectives. I want to allege that since 1978 there has been a revolution in the labour sphere in South Africa which has hastened the evolution. Of course, this was not a revolution that destroyed and overthrew, but which laid the foundations for a better way of life in the future. This is a revolution which confirmed and promoted the evolution of the process of industrialization and development of the quality of our people in the labour sphere. It changed our standard of living from that of a subsistence economy to that of a market economy.

South Africa has been particularly blessed with a wide variety of minerals. We have tremendous reserves of energy. We also have a tremendous source of labour. However, our greatest challenge lies in the fact that we should develop these factors of prosperity and power in such a way that they will be to the benefit of all the people of South Africa. This can only take place by means of evolution and co-operation and not by revolt. It is there that the labour sphere provides us with the greatest challenge. It provides with a challenge of all nations in South Africa making their living in the labour sphere. In the labour sphere we find the interdependence of the nations that are settled here. This is the sphere where there are most points of contact, both amongst employers and between employers and employees. It is in the labour sphere where the requirements of good management and honest action are being laid down. If good relations are disturbed in the labour sphere, it can have a detrimental effect on the security and continued existence of the country. It is in the labour sphere where unrest can most easily be created and it is in the labour sphere where the prosperity and standard of living of the community is determined. It is no use for South Africa to seek its solutions in the outside world, in other industrial countries, because there is no other country that has such a special population composition as South Africa has. That is why it is necessary for us to seek our own solutions in South Africa. Together with the high level of development that our industries have already achieved, there is also unfortunately a large percentage of the population that has not yet developed or grown up in an industrial milieu and therefore still have to develop in that respect. That is why there is such a tremendous shortage of trained manpower at the moment. That is also why the Government has identified this problem and has created the instruments and opportunities by means of which these workers can and must be trained and retrained. In some circles a great deal of fuss is being made about the fact that since the Black trade unions have received recognition, there have been more strikes than before. This is true. Since 1980 there have in fact been more strikes and lost man-hours. However, it was not the Black trade unions that organized these strikes. In fact, we can go so far as to say that it was as a result of the absence of good leaders in the labour sphere that these strikes took place. There is no sphere in which an employee feels so threatened with regard to his continued existence than in his employment, because his standard of living and that of his family is determined in the labour sphere. His security and that of his family depend on this.

Today there is security in the labour sphere for the White worker, for the Black worker, the Coloured worker and the Indian worker. Since the Government has appointed the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation to make an in-depth study of all the facets of legislation as they applied to the labour sphere, and since the Government accepted most of these recommendations and implemented them as soon as possible, it has been stated clearly for the first time what the fundamental rights of the employee in South Africa are. This applies to all workers. He has the right to work; he has the right to be trained and retrained; he has the right to fair remuneration and fair conditions of service; he has the right to belong to an employees’ organization; he has the right to negotiate; he has the right to the protection of his safety and health and he can lay claim to security of livelihood, security of employment and protection against unfair labour practices. As a result the question arose whether there was not a danger involved for workers in using facilities in factories and whether workers will be forced to accept a situation of integration. That is why the department laid down certain guidelines. Firstly, employers must maintain order in their industries themselves. Secondly, no change of the existing circumstances or creation of new circumstances can take place without negotiation and the agreement of the parties concerned. Thirdly, no employee may be forced to accept regulations against his wishes.

In the labour sphere too, manpower will form one of the corner-stones within a constellation of States. Co-operation in this regard can guarantee further improvements in all spheres. With the movement of labour over the borders of the country we shall have to make mutual arrangements with these States. We shall have to make arrangements for the training of their people. We shall also have to make arrangements for the protection of the health of their people and for the maintenance of labour peace, both here and for their citizens that are settled there.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great honour for me to be a member of this House. I also realize that I have tremendous responsibilities to fulfil here and I shall try to do so to the best of my ability. I must say that I am still suffering slightly from shell shock because I have now changed from being a one-arm economist to being a politician.

When we speak about economic development, then we cannot ignore the fact that if we did not have manpower development we would not have development in our developing States. Manpower development is one of the most important methods of assisting these countries. The hon. the Prime Minister pointed out to us that despite all the financial aid that has been granted to Africa, it is in the process of dying. In 1980 more than half of the Africa countries showed a negative growth rate of 1% in their real per capita income. Over the past decade it was minus 0,4%. Why have these failures occurred in Africa? I think we must look at the reasons why donors grant assistance and we find that there are four reasons for doing so. The first is to offer aid with a view to the economic benefits that one will achieve in this way. We often find this reason amongst the French. The second reason is a political benefit that one will obtain in this way and we very often find this reason amongst the Americans. The third reason is the humanitarian reason and I can tell you that those who write about Africa consider this to be one of the poorest reasons and one of the least successful reasons for granting aid. The fourth reason is to promote economic development and growth in these countries. However, unfortunately this is the reason that receives the least attention. It is often assumed that if financial aid is granted, then there will be economic growth at once. This is not the case.

If we look at the constellation policy and the reasons which the hon. the Prime Minister submitted for this, then we find that there are three main reasons. The first is that it is aimed at patterns of co-operation in community and economic interests; secondly that the private sector is going to be the partner in this pattern; and thirdly that the State will have to develop the infrastructure. From these main points it is clear that the emphasis in the constellation policy has been placed on economic development and growth. The steps that have already been announced, viz. the Small Business Development Corporation, the Council for the Promotion of Small Business and now in addition, the preparation for a development bank, shows us that the emphasis is going to fall on financial assistance but also on training, i.e. on manpower development.

I want to mention two further aspects that may possibly contribute towards the success of this framework or strategy. The first step that I want to mention, is the establishment of an agency to convey technical skill to these countries; and secondly, the establishment of a Southern African institute for business management in order to provide the proper training for managers in independent States. It is no use having the workers, even skilled workers, but not having leaders.

What does the term technical skill mean? It means the identification of a project, probability studies, project design, product design, project implementation and the monitoring thereof and finally the training of staff in technical skill. Experts like F. Mike-sell and Guy Arnold have pointed out that the transfer of technical skill is even more important than financial aid, because if one has a good project, one receives the necessary finance.

Why is it so difficult to convey technical skill? The reason is that the private sector has that special technical skill which is necessary for industrial development and the State does not. Therefore, it is private ownership. Therefore, the private sector must be motivated to participate in such an agency. However, we must bear in mind that the private sector is profit orientated. We shall have to activate them, possibly by means of tax concessions, to convey that technical skill.

What will the purpose of such an agency be? I want to point out a few possibilities in this regard. The first is to establish contact between the State, the private sector and the national States on a bilateral basis. The second is to co-ordinate the bilateral agreements that arise. The third is integrating them into the general economic development programmes of independent States. We need such an agency to act as a technological gate-keeper and broker.

Good organization is the crux of any development plan and therefore it is no use having the technical skill, but not the managerial skill. Unfortunately, academic training alone cannot fill that gap. That gap must be filled in partnership with in-service training. I also want to point out that in Africa it is always the White man who holds the managerial positions, and I think the Black man is fairly tired of always being the labourer.

In the PWV area, we have the largest industrial area in Africa and we can use this for in-service training, much more profitably than any other place in Africa and than any other place in the world, because we can take into account the values and norms of the Black man for in-service training in our country. Therefore such a Southern African institute for Business Leadership in the PWV area can serve as a prestige centre to attract the people of Africa. Attention can also be given not only to management in the private sector but the people also need assistance with regard to labour relations and particularly the management of local authorities. Such a training institute can possibly be accommodated in the Manpower Training Act.

In conclusion: We need more research on the Black man in the process of industrialization. The Black manager is often a frustrated person, particularly when he is employed by a White enterprise. He is trapped between his own cultural values, the cultural values of the White man and the White man’s business norms. If the provision of capital, technical skill and managerial knowledge can be integrated and projected, firstly with regard to the development of fallow areas such as agriculture and small business enterprises and secondly, with regard to conversion of natural resources in the developing countries in Southern Africa; the constellation policy can become the biggest of all success stories.

Mr. Chairman, allow me as a member of his electorate to congratulate the hon. member on his maiden speech. It was an excellent speech and we are now able to tell him that he has finally come of age in this House.

†Mr. Chairman, I should like to start with a quotation from the hon. B. J. Vorster, previous Prime Minister and State President of the Republic. He once stated—

Well, as human beings with a soul, they should at least be aware of the conditions of service under which they are expected to work. Let us look at our situation here in Parliament. Every hon. member sitting here is aware of exactly what he is entitled to. We know what our conditions of service are, as these have been passed on to us by the officials of Parliament. But are hon. members in this House aware of the countless thousands of faceless workers outside, both Black and White, who are completely ignorant of the conditions of service under which they are supposed to be working?

*To most of us, conditions of service are as old as the hills. Even in Biblical times service agreements were entered into. For example, I have in mind the old patriarch who had to work for seven years before he could get a certain woman as his wife, and he still ended up with the wrong woman! Perhaps he was not really that stupid. Nowadays we marry first and then work for her for 70 years!

Under present conditions no large company would purchase a piece of machinery costing R20 000 without first entering into an agreement or a contract with the seller. Such a contract sets out what work the machine can perform, what it will cost, when it will be delivered and so forth. But many workers, who will cost a company thousands of rands more than a machine, must work without any form of agreement being entered into between them and the company. I ask myself whether in our society people are worth less than a piece of lifeless machinery, or are people merely thought of as something which can be replaced? At present there are still hundreds of companies that do not enter into service agreements with their workers. In other cases where such agreements exist they are not worth the paper they are written on.

I believe that employers must accept, once and for all, that the climate in our labour relations has changed drastically over the past few years, and I wish to address a warning to them today. The labour unrest they have experienced over the past few years will seem like a Sunday school picnic in comparison with what they will be faced with in the future if they do not deal carefully with their labour force.

There can also be agitators behind the labour unrest, people with political motives who are trying to undermine our country; not to help the worker but for their own selfish gain. A labour force loyal and faithful to its employer, that knows exactly what is expected of it as well as what it will receive in return for its labour, is a labour force which will not soon fall prey to the onslaughts of agitators.

Let us briefly consider what happened in a factory in a communist country where there were no service agreements. I quote some of the rules and regulations issued by that factory to its workers: No worker or group of workers has the right to discuss wages or increases; this is absolutely taboo. If workers wish to consult the doctor, who is on the factory premises, they must clock out and are not paid for the time they are away from their machines. Women must tell the manager of the business what is wrong with them before they can consult the doctor. If workers fall ill at home, they must report to the factory before they can get sick leave. If a worker commits a disciplinary offence, he is sent home for a few days as punishment. Furthermore, workers are not allowed to leave the factory immediately they have clocked out, and workers must wait outside the factory gates for a long period if they arrive late; and then they are not paid for the time they have to wait outside.

I must now confess that I misled the House, because this state of affairs applied in a factory in the Republic of South Africa. This sort of thing took place in our own country. As far as I am concerned it is a disgrace that employers can allow this sort of thing and can act in this way in the present labour set-up in this country. Then we blame our workers if they rebel because they are not prepared to work under such conditions. Agitators are just waiting to take advantage of such situations and use those people for their own personal gain. However, if one talks to those managements, they usually say that the worker need not work there if he does not want to. They say he is free to go and find himself another job. That is the sympathy the workers get.

I said there are two sorts of service contracts, oral contracts and written contracts. I do not wish to go into the legal aspects of oral contracts, except to say that we as labour experts do not like oral contracts. In many cases they are of no use at all as contracts.

This brings me to the second group, the written service agreements. In future an increasing number of workers is going to use the opportunity to appeal to our industrial courts, and in my opinion employers are in future increasingly going to come off second best as a result of such complaints being made against them. The more frequently this happens, the poorer that employer’s reputation becomes in the labour market. Such service contracts must, however, not be seen as merely an administrative burden—only a piece of paper—in an organization. Labour experts will also tell you that the vast majority of strikes which have taken place, and the vast majority of matters discussed directly or indirectly with managements, do in fact concern service contracts, or the absence of them, and the conditions of service spelt out in such contracts.

Businesses which have contracts must now also wake up, once and for all, and realize that service contracts, like any other contract, eventually also become dated and obsolete and that such contracts also contain negotiable elements. Employers have hidden behind legislation for too long and have said they can only pay a certain amount, or do a certain amount, because that is what is laid down in the agreement. They must realize that they can also negotiate with the workers. A service contract can be a living, binding document between employer and employee, and certain provisions of such a contract can be negotiable from time to time.

However, the worker must do his share too. In future we must ensure that we also take far more stringent action against persons who simply walk out. Just as the employer must pay one month’s salary if he does not wish to give a worker notice, we must impress upon employees that in future they too will have to compensate the employer for his inconvenience if they leave without giving the necessary notice.

A few days ago we piloted excellent legislation through this House. There will also be a document tabled for comment on the summary of conditions of service. This document originated in the Department of Manpower, and I think that the legislation that has been piloted through the House and the document to be tabled will help to eliminate certain problems, but as far as I am concerned, the most important aspect is still the service contract. It is the one thing which can promote good, sound relations between employer and employee. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Stilfontein will not mind if I do not comment on his speech today. I think we are all at one in wanting well-regularized service contracts and the responsibility of both employer and employee in regard to keeping to the terms of such contracts. Of course, I also agree with the hon. member—having said so myself previously this session—that one has to worry very much indeed about the manner in which the overwhelming mass of workers is handled in South Africa, if we are to avoid serious consequences.

Having said that, I want to come back to the subject raised by the hon. member for Pinelands, and that is the report of the Wiehahn Commission, part 5, which we received a couple of days ago, together with the White Paper. I intend to confine myself, as the hon. the Minister no doubt will have guessed, to chapter V of the report, which deals with the employment of women. We commend the Wiehahn Commission for this comprehensive chapter on women in employment, and I think special mention and special credit should be given to the commission and to the women’s study group which was set up by the commission. I think that was a very important move for the commission to make, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the commission found that it was well rewarded in having set up this special study group of women who presented a first-class memorandum to the commission. Indeed, many of the findings and recommendations of the commission are reflected in that memorandum. I think it was a very worthwhile effort, and the report itself made very interesting reading.

It is estimated that something like one-third of the gainfully occupied population of South Africa consists of women, and the chances are that the number is higher today. I think 40% would probably be nearer the mark. The commission was therefore especially motivated in having this special chapter on women in employment. I personally found the tables on page 86 et seq. very interesting indeed, because they reflect the advances made by women between 1969 and 1977 in almost every single category of employment. I refer now to women of all races, because all three race groups are covered here. Particularly interesting, I thought, was the figure that denoted the big increase in the percentage of women in the professional category, again in all races. It rose from 39,3% to 45,9% for Whites, from 48,2% to 68,5% for Coloureds and from 59,9% to 67,2% for Blacks. I presume that these figures result from the large percentage of women employed in professions like nursing and teaching; that is the only conclusion I can draw. Whatever the case may be, however, this is the important finding of the commission, and I quote—

It is high time that that position was given official recognition. The commission also states—

To my mind that is probably one of the most important findings of the commission.

You are talking to the converted.

Yes, I am talking to the converted. I am glad to hear that. Let us hear it loud and clear. I think the hon. the Minister has already given evidence of this, in the fact that he has amended both the Wage Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act so as to outlaw differentiation in wages on the basis of sex. I give the hon. the Minister full credit for that. I am delighted about it.

I am not so pleased about some of the reactions in the White Paper to the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission. A lot of the very important recommendations are either rejected out of hand or—and I am now referring particularly to the section dealing with women—there is a stalling on them: “The Government will refer it …”; “the Government will reconsider it”; and so on. The commission itself, I must say, makes absolutely straight-forward recommendations such as the inclusion of domestic and agricultural employees in the operation of the Wage Act, which is something we on this side have asked for for a very long time. Despite the difficulties involved, I cannot see why these categories, which involve hundreds of thousands of workers—and mainly women, certainly on the domestic side—cannot be included in such a way as to have some form of minimum wage, on a regional basis if necessary; allowance made for pregnancy, for holiday pay and sick pay; and so on. It seems to me that that is perfectly possible. I think, too, that the exclusion of these categories from maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act is unacceptable. The commission itself recommends that they be brought into the purview of the Act.

Then there is the whole question of pre-natal leave which according to the commission should be increased from four to six weeks. In Australia it is six weeks, in Canada it is eight weeks and in the UK it is 11 weeks. I cannot see on what basis the Government simply says: “Four weeks preconfinement leave to the Government’s knowledge has not created any undue hardship.” Well, Sir, I do not know how many members of the Government have had babies, but I can only say that to work in a factory right up to the last month prior to confinement is not a very easy thing for any pregnant woman to do. I certainly recommend that the pre-confinement leave be extended from four to six weeks as a minimum.

Also, I believe that the whole question of the prohibition of the termination of employment on account of pregnancy and the compulsory reinstatement of the worker, which is again recommended by the commission and is not accepted in the White Paper, should be reconsidered by the Government. I think this is normal practice in civilized countries and I think that South Africa ought to join the ranks of those countries which care for the pregnant workers. Those people have contributed a great deal to the gross domestic product of South Africa.

Then I see that the old discrimination against men is apparently to be continued. I refer to the question of equal benefits for both widows and widowers. I have raised this in the House before as far as the widowers of female Members of Parliament are concerned, and I want to raise it again as far as the widowers of working women are concerned. The widower ought to be able to claim unemployment insurance. Allowances can be made for the disadvantage which may result to children, which is mentioned in the White Paper. This benefit can be excluded where there are minor children, but where there are no minor children, I believe the widower ought to be able to claim the unemployment insurance.

As regards the whole question of overtime, it seems to me that restrictions on overtime should be the same for men and women. Also, I again commend to the Government all the recommendations as far as child-care centres are concerned. Many more women would be able to enter the employment field if they could be sure that their small children were being properly cared for during working hours. I think we are losing a big opportunity of employing women in a productive capacity by not providing adequate child-care centres.

On the whole, I do want to say how much I am sure women are going to appreciate the recommendations contained in part 5 of the Wiehahn Commission’s report. I again want to commend the women’s special study group for the excellent report they submitted to the commission and I hope that the Government will reconsider many of the recommendations which it has either rejected or on which it is stalling.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Houghton. I had actually wanted to say a few words about her today and she has now given me the opportunity to say a few nice things about her.

Bravo!

I actually wish to discuss women specifically. For this reason I want to begin by saying that over the years the hon. member for Houghton—whether one always agrees with her or not—has made a very valuable contribution in this House. When one considers the contributions which she and the hon. lady on our side of the House have made here, it is quite remarkable that there are not more women in this House. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Houghton on her positive criticism of the work of the hon. the Minister and the department. The few points of criticism she raised were not of great importance. Moreover, they are matters which she has brought to the attention of this House time and again over a long period. She acted very responsibly here today. I found the few recommendations she made very interesting, especially when she voiced her concern about discrimination against men. However, I leave the matter at that.

Today I wish to refer specifically to the role of women in the labour field. The hon. member for Houghton also referred to this. She spoke about the role which women have played in the past in this field, and their present and possible future role in the labour field. We in South Africa have now also entered the exciting new decade of the ’eighties, a period of anticipated unprecedented growth and development in almost every field of the economy. The situation at the moment is that we do not have sufficient skilled people. I do not wish to go into this in too great detail. As a matter of fact, this has often been discussed in this House in the past. However, when we seek a solution to this problem, it does appear that a partial solution lies in the hands of the women of South Africa, who at present comprise a large untapped source of labour in this country. The hon. member for Houghton referred specifically to higher level manpower, a field in which we in South Africa are also experiencing problems because in this regard, too, women are not being utilized to the full. When, for example, one considers those things which play a key role in all economic systems, it is apparent that the vital group, which is responsible for initiating and maintaining development and growth, is high-level manpower. South Africa will not be able to utilize its development potential and offer all its people an acceptable standard of living if attention is not given to high-level manpower.

The participation of women in this connection is very important, because this is a resource which we can tap immediately. As has already been said in the past, the training of people is time-consuming. It usually takes a number of years before the fruits of training can be plucked. However, in the case of women who are already trained to be part of our high-level manpower the situation is different. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Houghton referred to the percentage growth—on which I do not wish to dwell at this point—which rose from 19% to 23% and then to 33%, and after that again to 42%, where it still is at the moment. This is the percentage growth as regards women in the labour field. However, I wish to say that the present figure of 42% is in fact not yet high enough. We can still derive a great deal more from this source.

It is especially interesting to note that particularly in managerial positions, women do not yet take their rightful place. At the moment, only 10% of the managerial posts in South Africa are occupied by women. This is a very low figure. One simply has to admit that there are far too many trained women sitting at home and therefore economically inactive. It is true that in the past there was discrimination against women on the basis of their sex, particularly in that women were not used in posts suited to their training. In this connection there was a certain prejudice against women. However, the fact is that in the labour situation in South Africa today trained women, including married women, ought to be used to a far greater extent. But then there are a few more things we shall have to do. There will have to be a change in the attitude of employers, and the Department of Finance will have to give careful consideration to a revision of the present tax structure which is to the disadvantage of a husband and wife where the wife also works. Many skilled, well-trained women say that they cannot and will not work because it does not pay them to do so. Hon. members know what I am referring to. We must try to overcome this obstacle. For example, employers can also do a great deal to make things easier for women by giving them the odd half day off or by making certain arrangements to make matters easier for them if they have children at home.

As regards the legislation submitted by the hon. the Minister recently, I wish to emphasize that the legal obstacle facing women, in that they have been discriminated against as regards income and in all other fields, has now been eliminated. We have therefore made a great deal of progress in this connection. A woman entering the employment situation who marries at 20 and wants to look after her family for the next 10 years still has a period of perhaps 30 years in which we can use her to very good effect in the labour field. However, we are saddled with the problem today that university or technikon trained women are sitting at home because it is difficult for them to re-enter the employment situation. We must do something about this. For this reason we are so thankful that Manpower 2000 came into being so spontaneously and with so much success.

I wish to speak specifically about Women-power 2000, women who met in their hundreds in Johannesburg and said that they were going to overcome the obstacles in their path. It is interesting to note what the women have already succeeded in doing in this connection. I need not go into details. Hon. members should, however, note that of the entire population of South Africa, only 15% are suitable for top and middle managerial posts. At least half of these are women. We are not making sufficient use of these people, particularly in our present situation. Womenpower 2000 aim specifically at bringing women back into the labour market, at changing the employers’ traditional ideas in connection with female workers and at finding a solution to the problems preventing women from entering the employment situation.

Everyone in South Africa has a role to play in the future. For this reason, training is terribly important to us in South Africa. At present, as we know, the White male is subject to compulsory military service. What I find interesting in connection with women, is that a while ago in the Press there was a discussion as to whether women should also be allowed to make a contribution. It was very interesting to note how many schoolgirls reacted to this and said they also wanted to do something for their country, no matter what it might be. For this reason I want the department and the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter.

It is impossible to say that all girls must undergo post-school training for a certain period, for example six months, whether it be practical training, for example nursing etc., or anything else, but a decision can be arrived at in this regard. I do think, however, that it is impossible to involve all girls in this. I consider a matriculated girl a reasonably trained person, but one would have to think about a girl who leaves school in Std. 8. I think that perhaps the time has come for us to look specifically at the girl who leaves school after Std. 8 and does not study further at a technical college. We must now say that her period of training is not yet complete and that a further period of six months’ training in any form, for example civil defence, must be effected. We could, for example, have two intakes a year.

In conclusion I wish to mention one interesting fact. As regards high level manpower, we find that in Russia, 33% of engineers are women. In South Africa the percentage is 0,4%. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was Michel de Montaigne who once said—

going high but in marching orderly.

As a newcomer to this House I wish to express my thanks to all hon. members who brought this great truth to my attention in a very proper and exceptional way. I shall try to be of use to this House in the spirit of the motto of Newcastle Qui non proficit deficit—he who is not prepared to serve is a failure.

I wish to praise my predecessor, Dr. Paul Viljoen, who represented the Newcastle constituency in this House with honour for many years. On behalf of the voters of the constituency I wish to thank him and wish him every success in his important task in the President’s Council. To be exact, Dr. Viljoen made his maiden speech in this House on 21 March 1969. On 16 May of the same year, a little under two months later, the then Minister of Economic Affairs made a very important announcement in this House which held far-reaching implications for the Newcastle constituency. I refer to the announcement of the establishment of the third Iscor works in Newcastle.

What was the extent and the effect of this very important announcement on the quiet and peaceful rural town of Newcastle, a town which became a municipality in 1864—Newcastle with its rich history and important battlefields like Laingsnek, Skuinshoogte and Amajuba? With the establishment of the new Iscor at Newcastle there was a new growth point in Northern Natal, and the rural atmosphere of this quiet and peaceful town was gone for ever. Without tiring the House with statistics, I should nevertheless like to give the House an indication of the phenomenal growth which hit this town.

It is said that electricity consumption is a good index of development and that an annual growth rate in the consumption of electricity of between 8% and 10% is considered normal. During the period 1970 to 1974, however, Newcastle experienced an annual increase of 50% in electricity consumption. Since the announcement of Iscor the White population has increased from just under 5 000 to about 28 000. Except for the two cities in Natal, Newcastle is the largest town. Group areas for Indians and Coloureds have been established with present populations of 7 000 and 1 000 respectively. The Black population in the nearby towns of Madadeni and Osizweni in kwaZulu has grown to about 170 000. Newcastle is again on the threshold of a new phase of expansion with the establishment of a chemical industry by Karbochem for the manufacture of rubber from coal. It is foreseen that this year there will be an increase of 60% and next year an increase of 75% in the consumption of electrical power. With a strong and healthy infrastructure, basic resources such as water and power, and raw materials such as coal and labour freely available, Newcastle is an ideal growth point.

If one bears in mind the fact that Newcastle is a border industry area, I am certain that in the future Newcastle will be in a position to make an increasing contribution in the interests of our country.

The phenomenal growth which has taken place in Newcastle and the growth which is still taking place, of necessity calls for purposeful management because the wrong things can be done correctly, which is ineffective; or the right things can be done incorrectly, which is inefficient; or the right things can be done correctly which is effective and efficient. There is a great deal of confusion about the terms productivity, effectiveness and efficiency. Effectiveness implies the achieving of a desired goal, in other words the correct task is completed irrespective of the method or techniques used to achieve it. Efficiency implies that the correct technique or method was followed to complete the task or to achieve the goal. When one speaks about productivity or productivity promotion, frequently only labour is taken into account. In the latest report of the NPI, that was tabled this week, a comparison is drawn between the gross domestic product per capita at constant 1975 prices and rates of exchange and those of a number of other countries. Although various shortcomings can be pointed out in this method, such a comparison is still interesting. It is apparent from this comparison that the growth rate in the gross domestic product per capita in South Africa from 1972 to 1979 was only higher than that of Zambia and Switzerland. Both those countries showed negative growth rates. It would seem that as far as productivity is concerned South Africa could learn a great deal from countries like the Republic of China which, during the same period, had an average annual growth rate of 6,89% in the per capita gross domestic product as against the 0,21% of the Republic of South Africa.

Productivity is above all else a state of mind, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. It is the will to progress, to continuously improve on what already exists. It is the endeavour to do better today than yesterday and to do even better tomorrow. It is the continuous adjustment to changing circumstances. It is the continuous striving to apply new techniques and methods. In short, the belief in progress.

This definition is complex and comprehensive and points to a continuous dynamic process. Productivity therefore implies a never-ending process of change and adjustment, stimulated by the purposeful and striving will of the people, especially at managerial level. According to A. Wassink, it has been ascertained how the following factors have a quantitative effect on productivity increase: In the first place, the direct effect of labour effort on increased productivity is considered unimportant—as a matter of fact, 0%. Workers must therefore not work harder, but more cleverly. In the second place, the effect of an increase in productivity, size and modern production processes and improved working methods is 12,5%. In the third place, the substitution of production factors, especially the replacement of labour by capital and mechanization, is equivalent to 10%. In the fourth place, the structural and organizational change—in other words, replacing less profitable products with more profitable ones—is responsible for 12,5%. Wassink ascribes the remaining causes of increased productivity mainly to the technical and administrative progress which is the result of better schooling and research. Technical and administrative progress can therefore be directly ascribed to qualitative improvement in labour. This is a matter which has already been pointed out this afternoon.

Better schooling and research leads to the discovery and implementation of more effective production methods and the introduction of modern aids. No single factor is of such importance to increased productivity as the introduction of high quality managers and workers and the influence of this factor is estimated by Wassink to be 65%. The quality of management therefore determines the degree of increased productivity that can be obtained. But there are still people who feel that by working harder and longer hours, productivity can be significantly affected.

As regards the quality of management and worker motivation, I wish to refer briefly to Iscor. In the report for the 1979-’80 financial year the Chief Works Manager of Iscor (Newcastle) mentioned that two of the three main reasons for the improvement of 55% in the budget, are the following: Increased productivity and improved manpower utilization. The manhours per comparable ingot steel decreased from 50,9 in 1976 to 15 in 1980. One of the programmes in terms of which staff were encouraged to come up with ideas to bring about a saving in the use of capital, labour, raw materials and facilities, is known as the productivity intensification programme, PIP for short. Staff members up to a certain level whose proposals are accepted are compensated financially. Since this programme was introduced in 1968, up to the end of 1979, the cumulative saving—that is for the entire Iscor group—has been approximately R724 million. In July 1980 Iscor was selected as one of the four winners of the 1979 national productivity awards granted by the NPI. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newcastle really sent an electric shock through the House with his maiden speech and all the important facts he brought to our attention. We never realized that Newcastle used so much electric power every year. He gave us a wonderful background to what is taking place in the industrial field in that town. I wish to congratulate him whole heartedly on his speech. A few years ago I had the honour to visit Newcastle with a tour group arranged by the Department of Manpower, and on that occasion we had the privilege of meeting the hon. member. We saw that he pulled his weight in the community and was also successful in the labour field. He has concentrated on encouraging co-operation between employer and employee and helped to establish Iscor in Newcastle. The hon. member is a worthy successor to Dr. Viljoen, his predecessor, and we wish him success and everything of the best in the House. He will mean a great deal to us in the financial field.

Tell us about the braaivleis …

No, I shall not talk about the braaivleis now because we are engaged in a serious discussion. The hon. member for Roodeplaat can discuss the braaivleis himself.

The hon. member spoke, inter alia, about productivity, and in the short time at my disposal I want to talk about the utilization of labour. How can labour best be utilized? Productivity is frequently seen as the final product, but in actual fact it is not the final product but the point of departure to far greater ends, especially in the present circumstances in which the hon. the Minister and his able staff are dealing with labour matters in South Africa.

Increased productivity also leads to a better standard of living for the nation in question, and the hon. member referred to Newcastle in this regard. The individual, and therefore the entire community will be able to maintain a better standard of living as a result of increased productivity and this will lead to greater development in their region. The hon. member also pointed out that increased production capacity increases the income per capita, offers opportunities for greater undertakings, and as a result of the demand for more goods and better services, leads to a better standard of living. The higher standard of living we enjoy today is due specifically to the fact that productivity has increased at the various levels. The local consumption capacity is stimulated by this and through increased exports a bigger and better trade-balance is built up.

I am pleased that the hon. member referred to the level of productivity in the years between 1972 and 1979. I made an analysis of the economic development programme for the period 1979 to 1987 and in it I discovered the following. An annual rate of increase in labour productivity of 2,4% has been forecast for the manufacturing sector. If a production rate a mere 10% higher can be maintained, the manufacturing sector will be able almost to double its labour potential. These are the results of the improved economic growth which will prevail according to an advance estimate made. In addition, there has been an advance estimate on unemployment for the period up to 1987. If an annual economic growth rate of 3,6% can be maintained, the unemployment figure for 1987 will total 2,4 million. In Britain at the moment there are more than 3 million unemployed people.

It is interesting to look at these advance estimates and then to consider the present position. In 1987, when the estimated unemployment figure will be 2,4 million, 21,9% of the economically active section of the population will be affected thereby. It is also alleged that if the growth rate were to increase to 4,5%, it is expected that the unemployment figure would drop to 1,6 million, which represents 15% of the economically active population. If the economic growth rate were to increase to 5%, the unemployment figure in 1987 will be 1,3 million, i.e. 11,5% of the economically active population. These were interesting estimates. If one considers the question of productivity in the development of labour, one must also look at the urgent question of unemployment and the imaginative steps that will be taken to keep unemployment down to a minimum. On the one hand there is the economic growth rate and on the other, the natural increase in the population which will have to be taken fully into account. It is for this reason that we are so glad that this imaginative hon. Minister and his staff have looked so far ahead, not only to 1987, but much further into the future, to the year 2000, because what is decided now will affect the manpower position in the year 2000.

We must ask ourselves whether labour-intensive technology should not be encouraged to a greater extent. Should not undertakings that make use of such production methods be subsidized? Should not more labour and less capital be used? These are conflicting questions asked daily by the private sector. For this reason we must keep a constant watch on these matters to find out if the introduction of certain methods is not too expensive or time-consuming. We must also consider whether certain things cannot be manufactured locally. We must try to ascertain what the result would be if more household items were manufactured in South Africa. If then certain steps are taken, the introduction of the various development phases must be thoroughly investigated and we must not lose sight of the question of cost benefits. There must also be an investigation into how eventually to combat unemployment. Could higher productivity possibly mean fewer job opportunities? With higher capital productivity we get higher material productivity and higher energy productivity. We must constantly be weighing these matters up against each other and we must not allow the influence of one to obtain at the expense of another.

Today South Africa has an abundance of unskilled labour and a shortage of capital. For this reason it is necessary to look at our specific resources. I remember very well what the hon. the Minister said the other evening at a Manpower 2000 meeting. He said our people must manufacture better products, because they must eventually compete with other manufacturers on international markets. Therefore there must be an improvement every day. For this reason we must also develop the ability of our people to supply only the best. By means of reduced imports and increased exports we can make more capital available for our nation. That is why the Riekert and Wiehahn Commissions offer us such a wonderful opportunity. This is something to become enthusiastic about, because as a result of their investigations new opportunities are now being created. It will, however, get us nowhere if new opportunities are created but are not utilized.

This brings me to one aspect of the activities of the private sector. The private sector is constantly luring staff away from the State. The private sector merely says the Government service is not efficient enough, etc. Have they, however, considered that they are committing theft because they do not train people themselves? The best people, who have been trained by the State at great expense, are constantly being stolen by the private sector. However, they have done nothing to train those people. The PFP in particular must take notice of this, because their private undertakings must see to it that our government officials are not lured away. They employ too many of our people and ultimately this threatens the economy of the country.

The top management in our undertakings must also act much more responsibly. In the private sector they must do everything possible to train only the best people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to rise for the first time in this debate and to convey my very sincere thanks to the hon. members who have participated in the debate so far. Before I proceed to reply to the matters raised by hon. members, I wish to raise something myself which is of special importance to me personally and I suppose to other hon. members as well. While during the discussion of the legislation, and today on this occasion as well, we have been speaking of a new era which has been heralded by the new legislation which has been passed and the changes which have taken place, this is actually the last time that the official who participated in these events as head of the department will be seated in these benches. I am referring to Mr. Jaap Cilliers, who is to retire from the service of the State in November this year. Hon. members will allow me to tell him on behalf of us all on this occasion that we shall miss him. There was a feeling of special affection for him, on the part of hon. members of this House as well. It has also been observed that he showed great skill and competence in his position as head of the department during very difficult times over the past few years. I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Cilliers on this occasion as a person who not only served the State and the cause well, but who in these times showed qualities which are not given to all people or all heads of departments. A special quality of Mr. Jaap Cilliers is that he has plenty of common sense. Moreover, he is a person who gets along with everyone in everyday life. Particularly in the difficult field of labour, such a quality is very valuable to someone who is on first-name terms with almost everyone in this field. Mr. Cilliers has a great deal of experience in this connection and has been able to serve the Government well in this sphere. I want to thank him very sincerely and to wish him a very happy retirement on behalf of all hon. members.

On this occasion I also wish to announce that Dr. Piet van der Merwe, who is also present here today, is to succeed Mr. Cilliers as the Director-General of the Department of Manpower. We are very grateful for the fact that he is able to do so. Prof. Van der Merwe was a member of the Public Service and then joined the staff of the University of Pretoria. As labour economist, he has rendered excellent service not only to the country, but also to the cause for which he prepared himself. He had very close links with the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions and has served the State in many other ways. We look forward to having him as head of the department. We welcome him sincerely.

I also wish to convey my sincere thanks to those hon. members who made their first speeches today. I shall say something about their contributions at a later stage.

To begin with, I wish to deal with a few matters raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. In the first place, he asked when the sixth report of the Wiehahn Commission could be expected. It will be published in the near future. As has been announced, the sixth report will deal mainly with matters which also concern a sister department. The matter concerned is being cleared, because we came to an agreement in the past that as far as labour legislation was concerned, we would not make laws or table things before they had been properly cleared. In accordance with this tradition, my hon. colleague is still discussing it with the parties involved. When the report is ready, it will be tabled. I also hope that when it is tabled, it will be received by those hon. members with the same degree of enthusiasm.

The hon. member for Pinelands also said he thought there had been delays recently. I do not think the hon. member is right in saying that. As far as the legislation is concerned, the department tried to process everything that could be processed as rapidly as possible. In the present times, with the pressure from all sides and especially in the light of the undertaking that has been given that we shall first discuss all matters with all the parties involved, I do not think it would have been physically possible for the legislation, which is actually of a radical nature in many respects, to be submitted to this House any sooner than it has been. The hon. member also asked me a few other questions, relating to trade union rights in agriculture, etc.

Before I come to that, I first wish to make a few other remarks. We have had a considerable amount of legislation before the House this year, and it is gratifying that we have reached the stage where we can say that great progress has been made and that many things which could have caused difficulties have been prevented. However, I first wish to make the point that it is interesting to note that the legislation which has been dealt with here has been the result, not only of attempts on our part, but also of representations and pressure over a very wide front, from outside this House as well, in order—allow me to refer to just one specific aspect—to make the industrial conciliation machinery available to all in South Africa, including the Blacks, who did not have it to this extent in the past. It is very interesting to note that there had been representations and pressure in this respect over a long time. However, what happened the day we did this? Immediately a great dust was raised and suspicion was cast on the same machinery by presenting it as the machinery of oppression. Hon. members will recall that the newspapers were full of this and that many persons and bodies said it was just cosmetic. Many others said it was obsolete machinery which had no other purpose than to oppress the workers of South Africa. In spite of this suspicion-mongering, however, it has been very successful. The workers have accepted it and it has gained wide acceptance. So in those circles, too, it has been very successful. But when that suspicion-mongering did not help, the next phase of the onslaught came. That was to say: “Yes, but it is not possible to have a proper and peaceful labour situation in the country unless certain concessions are made on the social, economic and political fields as well.” Then suspicion was cast on it in this way. The next phase, which is still continuing, is that this machinery will be used as an instrument for forcing other concessions. That is the phase in which we find ourselves at the moment. I want to say at once that the parties that wish to abuse this legislation and this situation for that purpose will under no circumstances be satisfied. As far as the Government’s handling of the matter is concerned, we shall simply adopt the standpoint, as we have already done from time to time and as we have also emphasized, that we shall not allow ourselves to be deferred by those parties from creating a dispensation in which everyone can be satisfied. The result we have been seeing lately is part of the success that has been achieved in this connection in spite of the onslaught which is being made from various quarters—from overseas as well—in order to cast suspicion on our actions in spite of what we have done and of the success we have achieved.

Allow me to say that there are very good reasons why we could see that a thaw was taking place. I should like to quote certain figures in connection with the thaw. Hon. members will recall that a few months ago, there were threats and attempts to destroy any success. In certain trade unions which were established on the advice and under the guidance of people outside the labour situation, the Black workers of the country were told: “You must not bow to the pressure of the Government and co-operate with the establishment.” Attempts were made to prevent them from doing this, to keep them away from the system which they themselves demanded for everyone a few years ago and which is now being given to them. What are the facts? The increase in recent months in the number of Black people who belong to the trade union movement and who are therefore prepared to co-operate in spite of all the pressure has been dramatic. The chances are very good that by the end of the year, no fewer than 200 000 Black people will belong to registered trade unions. That figure must be opposed to the figures of trade unions that refuse to co-operate, which are quoted by other groups which, as hon. members know, are clamouring and exerting pressure everywhere, but which are already in the minority today. So if we can proceed and if we can get the system accepted and prove it to be successful, a breakthrough could be made in South Africa which could be of fundamental and radical importance to this country. That would be the acceptance by all in South Africa of a workable system by means of which all of us in South Africa would be brought into the same fold, so to speak. That was the objective. The danger was that it might not succeed. At the moment, it seems to me that it is in fact succeeding, and it is succeeding because we have based this labour dispensation, this development, on some important principles, and because we have joined them together with some important key-stones. The first is that we have gone out of our way to maintain labour peace at all costs. However, it would have been impossible to achieve anything in the labour field if an atmosphere of peace and acceptance had not prevailed. If there had been a major revolt in South Africa, therefore, it would not have been psychologically possible to gain acceptance for this. But acceptance was gained because we continuously and visibly built certain corner-stones into this dispensation, the corner-stones of peace and acceptance in the labour sphere in South Africa.

To begin with, the Government has done much to remove statutory job reservation, a situation which did not work and which eventually became a symbol of what was supposed to be wrong. Subsequently, however, quite a number of other things have been done. The workers of the country, all the workers in South Africa, including those White workers who were critical because they feared that they might find themselves in a situation where their personal labour freedom could be affected, received the assurance—an assurance which was emphasized to them and which they accepted—that this would not happen. That is why the right and the freedom of every worker to join the trade union of his own choice was emphasized.

This brings me to the second aspect of what we have done and what has also been accepted and understood by all the workers of the country. This is the fact that the organizations to which they belong, the trade unions, will have an autonomous right to decide whom to admit and whom to exclude. In the third place, workers have been given the opportunity to establish trade unions or to organize themselves into groups in the labour sphere, with a view to their own organization and according to their own choice. In this way, the freedom of interest groups to take action within the labour situation while enjoying the protection of the State has been confirmed.

The fourth aspect is a very important one. It is one of the matters which have been debated here today. This is to inculcate a sense of responsibility into all trade unions, registered and unregistered. How have we succeeded in creating a sense of responsibility on the part of trade unions by means of legislation? How have we succeeded in doing this also on the part of those who, I would almost say, do not want to form part of the system? We have compelled all of them to fulfil the basic responsibilities that are necessary for pursuing labour peace. We have decided that all trade unions, registered or not, would have to comply with certain requirements. For example: Their constitutions must be public and open to inspection. Their membership must be kept up to date and open to inspection. They must have their funds audited. They must establish their head offices in South Africa, which is the proper place for them to be.

We have done all these things, plus all the other things that are related to these. This means that we have brought about a system in South Africa which is of such a nature that all workers can be part of it. The fact that it has been possible to reach these milestones is of the utmost importance with a view to the future.

The second cornerstone that has been built into the dispensation and which we have been able to promote with great care lately has been the legislation for the improvement of the skills of all workers and the laying of a foundation for achieving the target we have set ourselves. Arguments have been advanced here today to which I shall come back later. It has been said that we have come to a stage where we should not just talk about training people, but should take cognizance of the shortage of people to conduct the training. What we need most is the expertise required for carrying out the training programmes. We do not have the people to do the training. In other words, we have to start at the very beginning. To those hon. members who made this point I want to say that they were dead right. That is what we need today.

A second statement was also made, in the maiden speech of the hon. member Dr. Marais, a statement which emphasizes the great need which is going to exist in the future dispensation of South Africa, namely the need for trained people, for managerial people and for the kind of people who can become industrial leaders. Without that kind of person we cannot make any progress on the road ahead. Up to now it has been the skill and expertise of our industrial leaders that have inspired confidence in the industrial ability of South Africa. This is also the kind of thing that inspires confidence in the future among investors in South Africa. In other words, it forms part of the total pattern of confidence in the country.

The third important point, that of productivity—I shall come back to that shortly—is also extremely important. Further to what has already been said here, I just want to point out that when one takes the real increase in the contribution per worker to the gross domestic product between 1972 and 1978, i.e. the increase in the productivity per worker, the figure for South Africa is 0,3%. In all the major Western countries during the same period it was between 1,5% and 2,5%, as against our 0,3%. If hon. members would work it out for themselves, they would see how much better it is. The figures are for the same period. What are we to do if these are the facts? It means that we shall have to give all our attention to this, otherwise we shall come to a stage where South Africa will not be able to compete, no matter what it produces. It simply will not be able to compete. The gap is becoming too big. So training is the third important cornerstone, and it is an extremely important cornerstone on which we must build in the future. If we proceed from there, we shall find it much easier to argue with one another.

It remains one of our objectives to know what we are going to do about the labour situation from now on. Against this background I think I should now react to what hon. members have said here, because most of the hon. members mentioned the very points which are essential if we wish to make any progress. If these are the cornerstones, we simply have to build on those cornerstones. I shall begin with the hon. member for Pinelands and deal with the matters which he raised.

In the first place, the hon. member asked a question in passing in connection with the international situation. He asked what the chances were of South Africa being readmitted to the International Labour Organization in Geneva. We were a member of this organization many years ago. Subsequently, South Africa became unpopular, and we lost our membership. However, there were always people from the private sector who went there as observers. It is not true that we are not watching the position and that we are not doing our best to make our views heard internationally. South Africa has now appointed two attachés, one in Europe and one in America, to be in charge of labour matters in the future, which shows the importance we attach to them. We have a continuous system for monitoring the proceedings at the International Labour Organization and we do our best to keep discussions going. As regards the possibility of being readmitted in a poisonous world such as the present one, I cannot tell hon. members anything. At the previous meeting of the International Labour Organization in Geneva they again attacked South Africa, from two new angles which had not existed in the past. Angle number one was that they began to talk about establishing a strong fund, a fund which they would probably build up by using the trade unions of the world as pressure groups to obtain funds by blackmailing big companies—financial and industrial companies. To establish a strong fund will therefore not be difficult for them. The second angle is that the International Labour Organization has proceeded to watch economic activities involving South Africa—and that is dangerous. It is dangerous when the labour world begins to interfere with our affairs in this way. This is the kind of action we are trying to oppose, and I hope that we shall be successful. Naturally we are doing our best, and naturally we can do no more than that.

The hon. member for Pinelands also asked why the Government had not accepted the recommendation of the commission that the non-recognition of a registered trade union be deemed to be an unfair practice and be dealt with by the industrial tribunal. This is one of the important questions he asked. There are quite a number of points I could mention to him in this connection. When there is an industrial council and the industrial council refuses to admit a registered trade union, an appeal is made to the industrial tribunal. I believe the hon. member knows that. In the second place, where there is no industrial council, the trade union concerned cannot obtain recognition, and then it can of course apply for a conciliation board. The process goes in this way. If essential services are involved, the matter has to be referred to compulsory arbitration. In other words, it is not as if there were no remedy for such a case.

The second question which the hon. member asked was why the Government had rejected a recommendation with regard to peaceful picketing. I want to tell the hon. member, and all hon. members, that this can be a very important instrument in the labour dispensation. It can also be a very dangerous one. I must tell the hon. member that I am not prepared to encourage that method of interference in South Africa under our circumstances. I think it is extremely dangerous, and for that reason my department and I are not at all in favour of the idea of allowing this. One must be very practical and very realistic about these things.

Before I come to some of the other hon. members, I also wish to refer to a whole number of questions which the hon. member for Durban North put to me. His first question was why the recommendation regarding the supervising of secret ballots had not been accepted. He wanted to know why we would not accept the recommendation of the commission. Of course, trade unions are free to have secret ballots. It is just a question of supervision and it is not a question of the Government having a poll taken. The idea is only that the voting should be supervised to ensure that it is properly conducted.

The degree of representativeness can be determined by inspecting the registers of members of trade unions and can be verified from the application form. The hon. member asked a question in this connection as well. The National Manpower Commission, which is investigating the registration process and related problems, has made good progress with its investigations, and in the light of the report of the Manpower Commission, the matter will in any event receive further consideration.

The second question put by the hon. member is: Will an individual member be able to go to the industrial tribunal when the employer refuses, for example, to recognize his trade union? An individual worker will be able to go to the industrial tribunal, but first he will have to make use of the proper procedure. I may point out on this occasion that I am apparently also responsible for the fact that my words are perhaps taken too literally, because I said in this House that we were instituting a court which would be cheap and readily accessible. I did not intend that to be so literally interpreted to mean that any passer-by can walk in there and ask to be heard. It is not quite as simple as that. What I meant by that was that it will be so much easier than would normally have been the case.

The third question is: What will happen if a trade union which is not a member of an industrial council insists on negotiating with the employer? I may point out to the hon. member that the National Manpower Commission is already investigating the whole question of negotiating mechanisms. This is in fact one of the matters we could have dealt with now by means of legislation, but we shall come to this House with legislation next year. The entire question of negotiating machinery is being investigated, also because the legislation was published and a great deal of comment and very good as well as favourable comment was received. The National Manpower Commission was thereupon asked to take another look at the matter. Industrial councils have to be representative in all cases before it will be possible to publish agreements, as the hon. member knows.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Bryanston. Where is the hon. member now?

He asked to be excused.

Yes. He told me he would come here, but I suppose he is still in the Standing Committee.

The hon. member for Bryanston had a certain police document with him and he wanted to know from me whether I had seen the document. No, I have not seen it. I have already told the hon. member that this is not a department which the police dictates to or with which they interfere. The police have their task and the department has its.

When people who are involved in labour affairs get involved in other matters as well and find themselves in trouble, it does not mean that the Police have received an order in this connection from the department. Of course not! After all, when a farmer gets into trouble because he has engaged in some unlawful activity, action is not taken against him in his capacity as a farmer. When a labour leader gets into trouble with the Police, why should we then take up the matter with the department and make the accusation that he got into trouble in his capacity as a labour leader? Surely that is not correct.

But it always happens.

The insinuation is always being made that the department instructs the Police to do these things, and this is something I do not like. It is the practice of the department to keep out of the process of negotiation or bargaining between employer and employee as far as possible. This is a process with which it does not interfere. It has not done so in the past and it will not do so in the future. The understanding is that the Police perform their task in their own field and that this department does not lodge complaints about anyone. No one has lodged any complaint with the Police about anyone in the labour sphere. We do not do that. The insinuation that there is continuous interference from the department is not correct.

However, we must also be careful not to regard everyone who wants to strike as blameless, while accusing the department and especially the employers of being in the wrong. That I do not like either. Nor do I like hearing that a lot of people have suddenly gone on strike without anybody knowing who the leader is and without anybody knowing why they are striking. There has been such a strike in South Africa. For two days, everyone tried to find out what they were demanding, but no one knew what the demand was. Thousands of them were sitting there, and when they were addressed and asked what they wanted, they said they did not know; they had just been told at home that they had to strike. That we do not like either. Something else which has happened and which we do not like either is that when there is a strike in a certain industry, a few days later the workers in another industry go on strike to show their sympathy, although they do not even know what it is all about. They then refuse to work or to use or process products from the factory where the original strike took place. Where will it end if chaos of that nature is created in South Africa? This kind of strike is known outside South Africa, and if it spreads to this country, I believe we would be faced with serious problems. So we are intent on preventing this sort of conduct. The department does not interfere with Police activities. It is the duty of the Police to maintain law and order, and anyone who breaks the law in this way and whose activities come to the notice of the Police will have to bear the consequences. However, my department does not interfere with Police activities. In fact, since I became Minister of Manpower, I have never once addressed a request to the Minister of Police, in whom I have great confidence, to take action or to maintain order. Whatever they do, they do in the normal course of their work of maintaining law and order.

The hon. member for Roodeplaat discussed the labour situation, and I want to thank him for doing so. He referred to a complete change. In my congratulations to the head of the department, who is soon to retire, I replied in part to the hon. member’s questions. We are now seeing the results of years of good work. I am grateful for the remarks he made. I believe I also replied to him when I explained the background against which we had drafted our legislation.

The hon. member for Sasolburg referred to Manpower 2000 and to training in general. With reference to this, and also in reply to other hon. members who discussed the subject, I just wish to furnish certain facts in connection with training. As hon. members know, there are concessions today for employers who undertake to train their workers. Last year 232 000 workers were trained for whom subsidies were claimed. May I just make a projection? If training can take place at the rate we envisage in the future, the figure may increase threefold within the next eight years. Our objective is to train at least three-quarters of a million workers a year in this way by the end of the decade. I do not have to discuss the subsidy for the training of workers, because hon. members know what it involves. The subsidy, if a tax concession can be regarded as a subsidy, covers twice the cost incurred. In other words, if an employer spends R100 on training costs, he may claim back R200 for tax purposes.

In addition to this kind of training, there is also the training of workers undertaken by the Railways, the Commission for Administration and the Post Office, which is not subsidized. Furthermore, there is in-service training in private companies and on the mines, which is not subsidized.

The mines receive no subsidies, although the mines do an enormous amount of training in South Africa. At the moment, I believe, about one million people are receiving subsidized and unsubsidized formal training to a greater or lesser degree every year. However, when we think of the number who still have to be trained, we realize that one million is not really a very large number. In South African industries and services alone, 5½ million people are employed at present, and at the present rate it will take 5½ years to train all those people. However, we do not think it should take us 5½ years to complete the process. We should do it more rapidly. That is why we are going to establish a National Training Board in terms of the legislation to see whether the whole attempt cannot be co-ordinated.

I just wish to refer once again to the hon. member for Durban North, for I see I have not yet replied to one of the points he raised. I am referring to the question of adult literacy training, a matter which he has raised here on a previous occasion. This is a matter for the hon. the Minister of National Education, but I do appreciate his problems. This problem concerns us all, and I should like to say something about it. What degree of co-ordination is there going to be in the future between the Department of National Education, in other words, the whole school training and education set-up—on the part of the provinces and of the State—and the needs of the industries? Is our system of education not giving people the wrong kind of training when it comes to the purposes for which they are required? This has always been one of our problems. But after the report of the De Lange Commission, and also in view of what we envisage, I am fully confident that there will be co-ordination. I am sure that if we are able to produce the plans we have in mind, it will be possible to solve that problem.

The hon. member for Alberton spoke about evolution as against revolution. He also referred to the defusing of a very dangerous situation. What he said was true. I have said before, and I say again, that this field will probably be the battlefield of the future in South Africa if we cannot defuse the situation. Therefore I agree with the hon. member. If we do not adopt evolutionary methods now and if we do not act fast, we are likely to find that we cannot build a bridge. However, all our endeavours are aimed at accelerating evolutionary development in such a way that it will in fact serve to defuse the situation.

The hon. member for Stilfontein spoke about service agreements and also referred to the industrial tribunal. He asked whether all service contracts should not be compulsory as well as in writing. This is a matter between employers and employees, of course. The department has never interfered with this, for it is a very difficult situation to deal with. It is true that it is a serious problem. Every employer should ensure that he enters into proper service contracts with his employees. However, the hon. member’s problem is that there are so many service contracts that are not in writing. Therefore the unfortunate employee sometimes does not know what to do. Lately, especially as a result of the new awareness of the need for good labour relations, all the big labour and industrial organizations have been going out of their way to remove anomalies of this nature. I am sure that this phenomenon will eventually disappear completely. Industrial Council and wage board agreements, which may cover the entire field, do not produce any problems. The problems actually exist in those few cases which the hon. member may have in mind. I have no doubt that it will be possible to resolve this matter satisfactorily in the future. I think it is part of the whole process of development in time to come. I am sure it will be much better regulated in the future than it has been in the past. However, there is no immediate answer, because no department can examine the service contracts of millions of people. But as I have said, this is a matter for the private sector. Actually the discipline simply has to be built in, and that is what has been happening, especially recently with all the changes that are taking place.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to farm workers and domestic workers. She has spoken about this on more than one occasion, and she says the time has come for their situation to be examined as well. We cannot bring in farm labourers under the Industrial Conciliation Act, unless it is done in co-operation with the agricultural unions. The agricultural unions will have to judge how easy it will be to draw thousands of farm units, where the conditions of employment are completely different from those in the industries, into such a system. I for one do not think it would work. I concede that there are cases, such as the sugar industry, or new developments such as the chicken industry, where one hardly knows any longer whether it is a farming operation or an industry. Some chicken farms have almost become factories rather than farms. We have the National Manpower Commission which can give attention to this matter. We are already arranging for this kind of situation to be investigated to see to what extent one could help to find a meaningful solution to the problem mentioned by the hon. member. However, I can tell her from the outset that I cannot see how one could possibly organize agriculture in its entirety in this way. I do not think this will happen, and in any event, the Government has undertaken not to do anything in this sphere, except at the request of the S.A. Agricultural Union or with its co-operation.

The hon. member for Houghton also spoke about women and about the question of better aid for confinements. I quite understand the fact that the hon. member is speaking up for women in this House, but I can tell her that the women of South Africa are also applauding me for the things we have been doing lately. The hon. member knows that. However, I can tell the hon. member that things do not work the way she thinks. I want to explain to the hon. House what the hon. member is asking for. She is asking us to make it easier for women in the industrial sphere to be absent for a longer period before confinements. In the case of a confinement, she is asking for two things, namely that an industrialist should keep a woman’s job for her for the full period of her absence. In terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, such a woman may stop working 18 weeks before the confinement and may stay away until 8 weeks after the confinement. This adds up to a total of 26 weeks. When one has an industry in which 95% of the labour force consists of women, and the poor employer has to keep a pregnant woman’s job for her for 26 weeks, surely no industry could keep going.

The report recommends it.

Even if the report says so, the hon. member must understand very well that a report is not the Government and it is not a law.

That is the trouble.

When we appoint a commission, we have not made a law; we are just telling the commission to advise us. There are many recommendations by commissions which the Government cannot accept. There are many recommendations that are made by commissions with the very best of intentions with which I say I do not agree. We have every right to say that we do not agree. Therefore it is not practical to argue along those lines; we simply cannot do this. However, I want to put another point to the hon. member. In terms of the Factory Act, a woman is not allowed to work in a factory during the month preceding her confinement. Very often workers then make the following request: “When we are not working, we have to live on 45% of our normal income. Our health is excellent and the doctor says there are no major worries. We do not do a lot of heavy work in the factory, and we cannot lose all the income. Please give us an exemption from the provision.” Does the hon. member know what the Minister then has to do in practice? He has to do the opposite of what the hon. member is asking for. We continually have to give exemptions to those workers who say that there is nothing wrong with them. The hon. member wants to make the people unwell, and they do not want to be unwell.

Why can’t you make it optional?

We already have a system which is working well. The point I wish to make is that it is no use moving further and further along the socialist road. I do not think this would be productive in South Africa in practice. Therefore I cannot agree with what the hon. member has proposed here.

You should ask your wife about that.

Yes, I shall be asking my wife about it. The hon. member also said that widowers should qualify for dependant’s allowances in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I want to tell the hon. member that a widower already qualifies under certain circumstances, for example, when he was dependent on his wife and there are no children under 17 years.

You say they do qualify?

Yes, under certain circumstances they do qualify. However, I want to tell the hon. member that we cannot simply change it overnight. We could give careful attention to it, but I think the hon. member is under the wrong impression if she believes that no widower can obtain the benefits under any circumstances, because that is not true.

Well, that is the impression one gets from the report.

Why are you so concerned about the widowers?

The hon. member also asked why the recommendation concerning day-care services had not been accepted. We regard the day-care services as falling under the Department of Health, Welfare and Pensions. We are therefore referring it to that department. They will deal with it.

The hon. member for Vryheid referred to Manpower 2000 and said to what extent men and especially women had been motivated by it. This is true. I want to tell this House that the Manpower 2000 promotional project, which has brought about such a change throughout South Africa, has created a sense of motivation in South Africa which money could not buy. In the first place, employers have been made aware of the problems that await them. In addition, employers have been brought to realize that the one important thing they have been doing in recent years has been to negotiate for themselves and for the people they employ. There is a willingness to co-operate with the department and there is also a feeling that employers in South Africa must do much more to promote the interests of employees and to see to their needs. I think the future will show that the Manpower 2000 project, in which thousands of people participated, has probably been one of the turning points in the labour sphere through means of which employer and employee have come to an understanding and have co-operated on a gigantic scale in South Africa.

I wish to convey my sincere congratulations to the four hon. members who spoke for the first time in this House today. The first newcomer who spoke was the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North. He spoke about the basis of compensation when it comes to exemption. I know that he is an expert in this field. The problem which he outlined is precisely the kind of problem one would be well advised to submit to the National Manpower Commission. That commission has been created precisely in order to examine the kind of problem to which the hon. member referred. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we shall send his Hansard to the commission so that they can see what the hon. member wants.

The second newcomer who spoke was the hon. member for Caledon. He told us what an important area Caledon was. We are in fact deeply aware of its importance. If Caledon, with its capacity for producing food, could be put up for sale in Africa, people would queue up to own Caledon. So I agree with what the hon. member said. Caledon is one of the old and valuable districts in South Africa. We hope that the hon. member will be a very good representative of that district, just as his predecessors were.

The hon. member then referred to training, especially the training of people of colour. I want to assure the hon. member that this is one of the tasks we have to perform in time to come. The intention is in fact to train people of colour to enable them to make a better contribution to the economy of South Africa. The fact is that we have a great need for trained people in South Africa, while there are such large numbers of untrained people in the country. So it is as simple as that: Untrained people have to be trained so that we may meet the needs that exist. The hon. member referred in particular to Coloured people. On 10 September the training centre at Kasselsvlei here in the Peninsula is being opened. This is a training centre for Coloured adults. I think it might be a good thing if the hon. member could attend the opening. This might enable him to see what we have been doing lately to provide training for people who are not very young any more. There are two training centres. The one has almost been completed. One training centre here in the Cape is for Whites. It is a centre which has been in existence for many years. There is a similar centre on the Witwatersrand and this will soon be re-opened. I just want to remind hon. members of the fact that we established three training centres of this nature at the time. We have had to close down two of the three because people simply did not go there in sufficient numbers to be trained. Now we are going to re-open one of them in the Vaal Triangle. There is another centre of this nature in Natal. It is a centre for Indians, called the M. L. Sultan College, and it does excellent work. Now a similar centre for Coloured people is being opened here in the Peninsula. One of the things we are trying to do is to enable older people to be trained as artisans. If they already have families, these will be cared for as well. Subsequently they will be further taken care of by even having employment found for them. This is one of the ways in which we are offering untrained people in South Africa the opportunity of acquiring further training, after proper testing by the department, of course, in order to determine their respective skills.

The hon. member Dr. Marais spoke about manpower development as prerequisite for economic development. This is true. In his contribution he also spoke about the constellation policy. I believe that the constellation of States will only succeed if we can have a proper labour dispensation which can accommodate everyone. Most of the States which will have to form part of the constellation have labour as their best, biggest and probably only export product. So if we cannot co-operate in order to develop that product of theirs, the only one they have, we shall probably not find it easy to implement the idea successfully. For this reason, manpower development is not only a prerequisite for economic development in our own country; it is also going to be a prerequisite for the development of all the people of South Africa. The hon. member spoke about an institute for training industrial leaders. I myself referred to this a short while ago. The hon. member also spoke about an agency. I hope it will be possible to examine this idea as well in the future.

The hon. member for Newcastle has an important task at a very new growth point. Newcastle is one of the major growth points in Natal. The hon. member will come to realize more and more—as Newcastle grows —that the productivity of the people of Newcastle and the role he and they will have to play in the future will be very important, particularly since people from various population groups will work together in the same industries. I only hope that when the difficult days come, he will be able to ensure peace in Newcastle for South Africa.

With this I believe I have replied to the first contributions to the debate. I hope I have not omitted any hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to associate hon. members on this side of the House with the remarks made by the hon. the Minister about Mr. Jaap Cilliers. Mr. Cilliers is an old friend of ours, and an old friend of Port Elizabeth’s, and we are very pleased to hear that he will be returning to our city soon. We on this side of the House are extremely grateful for the work he has done over many years, and we wish him the very best for the future.

It would be mean-minded and ungenerous not to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister of Manpower for the quality of industrial legislation that he has put before this House. The work has been completed with imagination, competence and courage. One can have little quarrel with the process of democracy when it is executed at this level. I believe that the hon. Minister will equally be ungenerous if he does not acknowledge that the reaction to his work from this side of the House has been positive and constructive. Therefore I ask the members of the Government to stop and think before making unreasonable accusations of disloyalty and irresponsibility when we criticize their ideological policies. We do so with great conviction and with a long record of correct judgment behind us.

The aspect of our labour situation that I want to consider flows from the necessity of maintaining an average growth rate of 5% to 6% to keep unemployment at its present level, to see that it does not rise above this substantial level. To maintain a growth rate of 5% we need an annual input of skilled labour of 3,2%. The maximum that the Whites can contribute to that skilled labour pool is 1,5% per annum. Obviously the difference has to come from the Black sector of the population, and it would appear that over the last six or seven years all the Black section of the population has been able to contribute to that skilled labour pool is approximately 0,2%. This figure is rising, and we are sure it will continue to do so. However, in the meantime we shall not be able to maintain a growth rate that will prevent unemployment from escalating to a degree that will cause serious social instability. Would it not be possible to design a “national interim plan” to ensure that our economy was handicapped by a shortage of skilled workers to the least possible degree in the period before the new labour dispensation starts supplying the economy with the skilled recruits necessary? The position at present is ridiculous. If State departments put up salaries tomorrow by 50%, it would make no difference at all. Private enterprise would follow the following day and would pass the increased costs on to the consumer. This is the way that inflation is fired. Employers are bidding for a scarce resource in a runaway auction market. Consequently the Government is forced to reduce its growth rate by various means at its disposal and has to face the serious consequences of spiralling unemployment in the ranks of the unskilled workers. A “national interim plan” would have as its objective the stimulation of the skilled labour supply in the short term. The following suggestions are some that could be made.

One could encourage married women to enter the labour market by taxing them separately. One could create educational and training activities for servicemen during the idle periods after they have finished their intensive training. One could consider a national service period for young women. There could be tax inducements for people who are about to retire so that they can be persuaded to work a little longer. The immigration of skilled labour could be encouraged. Development and job creation could be encouraged initially in established areas where scarce supervision and managerial ability will be able to control this growth, but not in the bush. One could ensure that every institution of tertiary education is used to full capacity. It is totally unreasonable to have these less than full because there are insufficient White students. Just recently the hon. the Minister mentioned increased productivity. We could also consider daylight saving. This was something that increased productivity during the war. One could also encourage job simplification and fragmentation so that jobs could be broken up and done by less qualified people. We should encourage the small business man by all the means at our disposal. There is no area which creates more employment and more wealth more cheaply than the business man whose assets are ambition, independence, determination, ideas and “sweat equity”. How does one encourage this man? One does so by spending money on the environment in which he will work, not by spending money on him. If he fails he must go broke but if he makes a great deal of money he must be allowed to keep it. However, it is a tough process. One cannot mollycoddle such a person; one has to create the environment in which he can grow.

We have recently established a Small Business Development Corporation. I am sure that this corporation will do some good but the White population has run clean out of entrepreneurs. Although there has been nothing standing in their way, they have been unable to provide the growth force that this country needs. The fountain that must be released is in the Black sector. How do we do this? First of all, they must have no doubts at all that they are part and parcel of South Africa. They must be able to own property and to borrow against it. This would release a capital dynamic of immense proportions. Bureaucracy must stop hounding them, stop giving them forms to complete and stop wanting them to have licences for every simple activity that they have to carry out. Businesses in the Black townships must be permitted to be thoroughly informal. Anti-monopoly and anti-trust legislation must be made to work as it has never worked before. The penalties for infringement must be heavy as they are in the United States of America. Organized business finds it more comfortable and profitable to work in a cosy arrangement than in competition. The Government is often a silent partner in this conspiracy against the consumer. After or even simultaneously with the introduction of effective anti-monopoly and anti-trust legislation, price-fixing legislation must go. We have to abolish price control because I believe that price control has no part to play in a free-enterprise system.

Mr. Chairman, it is impossible for four million people to provide the entrepreneurs, managers and skilled artisans for a population of 27 million people who are sitting on a treasure chest of minerals and energy. We must release the Black man from the net of legislation that enmeshes him. We must reach a maturity, where some no longer feel guilty in regard to those who fail, and others no longer resentful towards those who succeed. Let us create a dispensation where as nearly as possible people will have been given an equal chance to find their potential in a society that all can accept.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, mentioned a number of matters to which I do not have the time to reply now. The hon. member mentioned matters without going into them in detail. He left matters up in the air. For instance, he said that all price control should be eliminated. We wonder whether this is the official standpoint of the official Opposition. For instance, take the price control which exists with regard to certain food products. If this is to be eliminated, then it is also the standpoint of the hon. member and that side of the House that there should be no subsidy with regard to those goods either. However, I shall leave the hon. member at that because I want to go back to certain aspects of the discussion of this Vote which is before the Committee at the moment.

Labour relations are most probably one of the most important and most sensitive areas of the entire spectrum of human relations. Since this is the case, it is also a target area for our enemies because they identify it as one of the territories or spheres with regard to which an onslaught must be made on South Africa in order to force this country into submission. The onslaught on South Africa in the labour field is most definitely international in nature on the one hand and on the other hand it has its domestic arm too. I do not want to talk about the international onslaught tonight. We know what this is—certain standards and practices that have been laid down and decreed over the years by the International Labour Organization. We are all aware of the practices and demands laid down by, inter alia, the Commission on Transnational Corporations which has become very important recently, and the various codes of conduct for instance of the EEC, the British code of conduct, the Canadian code of conduct, the Australian code of conduct, etc. In this way a standard is being created with which South Africa must comply, and if South Africa does not comply with the standards, this is used as a reason or motivation for taking action against South Africa. It is true that over the years, and particularly in recent times, we have been complying increasingly with the international labour conventions and recommendations that are in existence. As a result of the efforts of the hon. the Minister and his department, we have become less vulnerable as far as the international onslaught is concerned. Since we in South Africa have become less vulnerable in this sphere with regard to the international onslaught, I feel free to express a word of sincere gratitude and appreciation towards the hon. the Minister and his department. This is also a happy thought which Mr. Jaap Cilliers, the Director General, can take with him on his retirement: He helped to make South Africa more secure.

If one looks at the domestic position, it strikes one that this is a sphere where an onslaught could possibly be launched on South Africa too. I want to point out in passing that a difference is gradually developing between the Government and the official Opposition with regard to the recognition or position of unregistered trade unions. I have a suspicion that that difference is going to be pinpointed more and more by hon. members on the opposite side and that they are going to adopt the standpoint of the unregistered trade unions to an increasing extent.

Today we have also seen the far-reaching, irresponsible behaviour of the hon. member for Bryanston, who wants to hold it against the hon. the Minister of Manpower that the Security Police took action against certain labour leaders and in this case, also against an unregistered labour leader. I am inclined to think that they want to create the image that the unregistered trade unions are above the law. However, we shall not allow this.

The sphere in which the onslought is going to come, is that of illegal strikes. The question that we must ask ourselves, is whether we are prepared for illegal strikes in all respect. Do we have an strategy that is adequate for dealing with an illegal strike? In this regard we must look first of all at the legal provisions. It is true that a number of prohibitive measures are included in the Labour Relations Act.

I want to state very clearly first of all that strikes in South Africa are not prohibited per se. A legal strike is possible in South Africa, provided that action takes place through certain channels.

The important aspect is that the financial and other aid which an illegal striker receives when he is on strike, forms the life blood of such an illegal strike. If one wants to restrict an illegal strike, one must cut off and drain its life’s blood. In this respect we now have legislation that contains certain restrictions with regard to the aid granted to illegal strikers. I want to point out that I feel that our legislation in this regard is extremely limited and therefore I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether that legislation is adequate.

In the first place, it is true that the prohibition of aid to illegal strikers affects trade unions, workers organizations and federations only. It does not affect international organizations, nor does it affect other auxiliary organizations. All there is, is a prohibition on aid to illegal strikers. It has a bearing on those people and anyone else can assist an illegal striker.

In the second place, the prohibition has a bearing on financial aid only. The illegal striker can also receive aid from his trade union in a different way, for instance by means of transport, food and clothing. It must just not be financial aid.

In the third place, it is only the striker who may not receive financial aid from the trade union, but his family may definitely receive such aid.

If I look at this legislation against the background of the tremendous potential that it has for danger, I should like to address a request to the hon. the Minister and the department to look at the legislation in order to establish whether it grants adequate powers to the department for taking action against illegal strikers.

Then I should also like to make a special request today that the hon. the Prime Minister and the department should have a definite strategy for dealing with illegal strikers. In the first place, the strategy must have a bearing on the public action and mutual relations which the Minister or the department will maintain when illegal strikes take place. Secondly, the department must have at its disposal adequate legislative powers to take action. In the third place, there must be a strategy with regard to the application of powers which the authorities have at their disposal for combating illegal action, and in such cases the police must of course take action because a law is being broken and an offence is being committed.

This is the request that I am addressing to the hon. the Minister, and I leave it at that.

Mr. Chairman, since I am now rising to my feet to say something about the National Manpower Commission, I should like to take the liberty of conveying my hearty congratulations on his promotion to Dr. Van der Merwe, the deputy chairman of this commission, who has now been promoted to Director-General of the Department of Manpower. I am married to a Van der Merwe myself and I know how wide awake a Van der Merwe can be. Therefore, I believe that the Department of Manpower is going to be a wide awake department too.

It is a privilege for me to give a review of the activities of the National Manpower Commission. If one pages through their information brochure, it is clear that they have accomplished excellent work. The commission is chaired by Dr. Hennie Reynders and comprises 42 members divided into 14 committees. From this document it is clear that hard work has been done since December 1979. Attention has been given, inter alia, to a programme for creating employment opportunities, for education, training, retraining; to a programme for industrial peace, for the rationalization of labour policy, a legislative programme for the provision of placement services, a programme for the remuneration of workers, a housing programme, a programme for co-operation and co-ordination, a research and information programme, a programme for the integration of manpower in comprehensive economic development and growth, and then the project Manpower 2000. However, this is just an overall review of the tremendous field that these 42 members have covered in a short space of time.

South Africa wants to convey its hearty congratulations to the hon. the Minister and this hardworking commission and thank them for a daring, labour-intensive programme. By means of new schools of thought, they introduced programmes for a country that can serve as an example to the world for its successful labour policy and laws.

However, we ask that there should also be continual vigilance in the future and that this work should be continued with regard to the further evolution of the programmes that are being envisaged by the commission. The labour field is the very sphere that is being exploited by Marxism for achieving its goal. Labour peace is the crucial premise of any progressive State and it is also the chief cornerstone of South Africa, and in this regard I should like to quote two sentiments from a book by Sir Walter Walker—

On the other hand he says—

I am referring to this in a very broad international context so that a colour connotation cannot be given to this. Within these two quotations lies a world of people with their own concealed selfishness. On the one hand one is always competing for the highest salary, whilst one wants to make the least effort in order to earn it. On the one hand such a person considers himself irreplaceable in the cause that he is serving, whilst he also wants to enrich himself as soon as possible. On the one hand this type of person fights for peace, whilst in doing so he can cause the most tremendous war to break out. He makes out that he is a friend, whilst he is an enemy of the system that he is serving. On the one hand one seeks a solution, whilst in the process one can create tremendous problems in an attempt to find that solution. This mammoth task was entrusted to the manpower commission, but it has only just begun its work. It will have to fight against this world tendency of creating unrest on the one hand, whilst on the other hand there is a longing for a system of labour peace. A system must be designed to give man the opportunity to find satisfaction in labour, because the labourer as a person is inclined to want the maximum, while he wants to do the minimum himself. On the one hand we are saddled with people who make out that they are serving the cause—we call this a country’s economy—whilst the same person seeks to enrich himself as rapidly as possible, and this is called capitalism. Since the commission has such a difficult task, it may be necessary for the hon. the Minister and the commission to see whether the size of the commission—at the moment it consists of 42 members—should be reduced and whether it should continue to carry out its task with the present number of members. Perhaps the commission should be divided into smaller work groups, because some aspects can be best investigated by means of subcommittees. I am suggesting this because some committees may be counter-productive because of their very size. However, I leave this in the capable hands of the hon. the Minister and those who are involved with this.

I should like to point out the three legs upon which the whole labour structure is standing. On the one hand there is the employer, who is the entrepreneur who has to arrange the whole financial side of the business, who has to launch it from his head office, in co-operation with the labour commission or personnel commission. On the other hand, there is the labourer on the shop floor who may be a member of a workers’ union or a labour union. The third leg is the State, which must make the laws for maintaining labour rest and peace. I definitely do not advocate drawing up or enforcing laws, but I think the hon. the Minister must try to have these three aspects investigated by the manpower commission. I am referring in particular to the visible aspect of the third leg, which is known at the moment as the inspectorate. I wonder whether they should not be known as a liaison service or an advisory service, and possibly we shall then have to define the task of such a service in greater detail. It must not liaise with the employer only, but with the employee too. Of course, it must also liaise with the commission. That is why I see it as a liaison service. It must not act as a watch dog, but should rather provide information. It must be able to perceive and defuse points of friction in good time, if it sees that matters are going too far. It must also liaise timeously with the instruments which the State has established, so that the people who must do the work, can be familiar with the legislation which has now been created. Whether it acts as a liaison service or as an information service, I feel that we should take a closer look at its position once again. These men must be retrained in order to serve as experts within the whole set-up and to be able to act with authority when liaison work must be done. I think we must also look at the post structure of these people in the Public Service. I think we must make their posts attractive and competitive in view of the importance of their task within the labour set-up in South Africa.

We are dealing here with a huge hand that must set the giant machine of our country’s economy in motion and carry out the important irrigation work so that the seed which is germinating at the moment, can be brought to maturity, because it is important in a country which can, in fact, with the assistance of its tremendous natural resources and a variety of human material, assume a key position in world economy.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to follow after the hon. member for Brentwood. When one talks about labour, labour relations and manpower affairs, one realizes that one is not talking about the immediate future, but about the long term. When one looks at the long term, one must take note once again of the fact that increased or continued economic growth at the present rate and as we plan it for the future, does not provide a solution to unemployment. The encouragement of labour intensive methods of production as far as possible in South Africa, can assist in relieving any unemployment problem. However, it is not so much the task and duty of the Government, but ultimately the responsibility rests upon the private sector to become a partner of the Government of South Africa in this regard.

An increase in capacity utilization increases the productivity of capital and labour, and this contributes towards combating inflation. Inflation is a tremendous problem with which we are faced at the moment. However, it is essential for capacity utilization not to be pushed beyond the optimum level; this can become extremely dangerous. It will result in the reduction of the productivity of production factors.

The general aim of the Government with regard to manpower is that the work force of the country, regardless of race, colour or sex, must be developed to the optimum, utilized and preserved. The development of manpower implies the on-going elevation to the highest possible level of the working abilities of the total workers corps, taking into account individual skill and interest and the present and future requirements of the South African economy. South Africa has limited manpower; South Africa cannot afford to lose a single worker.

Furthermore, the optimum utilization of manpower implies not only the provision of sufficient employment opportunities, but also efficient vocational training, vocational guidance and, in general, the increase of productivity which has been referred to so many times in the House this afternoon. This can only happen by making the best use of the labour force which is available at any given moment.

It can be said that in general, in the sphere of manpower in a free market economy, the Government aims merely at establishing a regulatory framework, within which the parties in the private sector can operate. The Government is aiming at this, and at making these matters the responsibility of the private sector, with the greatest possible degree of self-government in the private sector and the vertical and horizontal decentralization of decision-making. Particularly with manpower training and utilization and the vocational training and placement facilities for work seekers, the primary responsibility for these matters rests with the private sector, and not the Government.

The State intervenes in order to support the private sector in an encouraging manner in various ways and we can be proud of a remarkable record, with reference to the legislation that has been initiated by the Government and passed by the House over the past few weeks, because in doing so the Government has laid four foundations which will determine the future of South Africa, and these are labour, peace, training, efficiency and worker security. If the security of a worker is not guaranteed, if he is not assured of training, where is South Africa heading? However, the crux of all these foundations is labour peace. If you and I get up one day and discover that there is no labour peace in South Africa, we can be as productive as we wish, but then South Africa’s economy will be worthless.

We must take note that the Government is going out of its way to improve the position. For instance, there are tax concessions for in-service and apprentice training. I think we have a particularly proud record before us in the form of the report of the National Manpower Commission, for instance with regard to the high-level manpower in South Africa. It is a special, remarkable report because it holds the key to the future of South Africa.

Unfortunately, the credo of many bodies and many individuals is: “More money, less work.” This can be the most dangerous credo that has been declared in South Africa. The private sector, however, must co-operate and must be prepared to take the hand of the Government and to say: “I am a partner; the Government has built a framework on these four foundations which the private sector must grasp in order to utilize the workers corps in South Africa to the full and to promote it.” However, this can also be dangerous. In this regard I just want to quote from the magazine People and Profits—

This is the crux of the matter and in this way we can bring about labour intensity, labour training and labour peace in South Africa. This is what the Government is trying to do.

Do we really receive the required co-operation from the private sector? Is the private sector really prepared to co-operate? One finds the big man who is prepared to say: “Yes, I shall co-operate.” However, one also finds the man who says under false pretences that he is training his people whilst he is not doing anything of the sort; all he is doing is luring people away to work for him. In doing so he is delivering a tremendous blow to the economy of South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to take an absolute in-depth look at stopping this type of game. Each and every entrepreneur in South Africa must realize that we are partners and that co-operation is of cardinal importance for the future of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Overvaal that I can agree with some of his sentiments, for instance in connection with luring workers away, of which the smaller members of the private sector, in particular, are guilty. I really think that we must all do everything we can to get the best out of our manpower. I should like to point out a few other bottle-necks that are having an adverse effect on our development at this early stage. Now that the Black people are being involved in what is basically an industrial environment, I feel that we should take another look at the structuring of work which was begun at the beginning of the industrial century. Of course, we know that the simple premise in that regard is that a difficult task can be broken down so that what originally had to be done by someone with experience and a high standard of training, can now be done by someone with less training and less experience too. As one goes on, one must of course not think that this is the final solution. Indeed, we know that in the highly industrialized countries at the moment, there is a return to that in order to give a better structure to work, so that the morale and enthusiasm of the worker does not suffer as a result. But we are now talking about the early times in South Africa’s economy, the time when it was still being built up. I feel that the structuring of work is an aspect to which we should give a great deal of attention now. I know that a great deal of progress has already been made with this structuring, particularly in the motor repair industry, where I believe it has been implemented successfully.

However, I want to give attention to the building industry in particular, which is a very extensive industry. The building industry is a tremendous provider of employment, and in that industry the question of providing housing is a great problem at the moment. I just want to point out certain problems in the building industry, and then hear what the hon. the Minister and the department may be able to do about it.

With the repeal of the Black Building Worker’s Act, it has now become theoretically possible for Black building workers to enter the building industry in White areas. However, there are a few problems in this regard. The first of these is the fact that the qualifications of those building workers are considered slightly inferior to those of other workers in the building industry. I am now referring to the old qualifications that they received. For instance, there were certain certificates that were issued to them, and the biggest problem in this regard, in my opinion, is the fact that those certificates still have printed on them in large red letters that the holder thereof is an artisan, but that he is not an artisan as soon as he enters a White area. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible for all those old certificates of competency that were issued to people, to be recalled and replaced by new certificates on which that stigmatic red stamp is not present. I believe that this will also serve as an incentive for the people because they will then realize that the Government is serious in saying that it accepts them as full-fledged workers.

Do they say that they want these certificates replaced?

Yes, but I think the fact that it affects the less skilled group of people, people who are normally Black, and who had therefore not undergone any training in labour relations, etc., is in fact important. They cannot yet convey this message properly.

The second question that I want to put, is what sort of publicity can be given to this. I should like to suggest that the hon. the Minister gives some thought to announcing it on the Black radio services, for instance, and in this way to put it across even to the man in the lowest position. In this way, it can possibly be arranged that the certificates that were issued previously, can now be replaced so that things can be carried out on a uniform basis for once and for all.

Another problem that may arise, is that these people do now in fact have access to the industry, but that, as a result of certain labour conciliation measures, they are still prevented from doing that work which they are in fact capable of doing. We know that there are certain agreements in the building industry to which people adhere. I have here in my hand, for instance, the agreement of the building industry in Durban. It is clear from this that a certain structure exists with regard to bricklayers. For instance, in the first place we have here an artisan, and then there are other levels of workers. The worker on the first level, for instance, may only lay bricks of a certain size, whilst a worker in another class, for instance, may not use certain tools. In this way people who can in fact lay bricks, are in actual fact being prevented from carrying out work in a small building enterprise, for instance. There is an exception which provides that if he works on a mass housing scheme of more than 25 units, of which each unit is less than 70 sq meters, then he can in fact qualify as a bricklayer.

The hon. member wants him to be able to do more than one trade.

No, just the trade that he can do, for instance bricklaying. I have tried to work through the deletion of the Black Labour Act and the qualifications that the people should possibly have, and now I have established that the worker is still not in a position, according to the regulations of the Industrial Conciliation Act, to carry out the work which he is able to do. My first question was the replacement how we could broadcast the information in connection with the lower standard of certificates.

My second question is: How do we convey that message to the industry so that those people can in fact be put in a position to do what they are suited for? It seems to me as if the same problem that we had in previous years is emerging again. This was when Whites only carried out the trades and then we reached the stage where they were in a very good competitive position because they were a very scarce article.

However, it became so bad in the end that the Indians and the Coloureds had to enter the bricklaying and carpentry trades, for instance. What is happening here now, is that in Natal, for instance, we have the position that the artisans in the building trade can demand up to R50 per day from employers. Therefore, there seems to be a shortage of bricklayers, whilst the other people, i.e. the Blacks, who have the old qualifications, may still not carry out this type of work. One can probably say that this is related to the employer/employee relations, but once again it seems to me as if it is the man at the bottom of the scale who is not aware of his competitive position whereby he can achieve something out of the situation himself; in other words, the right to work.

Furthermore, I am very pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has made a grant of R7 250 000 to the in-service training centres. I have visited these centres myself and have already sent people there for training. This is an excellent, valuable method of training because the courses are presented in short modules that follow on from one another. Therefore, it is possible for one to enter or leave training in accordance with his personal competence, or depending on his work situation. The only problem is that these are in-service training centres; in other words, most people who can make use of them, are those who are already employed. If we could perhaps establish a fund so that other people who do not have the opportunity or who are not employed, can also make use of those wonderful facilities …

Like the unemployed?

Yes, the unemployed.

We are going to try to do that.

Then that question has been answered. [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I shall not follow up on what the hon. member for Greytown said, and I am sure he will understand why I do not want to do so.

When we plan and give serious consideration to the training of the manpower of a country we must not lose sight of one fundamental truth viz. that quite apart from what the military strength of a country may be, what its financial and economic wealth and strength may be, what the extent of the as yet unexploited mineral wealth in its soil may be, its people remain the most important asset of any country. If this is true, then it is also true that the strength and the ability and the wealth of any country in all spheres is ultimately determined by the quality of the human material which that country has at its disposal. The standard and quality of this human material is in turn determined by the quality, the effectiveness and the singleness of purpose of the training and education of all its people. There can be no doubt about the predominant importance of this fact. Consequently the following question may justifiably be asked: What is the attitude, what is the record of the South African Government, the NP and this hon. the Minister in respect of this generally recognized principle? One finds the reply to these questions, Sir, in the official White Paper, Part II of the Wiehahn Commission report, from which I want to quote the following which has already been quoted by the hon. member for Overvaal—

Let me say at once that I am of the opinion that this objective does not represent a new policy in respect of the training of workers in South Africa. In fact, this Government and previous Governments, as is reflected in a number of laws, has a splendid record in respect of their view on the importance of training. In the first place we have on our Statute Book the Apprenticeship Act of 1944 to ensure that apprentices receive proper practical as well as theoretical training. At the end of 1980 28 911 apprentices were in the process of receiving their training. During 1980 alone 10 527 apprenticeship contracts were registered, including 82 contracts in respect of Black apprentices.

In the second place we have the Training of Artisans Act of 1951. The object of this Act was to train people over the age of 21 in trades in which there were serious shortages. There are at present three such training institutions which the hon. the Minister has already mentioned. We have such a training centre at Westlake here in the Cape for 198 Whites, one in Bellville for 100 Coloureds, the M. L. Sultan Technikon in Durban for 60 Asians, and a fourth for 90 Whites, in Vereniging, will come into operation in 1982. In the third place we have the Black Employees’ In-Service Training Act of 1976. The purpose of this Act is to promote and regulate the in-service training of Black employees in commerce, agriculture and industry, with the exception of the mining industry. There are a total of eight of these public in-service training centres, which will be expanded.

During 1980 approximately 11 000 Black workers were being trained at the public in-service training centres. Provision is also being made for the construction of private in-service training centres. These are centres which are run by employers or other persons with the purpose of offering training to Black workers of other employers. The department must approve the construction of such centres. At the end of 1980 12 had been approved at which approximately 9 000 Black workers were being trained. This 1976 Act makes further provision for the system of in-service training schemes which are run by employers, normally on their own premises, for their own employees only. Departmental approval for these schemes is not compulsory, but tax concessions are granted only in respect of training which is undergone under recognized training schemes. The number of recognized schemes at the end of 1980 was 490, whereas the number of employees who were being trained during 1980, amounted to 78 000. Employers whose employees are being trained at public training centres by approved private training centres or by approved in-service training schemes, are entitled to generous tax concessions in respect of the training costs. In 1980 a total of 107 000 Black employees were being trained under this In-Service Act, and I think this is a fine achievement.

In the fourth place we have the In-Service Training Act of 1977 which was intended to promote and control the in-service training of Whites, Coloureds and Asians in commerce, industry and agriculture, but not in mining. This Act, just like the Black Employees’ In-Service Training Act, makes provision for training schemes in terms of which 63 250 workers were being trained during 1980, and private training centres, where 16 659 were being trained during 1980. Just recently, during the present sitting, the Manpower Training Act was placed on the Statute Book. This Act contains relevant provisions from all three of the abovementioned training Acts in an adjusted form.

When studying the abovementioned facts, one is deeply conscious of the high premium this Government places on the training of White, Coloured, Asian and Black employees. We thank the present Minister of Manpower and his select team of officials who are succeeding in a masterly fashion in giving to training in the labour sphere the priority it so rightly deserves.

Permit me to express a few thoughts in connection with training and retraining. In the first place I want to advocate that the highest degree of co-ordination should be sought between the Department of Manpower and the other education departments, and in the second place that professional training should be promoted and intensively developed by all persons and bodies concerned with education and training. Mr. Chairman, I was a witness when a senior teacher, on hearing complaints that John could not master standard six arithmetic, said that the Lord had intended Jan to wield a sledge-hammer and not to have to do standard six arithmetic! By means of scientific testing and effective vocational guidance, I believe that the wasting of time and money in trying to equip people for unsuitable occupations must be eliminated. This gives rise to the question of whether we should persist with the inexorable dictum that a certain minimum academic qualification is required for admission to a specific or to all trades. What I am asking is: Is it necessary for John to have to produce a standard six academic certificate before he can learn to wield a sledge-hammer?

Sir, let me conclude. I advocate that the element of involving also a persons soul and spirit and not only of making him a better and more skillful labourer, but also a better and more balanced person, should be an integral part of all our training efforts. Only then does this activity have substance and meaning, and only then will the productivity factor grow to its maximum potential. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Does the official Opposition have a quorum this evening? [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order.

It is quality, not quantity that counts!

Mr. Chairman, everything that has been said in this debate was so favourable and so full of praise and appreciation that there was no real debating. Consequently the temptation is very great to ask whether we cannot debate the selection of the Springbok team instead.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member for Walmer raised a very valid point earlier this evening when he referred to the shortage of skilled labour. According to the most recent available figures there were 73 710 vacant posts for skilled labour on 27 April 1979 and since then this figure has increased considerably. A considerable part of that shortage is in the sphere of artisans. But there are 62 000 vacant posts in other occupations as well.

This shortage contributes greatly to the inflation problem we are grappling with at present. If the available work force has to produce the necessary goods and services and is still able to negotiate a higher salary for the work it is performing, prices will continue to rise, for the demand for available labour is constantly increasing.

On the other hand, despite the shortage of skilled labour, we also have unemployment. There were 119 145 registered unemployed persons in December 1980, but according to the most recent current population census there is an unemployment figure of 454 000, which comprises 8,1% of the population. On the one hand, therefore, we have a shortage of trained manpower which causes a very high inflation rate which, on the other hand, causes great hardship for the large number of unemployed. That is why we must congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department—I shall simply add mine to all the others that have been addressed to the hon. the Minister during the course of the day—on the dynamic way in which this problem has been tackled. I should like to refer, inter alia, to the investigations which were carried out by the Wiehahn Commission, the recommendations which were made, and everything which these things led to and then finally the legislation. The wonderful Manpower 2000 project which made us all conscious afresh of the importance of this facet of the national economy should also be mentioned.

I should now associate myself with the hon. member for Kimberley North who emphasized vocational guidance in our schools. I think everyone agrees that the question of vocational guidance in our schools is being grossly neglected. Experience shows that it is not always the best teacher who provides the vocational guidance. With this problem we are facing we can no longer afford to have a single pupil end up in a sphere of activity in which he cannot be used as productively as possible because he does not have the necessary aptitude for it.

This brings me to the Manpower Training Bill, more specifically to clause 13, which deals with the training of apprentices and clause 30 which deals with the training of trainees. It is with a measure of regret, as well as some shame, that one must admit that the quality of service in our country is really not what it could be. I am referring in particular to two industries with which one has daily contact, viz. the motor vehicle repair industry and the building industry. Every day one hears or reads about complaints about the quality of the work being done in these two industries.

This brings me to the qualification of apprentices as artisans after completion of their indentures. The provision is that an apprentice or a trainee may in time qualify himself as a skilled tradesman or artisan over a fixed period, after which the necessary certificate is then issued to him. However, one must concede that although a person may have completed his period of training, he does not necessarily meet all the requirements set by the general public in all respects. No one is certain that the person in question is really qualified to work on the motor car of today which costs R36 000. The costs of motor repair work and construction being what they are today, the owners of motor cars or houses, would very much like to know whether the person who has to do the repair work on the motor car, or the construction work on the house, is really qualified to do so.

I know this is a very sensitive area, but I want to ask whether our apprentices or trainees, before they qualify, cannot write a test of some kind—even if it is only a practical test—to ensure that they are qualified to accept their new status.

I have already said that the hon. the Minister and the department are engaged in dynamic developments … [Interjections] … which can only be to the benefit of South Africa. However, there are certain persons and bodies which are not co-operating. I should like to mention the Mine Workers’ Union. I should like to ask whether these bodies would not abandon the political expediency they are trying to derive with their actions. Surely South Africa’s interests are greater than their own. What is at issue here is after all the future of South Africa.

Do you not want to co-operate in order to make this splendid project, Manpower 2000, the success it deserves to be?

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to be able to speak after such a positive appeal such as the one made by the hon. member for Hercules, who has just resumed his seat. I want to say that a great deal of water has passed under the bridge since the Bolshevist revolution in 1917. Two world wars have been waged and a completely new era has been ushered in, particularly as far as labour relations and policy are concerned. Very clearly demarcated structures have been established around the capitalist system on the one hand and the socialist system on the other.

I can quite imagine how the DDR socialist works and waits for that day when the workers’ group will eventually, as they see it, triumph over the dominant group as an historical necessity. On the one hand the youthful capitalist-orientated industrialist sees no other structure but that of the free market mechanism. Between these two poles a multiplicity of structures have been established within which the market figures. A very important component in these structures, both on the socialist and the capitalist side, as well as all the variants in between, is trade unionism.

When we examine trade unionism as such, we must agree that it is certainly one of the most intricate spheres of activity that exist. As far as the Western labour economy is concerned, a specific facet has emerged about which I want to express a few views this evening. I want to call it a new institution. It is an exceptional facet which is the exis around which the whole structure revolves, and I want to call it “management” or “management practice”.

Eighty years ago there was no such thing as management practices, but today it is irreplacable, although in some respects it is highly controversial. Take, for example, a large bank such as the Deutsche Bank in West Germany or another large business undertaking. Today the chairmen of such bodies spend approximately four-fifths of their time, not on the essential functioning of the organization as such, but on relationships at managerial level in respect of Governments and external organizations. The same principle also applies to the smaller business enterprises that spend great deal of their time, even most of their time, on the internal functionings of their industry rather than on this facet which I want to call management practice or management ability. To quote an example from our own history, I want to say that a man like Dr. Anton Rupert was a few decades ago still able to keep his finger on the pulse of most of the companies he controlled. Today this is impossible and he has had to appoint a series of directors and to delegate some of his functions. The directors now have to look after the functioning aspects. As I have already said, people operate, in Western terms, in our business life whereas in the Japanese structure, to mention another example, they talk instead of “relating”. However, in America and in the West in general they talk of “operating”. Later I might just explain the difference to hon. members. The emphasis is placed in particular on external relationships with Governments, banks, industrial groups, etc. The important aspect of this facet of which we have to take cognizance this evening, is that younger people are controlling the business enterprises as senior department heads and so-called “company directors”. The top management merely ensures that the people whom they appoint are very well qualified.

I said that the West was moving very strongly in the direction of the Japanese “relate system” whereas they used to operate. Yet red lights are beginning to flash in this situation. I want to be brief. The top management will in future have to give more attention to the business concern itself, its aims, its priorities and its strategies. Allow me to illustrate this briefly. A few years ago we were used to the small business enterprise where we received personal attention. When the hypermarkets appeared, the personal attention disappeared. Today, however, people are once again asking for more and more personal attention. As far as the large business enterprise is concerned, a high premium is being placed on top management’s knowledge of the business enterprise, the people who work there, its problems and its opportunities. I want to make the important statement that the time of delegating downwards has passed. The time has arrived for top management to have the knowledge not only of the industry, but also of how to run the business enterprise. The voice of an important element is being heard more clearly. I am referring to the person on the shop floor who demands shop floor policy and for whom shop floor relationships are extremely important. The result is that there is not only tension from above, but that it is also building up from below. As the hon. the Minister, too, pointed out earlier, an increasing number of people will in future, as far as top management is concerned, be required on the top level because it simply cannot be left in the hands of the individual any longer.

I just want to say finally that I think that as far as managerial practice which has developed over the past few years is concerned, it is this group of persons who are being tested to the utmost in regard to their knowledge of the business enterprise, relations and policy, and also in regard to the real needs and essential nature of the person who is working for them on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, one of the recommendations by the Wiehahn Commission which was not accepted by the Government is one prohibiting the fixing of age limits on appointments. When we think of the retirement of Mr. Jaap Cilliers, I really believe the hon. the Minister should think very, very seriously about reviewing that decision.

Hear, hear!

Either that, Sir, or we must have some assurance that Mr. Cilliers is going to be usefully employed …

Hear, hear!

And gainfully.

Yes, and gainfully too. If he is prepared to accept any kind offers we will be only too glad to make him some from these benches. [Interjections.]

Quite seriously, those of us who were in the House when Mr. Jaap Cilliers was appointed, will know something of the incredible changes that have taken place whilst he has served the department, and I want to associate myself with the comments made by the hon. the Minister earlier.

Then, I should also like to say a few brief words about Prof. Van der Merwe who is Mr. Cilliers’ successor. I first met him before I entered politics. That was perhaps as well. We attended various conferences on this very subject, the subject of industrial relations, unemployment and related subjects. I was impressed immediately the first time I heard him speak, and I have had no reason to change my mind since the time he became actively associated with the department. I wish him very well on his promotion to his new appointment.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the reply—wherever it came from—to my earlier comment about the turning down of the recommendation regarding the attitude of stubborn or unreasonable employers in not recognizing a union the representativeness of which has been organized by means of a secret ballot, was a reply I could not accept. I could not accept the explanation given by the hon. the Minister about why this should not be regarded as an unfair labour practice. I believe it should be regarded as such. We are talking about unreasonable people here. We are talking about a case which has been proved, and I think that the Industrial Court, which could be and should be such a valuable part of our machinery should be used in this case as well. Obviously we are at some odds here. I gather that the National Manpower Commission is going to look at this again and I hope they will look at it very carefully indeed.

The only other point I wanted to make was with regard to the comments the hon. the Minister made about the response from this side of the House and from people outside to the changes which had come about in labour legislation during the past few years. The hon. the Minister stated that there were some people who were just never satisfied. That is true, I suppose, in life, and I think it is perhaps more particularly true in this very difficult and sensitive field.

Some of the labour unions as well.

That is correct. Some of the labour unions as well. I think one has to accept—and I think it would be as well for all of us to do so—that because of the history behind this and because of the long years during which, by definition, the vast majority of workers were excluded from the process in which they are now being included, there is bound to be a gap, there is bound to be a transition period during which we will simply have to win them over rather than try to force them into the system. That is the only point I was trying to make earlier and I hope that that is the attitude the hon. the Minister is going to adopt.

Then there is another point as well. The hon. the Minister stated that there were those who were on record—I am obviously one of them, and I make no apology for it—as stating that changes in labour relations or developments in labour affairs could not be seen in isolation. The hon. the Minister says that once the Government has made changes and brought about reforms in this area, there are those who say that other changes should then be made in the socio-political field as well. The harsh fact of the matter, however, is unfortunately that labour relations, industrial relations, the whole movement within the field of labour, has to be seen against the total background; one can never see it in a vacuum, particularly when the workers, many of whom are now encountering fairly sophisticated instruments of labour relations, are on the whole unsophisticated themselves. Moreover they also have very strong grievances in the communities from which they come and, because they come in large numbers and very often travel together and live together, the effect of these grievances must rub off. It is inevitable, as long as people are being denied basic political rights, that they are going to use or be tempted to use certain means, or will even be used themselves by others, to ensure that political capital is gained.

You are now acting as an apologist and in that way you are again dragging politics into this matter.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central knows so little about this subject. He really should stay out of a debate like this because it has to be handled very sensitively, carefully and with understanding, and he does not have any of these three qualities. So I really think he should keep quiet and he should not take part in a debate like this. This is not just a shouting match. This debate deals with a subject that one must know something about. He can talk about other things about which he knows nothing in other debates. So I would really advise that hon. member to keep quiet in this debate.

There is no way that we are suggesting that the position is normal and right but what we are saying is that this is inevitable, and until such time as changes and developments take place in the total field one is going to encounter these problems. That is why we have time and time again welcomed the re-forms that have been introduced. However, it would be naïve in the extreme to imagine that one can have these on their own.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it competent for the hon. member to bring a false note into this debate?

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Pinelands may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately there are always members in this House who do not like to hear the truth. Therefore they try their best to keep one quiet.

Are you the truth?

No, not at all, but just a part of it; a very inadequate part of it, but the good part.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that when one introduces labour reform, whether it be by an individual company or whether it be by the State, one is, as it were, opening Pandora’s Box, and once one does that one does not know what is going to come out. Therefore it behoves all of us to be patient and wise in our application of the changes that are introduced.

Mr. Chairman, you will remember well the debates that we used to have in this House only a few years ago that were extremely heated, difficult and rowdy because there were many aspects of labour reform that were simply not taking place. We are among the first to say to the hon. the Minister that because of that we are now looking at the best possible way to bring about the necessary change to ensure industrial peace in South Africa rather than talking past each other. That, I think, is a tremendous step forward.

Mr. Chairman, we have now come to the end of this debate. I should also like to thank those hon. members who spoke after my previous reply, for their participation.

The hon. member for Walmer referred to the small businessman. When we speak of training, the position of the small businessman in South Africa is such that he cannot create the mechanisms for training himself. He is not like the big companies that can start their own in-service training schemes. A small businessman cannot do that, and for that very reason we are now making provision to be able to assist him, particularly by creating these public in-service training schemes to which he can send one, two, three or five of his people to be trained. By that means we are able to make provision for the small businessman at this juncture, and in future it is the intention to establish many more of these in-service training centres, as well as satellites of such centres. I am thinking of Kimberley, for example, where such a need exists. I am also thinking of the Brits area, the Witbank area and the Free State goldfields area. Consequently this need is going to be met to a far greater extent in future.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central asked whether we had machinery for controlling strikes and whether our legislation was adequate. This matter was raised and discussed here when we passed the new legislation on training a few weeks ago. The National Manpower Commission will, and has indeed been so directed, to keep an ever watchful eye on any kind of deviation which may occur. In that sphere in particular we shall keep a very watchful eye on the situation in future. There is just one point I should like to make now, and I should like to do so in a few sentences. In future the employers of South Africa will play a key role in the perpetuation of labour peace. The major problem in South Africa is the fact that its employers have never experienced any strike problems. They do not know what a strike looks like and they do not know how to deal with it. This is the case because we have enjoyed such a long period of labour peace in the past. That is why it is very important that employers should prepare themselves for a situation which may arise in future in which there could be far more labour unrest. That is precisely why they are now making financial contributions themselves to give people training which will enable them to deal with labour relations. As I have said, a great many of the problems arise because the needs of the employees are not being satisfied. One takes no notice of them. In Britain 60% of the time of top management is spent on labour relations. This happens in the biggest companies. In Germany the figure is 35%. In Europe it varies from between 30% to 50%, and in South Africa the figure is only 1%. We cannot tolerate such a position in future. That is why I think that the contribution which will be required from employers in future is going to be an exceptionally big one. I am also pleased at the development in this connection which has recently been discernible, particularly as a result of Manpower 2000. The private sector is involved in this development and employers are now developing an awareness of these matters and are taking action. I think the wheels are rolling and I think we are still going to see a great many changes in this sphere in future. It is precisely in this connection that I am pleased that the speech made by the hon. member gave me the opportunity to make these few observations.

The hon. member for Brentwood raised the question of an inspectorate. He also referred to a liaison service. He mentioned the possibility that if we were now to create this machinery we might have to struggle in future—and I can understand this sentiment—to put what we are now laying down in this legislation into operation in practice because we do not have the manpower with which to do so. I want to tell the hon. member that there is no Government department which has sufficient manpower. We do not have enough, and none of the other departments have as much as they would like to have. Nevertheless we have loyal people and those who are there are trying to rationalize in the performance of their duties. That is what we are trying to do. I have absolute confidence that we shall be able to keep up in future, because part of our campaign is in fact to bring in outside expertise. Therefore I am confident that we shall be able to do what we promised to do. If we were to run into difficulties in future because of a shortage of manpower, very well then, this House will have to reconsider the matter.

The hon. member for Overvaal also discussed the question on training. He also referred to the responsibility which rests with the private sector. I shall restate the words which the hon. member used in my words. There is a very appropriate English expression: “It’s cheaper to buy them than to train them.” That is the curse of South Africa. It is better to lure people away than to go to the trouble of training them oneself. That is precisely why we are now trying to cultivate an awareness in the private sector of its responsibility in this connection. That is what is happening now. The private sector is at present engaged in establishing what they call the “Manpower Institute”. In my opinion this is one of the best development projects in this sphere. One of the themes is to help the private sector to train its own people itself and not to lay the responsibility for doing that at the door of other people. I believe that the private sector must accept this responsibility, for we are after all a capitalistic country. We are not a socialistic country where the State has to do everything. After all, a person in the private sector is there to take care of his own needs and to make his contribution. The State has the responsibility of providing formal education and training, of undertaking formal education. The State does this all the way from the lowest to the highest levels. However, the moment the individual leaves the assembly line and enters private life, and when it comes to the question of training itself then the responsibility becomes that of the private sector. The private sector will not mind if I say this here. In the past the private sector has taken advantage of the Government sector, and vice versa. They have lured one another’s employees away, the private sector has lured the State’s employees away, a large part of the private sector did not contribute its share. They know I am saying this in a kindly way, because we understand one another and consequently we can say these things to one another. The private sector must discharge its responsibility towards South Africa. It cannot continue to ride on the backs of others.

The hon. member for Greytown sounded like a man who knows something about the building industry. Apparently he is associated with the building industry. He referred to the question of certificates in the possession of building workers and said that problems were being created because these were not acceptable in controlled areas. In the meantime I have ascertained that the actual problem is that the people who possess these certificates do not always possess the required qualifications and yet wish to proffer those certificates. On the other hand, these certificates are endorsed, which has the effect of disallowing them to accept employment in certain areas. This can cause a very serious problem. I concede that the hon. member is right on that score and I shall negotiate with BIFSA on this matter. I shall also ensure that the industrial councils take cognizance of this matter, and see how we can resolve this problem and how this matter can be brought home to the workers, because it affects thousands of workers. I think the hon. member has a point there, and we shall look into it.

The hon. member for Kimberley North remarked that a country’s strength and wealth lay in its people. That is so true. The hon. member referred to what was being done by the State and by other organizations in connection with training and requested that, as far as this was concerned, the Minister of National Education and the Minister of Manpower should co-operate with one another and should augment one another. I want to tell him that if this does not happen we shall run into difficulties, for what is really happening in South Africa is that there are a great many people who are not correctly trained for the labour market. It is of no avail if one has been trained, but incorrectly trained. It is no use having taken psychology and crimonology if one is going to offer these subjects in an industry which has no use for them, but wants a person who has been trained in some discipline such as one of the natural sciences. I am afraid that we have reached the stage in South Africa where a part of our problem is not only the question of untrained people, but also that of incorrectly trained people. My colleague, the Minister of National Education and I have the best of relations with one another, and I think, also with reference to what the hon. member had in mind, that we shall be able to cope satisfactorily with this problem.

In fact, we are already doing so.

The hon. member for Hercules discussed productivity and training. It is true; it is no longer good enough for South Africa—in fact it is not good enough in any country—that young people should flood the labour market and should be trained in whatever discipline is the first to get hold of them. That is not going to work. A person should be tested for his aptitude, his interests, his skills and his abilities. These are the four factors which should be taken into consideration. Only then can one locate him, otherwise one is dealing with the same kind of problem which a farmer has when he harvests cotton. One harvester will pick six kg per day, while another harvester, under the same circumstances, picks 60 kg. The one is simply incapable of doing it, even if he wanted to; it is not what he is cut out to do at all. Here we see the greater role which has to be played, in this training situation of ours, by pre-testing. The department is working on this, and these aptitude tests will play a far greater part in future. I want to tell the hon. member that it is of course true that there are people in South Africa in many fields of activity who are just not good artisans. However, this is not always the case because a person was unable to pass a trade test, because if he wishes to be an artisan, he must pass a test. However, there is something else which one must take into consideration. The most damaging thing that has recently happened in South Africa is the present shortage of manpower and the exploitation which subsequently occurred. Artisans know that employers are hard pressed for their services, and precisely for that reason they are neglecting their work, and are producing poor service. Hon. members all know what I am referring to now. An extremely dissatisfactory situation has arisen in South Africa which has given rise to our experiencing a loss of skill as well as honesty in labour relations as a result of the shortage of artisans. However, I believe that the National Training Board which we are going to establish, and of course the generous contribution by the Minister of Finance, too, will help to bring about the more rapid training of manpower in future. The Minister of Finance has helped me generously this year, but next year he is going to help me to an even greater extent, because it is a fact that if the Minister of Finance looks after this department properly so that we can train our manpower, we can do much to produce in the economy the geese which can lay the golden eggs for him in future.

The hon. member for Brits discussed management practices in regard to high-level manpower, which has already been referred to here. High-level manpower is South Africa’s major problem. We have to train people up from the lower levels because we do not have enough qualified people on the highest level. The gap is large and is growing larger. We cannot five in a sophisticated world and then have a disparity between high-level manpower and manpower on the lower levels. Unless we improve the ratio we are going to encounter problems in future, because one cannot have workers only; there must also be managers, and the ratio between the two levels must be satisfactory, particularly in a rapidly developing country where manpower has to be trained in so many different fields.

A second point which the hon. member touched on, was the question of labour relations within the managerial practices. It is extremely important that more attention be given to sound relations, but in the first place the managers must be available. In the year 2000 South Africa will present a completely different appearance to what it does today. The South Africa of the year 2000 will probably have six million or seven million workers in its industries. But at that stage there will be a new kind of manager as well, a manager of people and of human relations. To keep human relations in large undertakings on a satisfactory level and to avoid conflicts, will be just as important as looking after the financial administration of that undertaking.

The hon. member for Pinelands again discussed the encouragement of trade unions to register. I am sorry that I did not raise this matter on a previous occasion, as I intended doing. How must one act in a developing situation where thousands of people are beginning to join trade unions? Should one force the people to register or should one entice them into doing so? Initially, when I first began to consider this problem, I thought that everyone should participate in the system and that they should be compelled to register. After mature reflection, thorough investigation and careful observation of conditions in the rest of the world, however, the department, the National Manpower Commission and I now think that where human relations are involved, we should not force a trade union to register. That is why we are trying to create a situation in which it will be attractive enough for all trade unions to register. We have therefore decided to give trade unions additional benefits if they register. In other words, we are enticing them with benefits. They must feel that it is not worth their while to remain outside the fold. The success we have achieved during the past few months is attributable to this very approach, and not to compulsion. This is our standpoint at present, and we shall continue to hold it in future. One’s first reaction is usually: If they do not want to, force them. However, when one is dealing with millions of people and one wishes to force them to do something, I do not think that one will preserve labour peace. Consequently we would prefer to try to develop a system, in co-operation with everyone, in which we emphasize and offer the benefits of co-operation in such a way that it is clearly apparent that these are more favourable than the disadvantages of non-cooperation.

I also wish to raise the question of politics in labour matters, and with that I wish to conclude. When we make an assessment of this matter, we are able to call on a wide range of experience, knowledge and many examples. What is the example which has been set on this continent of ours, to the north of the Limpopo, where politics has been dragged into labour matters during the past 25 years? It was wretched! It simply does not work. Let us consider a country such as Britain. I do not wish to say anything negative about Britain, but is there any person in this country—to say nothing of this House—who would say that we should have a system here which takes the system in Britain as an example? Of course not. What are the facts? It has been said that in 1980 there was a great deal of labour unrest in this country, but in 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976 there were more strikes than in 1980, in spite of all the sombre reports in the Press. Let me furnish the figures. We will remember that there are countries in the world that calculate their loss of time per worker per annum over the entire spectrum of the labour force in weeks or months.

What was this loss in South Africa? I almost feel like asking hon. members to guess. Our loss last year was nine minutes per worker per annum. No country in the world can equal this. I am not contrasting our position with that of Africa. Britain is a country from which we have imported a great deal of our knowledge of labour matters. Can we compare our nine minutes per annum with what is happening there? I do not think there is any person who would venture to do so. In South Africa there are constant threats that the labour situation will be used for negotiation in other spheres. My reply is that we can never allow this to happen. I am not threatening anyone, but it would be a bad day if we on this side of the House, as members of a responsible Government, were ever to concede that anything else but labour matters should be discussed in such a context. With all the power at our disposal we shall have to resist any attempt to bedevil our labour situation, in the way the labour situation in other countries has been bedevilled by people wishing to take advantage of it for other purposes. It is not in my nature to issue a spate of threats, but as long as I am standing here, I shall go out of my way to reserve the labour sphere exclusively for labour matters. Anything else I shall have to resist with all the power I have at my disposal.

What about political reform?

If we do not do this—I am not threatening anyone now—we are destroying our country, and that we cannot do. Who has gone further out of their way then we have to create opportunities for co-operation in this very sphere, precisely for the purpose of preventing people from pursuing other objectives? We have really bent over backwards to create a labour situation which ought to be acceptable to everyone in this country. With a great deal of trouble we have given, and now we wish to receive goodwill in return. We have really given a great deal. We have offered goodwill, opportunities, time and a whole system. We have approached this matter with all the goodwill one can hope to display, and we have also done so in co-operation with everyone. If, after we have done all these things, there is still someone who wishes to upset the apple cart he will come up against the will of this side of the House to resist such an attempt with all the power we have at our disposal.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 7.—“Finance”, and Vote No. 8.—“Audit”.

Mr. Chairman, at this hour of the night I think it would be somewhat inappropriate to start a hot debate on certain of the major economic issues, such as the mismanagement of the money supply, inflation, balance of payments problems and things of that nature. What I should rather like to do tonight, in a very quiet and tranquil atmosphere, is to take as my theme the actual objective that is stated in so far as the hon. the Minister and his department are concerned and as it is stated in the estimates, namely “to establish and maintain overall economic and financial policies for the Republic”. I seek to debate with the hon. the Minister the long-term economic policies for South Africa and the economic philosophies which should be behind such a policy. I should like to put specific issues in order to test what the real economic objectives of the Government are in the long term and endeavour to debate the means which the Government will employ in order to achieve these economic objectives.

The policy of the NP has, of course, changed very substantially over the decades. In the days before the hon. the Minister was a member of that party, when he was busy with other affairs, that party was talking about the nationalization of insurance companies, banks and mines. A whole variety of activities formed part of the policy of the NP in those days. Over the years the party developed along a particular course. Part of that development is demonstrated in the Vote which we have just had before us by the very dramatic change thinking in regard to labour has undergone as far as that party is concerned. Today we find ourselves in the position that the Government actually alleges that it is committed to a capitalist concept and to a free enterprise and free market mechanism. I should like to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said on 22 November 1979 at the now well-known Carlton conference—

The challenge to the hon. the Minister of Finance is to debate across the floor of the House what he actually means by “free enterprise”, by his “commitment to capitalism”, by his “commitment to the market mechanism” and what he will in practice do as the hon. the Prime Minister has said “to apply the principles”, as he then defined them, to a greater extent. That is how I should like to conduct this debate.

If we look at the reality of the South African situation, no one can deny that there is a high degree of regulation. There are also many examples of State ownership of means of production. There are also many attributes in South Africa of what other people in other places might call a socialist order. That does not mean that I seek to convey that we are a socialist State in terms of that concept. There is also a web of laws which has created certain economically privileged situations for particular sections of the community, laws which I believe restrain true free enterprise. Certain sectors are, in the end, left to the operation of a degree of free enterprise, and that is the part that the hon. the Prime Minister and this hon. Minister normally talk about. There are, of course, many powerful lobbies in South Africa who advocate free enterprise. It is almost impossible for anyone in South Africa to dare to criticize the concept. Some of the free marketeers in South Africa go as far as to call for a repeal of all the laws and regulations which according to them inhibit, the market mechanism. Campaigns have been waged with varying degrees of success against such matters as rent and occupation protection laws and, unsuccessfully in South Africa, against such laws as usury legislation. Minimum wage laws and equal pay for equal work are opposed by some of these lobbies, even though we have wage determination which lays down minimum wages, and we have many principles in the labour legislation which ensure equal pay for work of equal quality, though not in all cases yet. If we look at all of that and we look at this powerful lobby, on the other hand we have in the Black community an endeavour to create an opinion which is utterly opposed to capitalism. Let me quote just one authority for that statement. Mr. Denis Etheridge, who was president of the Chamber of Mines, has said—

That is the Blacks—

That is capitalism—

So says the president of the Chamber of Mines. If one goes just across the border to Zimbabwe, Mr. Robert Mugabe addressing the Zimbabwe Economic Society is reported as having said—

I must say that I think we should determine what actually therefore is the economic system which we seek to advance.

The second point which arises from this is that I believe that the economic system which should apply in South Africa and which can solve the problems of South Africa will of necessity have to involve all sections of the community in a form of economic policy which goes beyond sectional and class interests and has as its basis the general interest of the community. I believe it is necessary to convince people that economic growth and progress are in fact the keys to the general interest. Here I should like to quote from what I think is a well known German document—

And, in fact, as the document goes on to say—

I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that that is a correct statement of fact of an existing situation.

So the questions which must be specifically directed to the hon. the Minister so that we can debate this issue in a reasoned fashion are how he defines the economic system to which the Government is committed, what the objectives of that system are and, if it is capitalism, free enterprise or the market mechanism—those three terms are not actually interchangeable even though they are used by Government spokesmen as being interchangeable—how he is going to reconcile that particular philosophy with certain aspects of the present state. Finally, he must tell us what he will do to create a situation in which the community as a whole will accept the economic system and its concepts of incentives, growth and joint efforts in order to have an economic system in South Africa which will be acceptable to all and which will in fact work. I think it is important that we should debate this. There is debate after debate in this House on constitutional matters and constitutional alternatives, but there is hardly ever a reasoned debate on economic alternatives, what they offer and which is best for the country as a whole.

There are some specific problems which I think we have to deal with. In the very short time available to me I just want to indicate what some of them are. Take education as an example. The hon. the Minister of National Education has committed himself to education of equal quality for all the races. By doing that, he has raised expectations which therefore must be fulfilled. They are what I think the American sociologist David Bell calls part of an action in a revolution of rising entitlements rather than even expectation. This involves the training of vast numbers of teachers, the erection of an enormous number of schools, the provision of equipment—one could think of a whole lot of things. Anybody who thinks this can be done by the stroke of a pen or that it can be done overnight obviously is not relating the issue to reality. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Yeoville so rightly remarked, the atmosphere in this House is too peaceful this evening for us to be at war with each other. I do not want to react in detail to what the hon. member has said, but I do want to refer to one aspect of his speech.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that the NP had effected certain changes over a period. I regard this as an admission from the hon. Opposition, in fact, as their admission of something which we on this side of the House have, after all, said so often ourselves, viz. that the NP is a party of change. When we say this, they do not always believe it. That is why I am delighted that the hon. member for Yeoville said this himself this evening. The NP is a party of change. The essential changes which have been effected over the past 30 years in this country have been effected by the NP.

The hon. member for Yeoville also spoke of “free enterprise” and I basically agree with him that it is of cardinal importance that the free market mechanism should work in South Africa. But what do we find? We find that as soon as the economic downswing begins, as soon as things begin to become difficult—and I believe that the hon. member will agree with me in this respect—it usually happens that the first industry which experiences problems immediately runs to the Government and asks for protection. This happens every time. We have seen this so often during the past few years. They always come and ask the Government for protection. Since the hon. member has now raised the matter, I want to point out that the private sector is also guilty of the suppression of the free market mechanism. I just want to quote to hon. members what Mr. I. J. Steyn, president of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, said recently—

It is things of this nature that are happening in general practice today. We know that this is happening, and I think that the private sector ought to refrain from distorting the free market mechanism in this way. However, enough said about that.

It is a heartfelt need for me to react this evening to a report which appeared in Die Burger today. Its headline is: “Landbou in Kaap kry hoë aandag”. I quote—

We are very grateful—and I am probably speaking now on behalf of all my colleagues who made these representations, and also on behalf of the entire agricultural sector in the Western Cape—the hon. the Minister of Finance and his colleagues, who are prepared to have this investigation carried out for us. It is true that the economy of the Western Cape is to a very large extent built on the industries mentioned in this report—the fruit industry in a broad context, but in which viticulture is also included. I am sure that this will cause a great peace of mind and satisfaction among the producers outside. We should like to convey our sincere gratitude for this.

In the time I have at my disposal, I perhaps want to become just a little technical and would like to say a few words about the White Book on the Estimate of the Expenditure … (R.P. 2—’81). I see that it is rather an expensive book to publish; its price is R10,40.

And how many people read it?

I am extremely pleased that the hon. member for Yeoville asked: How many people read it? This book contains a wealth of information.

It is not a best-seller.

On a number of occasions we have heard from hon. members of the Opposition that we have to be given even more information on the budget, and it is probably not wrong of them to ask this. However, the hon. member for Yeoville has just asked: How many people read it? Quite apart from how many people read it, I do not think that it is possible to squeeze more information into a publication such as this; if this were done, the number of readers would be even fewer.

Do not anticipate the committee.

I am not anticipating the committee; this is a matter we have already discussed in this House. Supplementary information is available to hon. members who want it. They can obtain it from the various departments. I think we must congratulate the officials who are responsible for preparing this bulky document. If one compares this Estimate of Expenditure with the previous one, which I have here as well, there is a great deal to observe for the person who reads it in earnest. I should like to refer to paragraph 2 of this bulky book, on page ix, which deals with “the form of the estimates”. When I read last year’s, paragraph 2 reads—

When I read this year’s, the paragraph reads—

I think this is a milestone which has been reached and I think the department must be congratulated on it.

In 1976 we started with a system of budgeting by objectives which was gradually implemented. This was part of the rationalization effort which was to be implemented in four different phases, and this year we have the pleasure of reading this paragraph which I have just quoted to hon. members. We really want to congratulate the Treasury. This is a major step forward and I think that from now on we shall be able to compare the figures of the various years more meaningfully with each other. Over the years of transition these figures were difficult to compare because there was a continual transfer programme. We should also like to wish them everything of the best with the fact that the internal rationalization of the amalgamated votes is continuing and will eventually be reflected in changes to the programme structures of votes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I had very high hopes when the hon. member for Yeoville commenced speaking that this debate would follow the line which he indicated he would like it to follow. I think that it is regrettable in a way that the hon. member for Malmesbury did not accept that challenge and carry the ball, so to speak. I too, in preparing for this debate looked at the programme description which the hon. the Minister has under his Vote in the estimates. I should just like to quote from that programme description. Under the heading of “Administration—Economic Policy and Control” we find the duties of the hon. the Minister set out. The first of these reads as follows—

Like the hon. member for Yeoville, I too believe that if we can direct the debate on this particular Vote along these lines, we shall be making a major contribution to …

Good idea, George. Give us your policy.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. member who has just interjected that if he would just listen before he made sarcastic remarks maybe we could all benefit from it.

Keep it quiet, George, quiet and tranquil.

It has been stated by the hon. the Minister in his budget speech that a major objective of the Government and his department is economic growth and the control of inflation. I believe that we have to hold the hon. the Minister, his department and the Government—not only in this debate but also in future debates in future years—to these national or financial objectives. As I said during the budget debate, it has to be a major financial objective of South Africa to attain an average growth rate of 5% per annum for the next 20 years. If we have learnt anything at all during this session so far it is that if we do not achieve this, South Africa is going to find itself in serious trouble. Because of our population growth and because of the demands which such an increasing population is going to make of the economy, because of the political and social demands, the position will be such that unless we have economic growth South Africa is going to find itself in trouble.

It has been said that economic prosperity is a major human liberating force, and I believe that this is correct. What is the use of a vote to a person if he is starving? What is more important to people is economic improvement, the improvement of their economic lot. I believe, therefore, that we should look at this problem in an objective manner. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister just how far we have gone in recent times towards attaining these objectives of increased growth. We all agree that we had a wonderful year last year when the growth rate was 8%. This year it would appear that the growth rate will be about 4½%. Bedevilling this is the question of inflation and I do not believe that the hon. the Minister has overcome this problem. He has tried to control it through the money supply and that is a plus point, but there are other areas which need greater attention. Mr. Chairman, we heard in the manpower debate that an important force to be used in combating inflation is well trained and well educated labour, which means increased productivity. But, Sir, I believe too many people place too much emphasis on increased productivity of the workers as affording a means of controlling inflation. There is another aspect of the economic structure which has to be looked at and that is management. We need increased productivity not only of the workers but also increased productivity resulting from better management and the better utilization of our available capital resources. All the input resources of our economy have to be better utilized. Recently somebody on television said that the management of companies and businesses in South Africa today was not as good as it could be or should be. I would go so far as to say “as good as it has to be” if we are to achieve the 5% growth rate that we have to achieve in order to survive by the year 2000. It is for this reason that I believe a large number of businesses today are re-examining their positions.

The question I want to put to the hon. the Minister in the five minutes left to me, to which we should like to have some answers, is the following: Just how much increased productivity has the Government achieved as a result of its rationalization programme? I ask this because at the present time the public sector is employing a considerable number of highly skilled people, possibly a too great a number when one takes into account the economy of South Africa as a whole. In fact, it has been said that something like 25% of our economically active Whites are involved in the public service.

The question I want to put to the hon. the Minister is, does it have to be that percentage? If we are going to have a rationalization programme, surely there must be some sort of pay-back in terms of increased efficiency? The hon. member for Yeoville talked about the complaint that South Africa was overregulated. In the United States today, where they are fighting inflation and trying to achieve more economic growth, one of the major objectives of the Reagan administration is deregulation. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is aware of this but if you speak to certain professional people like conveyancers, attorneys or even land surveyors and ask them what their experiences are in trying to get something simple done, such as having a piece of land subdivided and the title registered, you find that there is a tremendous amount of red tape that they have to go through. I had a personal experience of this in recent months.

On the Railways?

No, it had nothing to do with the Railways. This had to do with the subdivision of agricultural land. The application had to pass through about five different departments, a process which took months of paper-shuffling backwards and forwards. The surveyor said he received letters from clerks which indicated that they had no idea about the real problems involved. The point I want to make to the hon. the Minister is that there is an awful lot of paper pushing to and fro in Government departments. If we want to fight inflation and if we want to improve our productivity, especially in the public service, the question that has to be answered is: Has there really been a pay-back as far as the rationalization programme is concerned? This also goes as far as the collection of taxes. I have here a very interesting article which appeared in Newsweek of 18 August, describing a simple tax reform. I do not have the time to read it now but I shall hand it to the hon. the Minister. It is an article by Milton Friedman concerning the marginal level of taxation in the United States, the upper level of which is 70%. He claims that if the Government were to lower that marginal level to 25% this would reduce personal income taxes by only 13%. He says, however, that if one takes into consideration the additional income declarations that will result because of this, and also the fact that many people will not then have to find all kinds of ways and means of avoiding payment, a greater amount in taxes will in fact accrue to the State, while many professional people presently employed in tax avoidance schemes will be released far more productive activities. As he points out, some people are prepared to pay up to 50c in the dollar for a tax shelter in order to avoid paying high tax. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was quite correct for an hon. member to be called upon to speak as the hon. member for the Free State, for Free State is going to cause Transvaal to bite the dust on Saturday as well. [Interjections.] Northern Transvaal has already bitten the dust.

That was their third team.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat once again referred to inflation and the growth rate. My entire Second Reading speech dealt with those matters and I advise the hon. member to read it.

Underlying the broad tax reform which is at present in progress, I want to ask that further intensive attention be given to estate duty. I maintain this evening that most really wealthy people find ways and means to avoid a large portion or even the major portion of estate duty legally. Every year insurance representatives, bank managers, attorneys and accountants spend thousands of man-hours devising schemes and establishing family companies and trusts in order to avoid estate duty. This is time which, production-wise, is not used to advantage. What this amounts to in practice is that as a result of the combination of inflation and a progressive tax system, the so-called “fiscal drag”, estate duty, under the present circumstances, hits the ordinary one-man business, whether the farmer or businessman or industrialist, the hardest. These consequences are a grave threat to the continuation of the existing farming operation, commercial or industrial enterprise. It causes the disappearance of one-man operations and strengthens the trend towards the formation of powerful groups which could eventually give rise to monopolistic operations.

As a person who is actively involved in farming and well acquainted with fanning circumstances as well, I want to indicate by means of a few examples how the position of the ordinary farmer has changed in respect of estate duty during the past two years as a result of the “fiscal drag” to which I have already referred. Furthermore I believe that the same findings can be made in respect of the other one-man businesses. The first example I should like to mention is that of a farmer with the smallest economic farming unit of 1 000 ha in my part of the world; in other words, the assets of a deceased person which includes a farm of 1 000 ha, 1 200 sheep, 100 head of cattle and, for argument’s sake, does not include any return from life insurance, locally registered Government stock or agricultural bonds. Let us also, for argument’s sake, leave other assets such as vehicles, implements, cash, etc. out of the reckoning, for they play no part in my argument. A calculation of estate duty on the estate of such a person who was married out of community of property and was survived by a wife and three children, would in 1979 have been as follows: 1 000 ha of land at R100 per ha—R100 000; 1 200 sheep at R20 each—R24 000; 100 head of cattle at R200 each—R20 000. This gives us a total of R144 000 and in 1979 the rebates in respect of such an estate would have amounted to R175 000, and consequently no estate duty would have had to be paid. After 1 April 1981 the position in respect of estate duty changes as follows: 1 000 ha at R300 per ha—R300 000; 1 200 sheep at R70 each—R84 000 and 100 head of cattle at R500 each—R50 000. This gives us a total of R434 000. This year the increased rebates amount to R220 000, for which we are very grateful. Yet in spite of this, this leaves a taxable amount of R214 000. Estate duty on this amounts to R32 080. In other words, with the same estate, the same amount of land and the same quantity of livestock, the farmer would have paid no estate duty in 1979 whereas he has to pay R32 080 in 1981.

Let us take a second example. Let us accept that the farmer has 2 000 ha, which as a unit is not too large at all. In fact, in our part of the world it is a farm on which a farmer can make a decent livelihood. Let us sketch the position in regard to such a farm. In 1979 the 2 000 ha were calculated at R100 per ha, and this gave us R200 000. Then there are the 2 400 sheep at R20 each, an amount of R48 000. In addition 200 cattle at R200 each, an amount of R40 000. This gave us a total of R288 000, and with a rebate of R175 000 this left a taxable amount of R113 000 on which the estate duty would be R22 500. Let us compare the position after April 1981. Once again we take the 2 000 ha at R300 per ha, an amount of R600 000. Then the 2 400 sheep at R70 each, an amount of R168 000. The 200 cattle at R500 each, an amount of R100 000. This gives us a total of R868 000, and with the rebate of R220 000, this leaves a taxable amount of R648 000, on which the estate duty would be R168 000. Here we are again comparing once again the same estate, the same piece of land and the same quantity of livestock. In 1979 the estate duty was R22 500, whereas this year it is R168 000. I cannot emphasize these two figures enough. The amount in 1981 is 7½ times that of 1979, or 650% more. What is the position going to be next year, or the year after? What is the real position? In reality the fanner owns nothing more than he owned two years ago. All that has happened as a result of the depreciation in the value of money, is that land and cattle have become disproportionately expensive. On paper that farmer is a wealthy man. On paper many farmers are capitalists, but without the corresponding income. If this escalation in estate duty is not curbed at once, no son will subsequently be able to take over his father’s farming operation after the father’s death.

I know that when a couple are married in community of property the estate is halved, but how many marriages are still concluded within community of property today? Consequently the farmer is compelled to buy insurance in order to make provision for estate duty which has to be paid one day. Today the farming industry already has a heavy burden of debt, and because provision now has to be made for estate duty as well, by means of insurance, further funds are being channelled out of the farming sector, and this is neither in national interest nor in the interests of farming itself. Nor is it always possible to obtain insurance. I stated in the budget debate that inflation had become a way of life and that we should have to learn to live with it. In the light of the facts I have furnished here, I am absolutely convinced that the time has come to appoint a commission of inquiry to institute an intensive investigation into the advantages, but in particular the disadvantages as well, of estate duty, with specific reference to hereditary succession.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Smithfield most sincerely for his very clear exposition of the problems surrounding the question of estate duty, with particular reference to our farmers in the rural areas. I think he broached very important matters and I am sure the hon. the Minister will give them the necessary attention.

As an objective observer of the development of the Republic of South Africa during the past three years, one cannot but note that tremendous progress has been made with the development of physical planning in South Africa, and this applies to economic and other planning as well. It is the case that for the first time we have comprehensive planning for South Africa and Southern Africa as a whole, planning which is of a continuous nature. This planning is scientifically well-founded planning based on a specific policy. I want to mention one example. Let us consider the Office of the hon. the Prime Minister, and how the planning has been done in various departments there, how it is reflected in the Cabinet and ultimately in the country at large as well, and in the President’s Council with its various committees. I personally am very happy, because it is a source of great encouragement to my constituency and to our people in a border area which is part of the PWV area, to know, as far as our future development is concerned, that this is not based on ad hoc decisions, but that there is really continuous and comprehensive planning which is scientifically based on a specific policy, and that this can only be to the good for our part of the world and for the development axis in which it is situated and for everyone involved in it. Furthermore I want to say that no formula exists for the solution of South Africa’s problems and its issues, unless it is built on a sound economic foundation. I have here two documents from which I want to quote. The first is Hansard of 3 August 1981 where the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister appears in which he explains very clearly what the Government’s policy is in respect of decentralization. I quote (Hansard, 3 August 1981, col. 58)—

The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say (col. 60)—

This is an interesting speech by the hon. the Prime Minister from which I have now quoted. Then I also want to quote to this House the excellent draft plan for the physical development of the PWV complex for 1981 which was compiled by the Physical Planning Division of the Office of the Prime Minister.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Vote.

Very well, I shall. With reference to these two documents which I have with me, viz. the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister and this document from the office of the Prime Minister, as well as to what the hon. the Minister of Finance said during his budget speech in regard to the same matter, I want to state very briefly this evening that it is wonderful that it is being realized and understood that concentrations of peoples in certain areas can only be unhealthy and that there must be decentralization. Now we used to have an old decentralization policy of border industries, etc., which was not successful because the economic stimulus was not strong enough. It has now been announced that this will be accelerated to a large extent. In this regard I want to make a friendly request to the hon. the Minister of Finance to do this one thing and not to omit to do the other. In other words, this new development plan must be implemented with might and main and as rapidly as the economy permits. In those areas where there is already an infrastructure, the areas on the development axes which have been indicated, of which the Rustenburg—Middelburg axis is one—Brits is situated on that axis—we must first, or simultaneously, occupy those points which have not yet been fully occupied before we continue with the rest of the development plan. You will understand, Mr. Chairman, that it is not profitable if an area is only 40% occupied, has a complete infrastructure and the industrial area in question and the local authority have a tremendous burden to bear in maintaining that area, whereas if it were to become fully occupied, it would be to the benefit of the entire area as well as the township development there. Furthermore the Government will save a great deal of money if this were to happen. And then I am not even mentioning the normal development which will follow in the form of housing and schools and other services which will be rendered.

On this occasion I want to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance most sincerely for the part which he as Minister as well as his department have played in the initiating of this great plan. I trust that he will give special attention to the regions in which there is already development, but which have not yet been fully developed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brits had me a little worried, because earlier on we were both in the old Senate Chamber and I thought that perhaps I had come back to a debate on the wrong Vote. Having listened to the hon. member for Yeoville speaking in the Prime Minister’s Vote yesterday, I was in fact intrigued to find that there seems to be an alliance between the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Brits about decentralization.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on the subject of insurance and particularly insurance sales people. I think there is competition between them, the Receiver of Revenue and motorcar salesmen as to who are least popular. In the case of the Receiver of Revenue the antipathy is of a fairly long standing. In fact, if one goes back to the Bible one finds that in the New Testament there are fairly rude remarks made about tax gatherers, and so forth. [Interjections.] I think that, when one talks about sales people and particularly insurance sales people, many people have much the same sort of attitude. They tend to think they are underworked and overpaid and normally also overweight from having too many lunches. I think that a lot of the criticism that is levelled against them hinges on the way they are in fact remunerated, viz. by commission. It is often said that the commissions they receive are excessive.

In the short period of time available to me I should like to go into this question of commissions just to make a few points. We would never in a period of 10 minutes be able to debate whether the commissions at present payable are excessive or not and I do not think there would be much unanimity between us on that. I think that consumers are inclined to think that they should really get the products for nothing, while the suppliers of goods and services tend to think that they are giving them away virtually free of charge. This was in fact recognized by the first report of the Interdepartmental Committee of Inquiry into Certain Specific Pension Matters. Discussing commissions, they made certain comments. I quote—

Many years ago I used to write articles, among them articles for insurance magazines. I suggested then that there would be merit in adopting a commission system where commission could be spaced out over a number of years. Upon that suggestion of mine the request to write further articles in fact ceased! [Interjections.] It just shows that this is not a particularly popular subject. I do think, therefore, that they are correct in saying it is a thorny subject. Obviously the payment of commission must reduce benefits. There is no doubt about that. They must reduce the benefits that policyholders will ultimately receive, just as the existence of profits increases the cost of goods. If there were no profits, however, there would also be no goods, as the people of the Soviet Union have found out. The same argument applies, of course, in respect of retirement annuities. I am inclined to think that if there were no commissions paid to sales people there would be far fewer policies sold and, in fact, the general consumer would be worse off.

I think it is a truism that insurance is sold rather than bought because, if one thinks about it, what is the insurance agent really saying to you? He says if you die you are going to win; you are going to score. He says if one takes out a policy and dies after two years one has actually made an excellent investment. [Interjections.] Well, that is not a particularly strong exhortation really. Many sales people, however, have found that selling insurance is not easy, and in this industry it is well known that there is a very high wastage of sales people. I think the critical question though is the effect that the payment of commissions has on the benefits received by policyholders. The interdepartmental committee of inquiry commented, on page 32 of its report, that—

This is obviously going to vary from company to company. I telephoned a leading insurance company to ask them what the effect of the commissions would be on their particular series of policies and the reply I received …

Why did you not rather telephone McHenry?

No. If we assume a 10% growth in the fund, and we use maximum rates of commissions payable to brokers, and we assume that the total amount of commission has been paid and deducted from premiums immediately, the worst effect could be, over a 25-year term, a reduction of 7,9% in the eventual benefits received. In the case of a 10-year policy the reduction would be 4,28%. So, the figure of between 1% to 10% seems to be in the ballpark. The company said that because commissions were paid, the benefits to policyholders were reduced. This is obviously correct.

Sometimes it is also said that insurance is a bad investment. Let me say immediately that I think the first function of insurance is not so much to act as an investment but in fact to provide insurance against the contingency of death or disability. On page 26, in paragraph 351(b) of its report, the interdepartmental committee makes the following statement—

A little further on, under the same heading, which is of course not the only consideration discussed in respect of the transferability of pensions and annuities, they go on to say—

The problem I have, however, with this, is the following. Having looked at these figures, I think we are in the danger of falling into a trap here. It must be pointed out that in insurance an intermediary is only paid on results. If the policy is not sold he is not paid. If he is successful he receives his commission. This must be compared with the procedure adopted by banks, participation bond schemes and building societies because, although they may pay commission to their agents which seems to be very much more reasonable, it must be borne in mind that they employ salaried sales people to obtain their new business. If one looks at page 10 of the report of the Life Offices Association of South Africa one sees that they give their ratio of expenses, including commission, to total income. For 1976 it was 16,7%; for 1978 it was 14,2%; for 1979 it was 13,6% and for 1980, 14,5%. I think if one looks at the ratios of total expenses they do not seem to be too much out of line. In fact it would be interesting to compare them, which I have not done, with other financial intermediaries. Consequently I doubt whether the contention that insurance is a bad investment compared with other investments, is always true. I should like to quote some figures that appeared in The Daily News of 12 December 1975. I quote these figures because 1975 was the year when the stock market reached its bottom. I think that if one were to take figures now after there has been the boom in the stock market, one could get a false position. They looked at three situations. They looked at the situation where a 30-year old man takes out a 30-year policy, a 15-year policy and a 10-year policy at an annual premium of R600 and they compared it with the building society subscription share rate. Of course there were no building society subscription shares before 1963, but they projected the interest rate available at that time. They found that a 30-year investment with a building society would have yielded R33 797, whereas with an insurance policy—and they are quoting an existing policy with an actual company—he would have received R34 377. A 15-year term with a building society would yield R14 780 and an insurance policy R15 846. which is 7,2% better. A 10-year term with a building society would yield R8 407 and a 10-year insurance policy, R8 637. These figures are fairly comparable. However, they did not take into account that if one invests in the form of insurance there are certain tax incentives. I think the insurance returns are in fact relatively competitive. I think, and this is really the point that is worrying me, that we must recognize that the brokers community plays an important role in the economy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Eden vale made a very specialized contribution in relation to insurance and insurance salesmen. Today most insurance salesmen are very highly qualified, very well specialized and render an excellent service. Many widows and children are grateful for the pay-out received from insurance policies and these pay-outs have saved the liquidity of very many estates. There are many who can testify to that today.

*I cannot help referring to the hon. member for Smithfield. He said just now that Saturday was a special day for rugby. I can only say to him that he may consider himself very lucky that the Free State is playing against Transvaal on Saturday, and not against Eastern Province.

†I know that the hon. the Minister of Finance has enormous confidence in the future of gold, and justification for that confidence has been proved many times over. The hon. the Minister has expressed the view, locally and internationally, that gold should be given not only a key role as a reserve asset but that it should also be used as a means of payment and that it be used as a base for the world’s international monetary system. In the meantime an interesting situation pertains. The Americans under President Reagan are presently investigating the role of gold. The fact of the matter is that not so many years ago we were selling our gold at a price that the market commanded at the time, and that was $35 to $40 an ounce, and now we are receiving something like ten times that amount, if not much more at certain periods with the rise in the price of gold. It seems to be generally accepted that, if one looks at the price of gold now compared with, say, three years hence, then today’s price would probably be classified as being cheap. I am told that every $10 the price of gold increases per ounce is worth R200 million to South Africa. Let us assume for argument’s sake that one accepts that in approximately three years’ time the price of gold will stand at $1 000 per ounce—and that is not so very unlikely if one takes into account that it has already risen to over $850 in the past—then one finds that this is nearly $600 higher than the present price. It means that the revenue to South Africa in respect of gold will increase by R12 000 million over its present revenue. Knowing that in three years’ time, or even sooner, we could receive so much more for our gold, should we not consider further steps to protect this very valuable asset? I have no doubt that this is a matter that occupies much of the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance and of the officials of the department. I know the problems that we face. I know that we are compelled to sell gold for many reasons. A few of these reasons are for foreign exchange earnings and to pay the gold mines. In their turn the gold mines need the money to expand, to pay dividends to their shareholders and, last but not least, for the payment of income tax. I can therefore see that there are compelling reasons why we have to continue selling gold the way we are. In the meantime, however, we know that at times the Government has made other arrangements in regard to swop agreements.

I have a proposal I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. I should like to ask him to consider whether there is not a middle course which we could follow by ensuring that we limit the amount of new gold reaching the market. At the same time we must ensure that South Africa will benefit from such a limitation. It is accepted that there are institutions throughout the world—including overseas pension funds—which have an unshakeable faith in gold and the value of gold and in the increasing value of gold. Cannot South Africa encourage the formation of an international company with institutions and banks making a substantial amount of money available to the international company to buy up a substantial portion of the newly mined gold? South African institutions should be permitted to a certain limited extent to participate. The international company must have a firm agreement whereby it cannot dispose of the gold without the consent of the South African Reserve Bank.

In other words, the South African Reserve Bank would determine when and at what price the gold would be sold. Obviously, however, there would be a contract written into this agreement whereby the shareholders in this international company would be safeguarded and the South African Reserve Bank would have to sell under certain conditions and according to a certain formula in accordance with a certain price structure. Would the net result of South Africa’s intentions in this regard not amount to the fact that we would be able to restrain to some extent the sale of newly mined gold? I feel that this partial control in itself could be a stabilizing factor. The hon. the Minister, the South African Reserve Bank and the Department of Finance have built up international connections and I am sure that in consultation with these connections they could investigate the feasibility of such a scheme. With South African institutions participating, participation could also be allowed to a limited extent to other South Africans who are not looking for dividend income but for capital appreciation and also for capital protection. Obviously the amount of South African investment would not be so much as to have an adverse effect upon our economy internally. The amount of investment could be limited. However the thinking in this regard may be structured, I feel that South Africa should consider further ways and means of trying to stabilize the gold price. In this regard I realize that on world markets we are subject to factors beyond our control, but the very fact that South Africa which is the largest producer of gold will assist in launching a scheme such as an international company will, I think, be a reflection of the confidence that we have in gold and the value of gold. I am convinced that our partners in this venture would rank among the biggest institutions and banks in the world. The hon. the Minister and his department have the necessary connections with substantial international institutions to enable them to investigate the feasibility of such a scheme.

Mr. Chairman, I was interested to read an article in the Business Times of 23 August that a study was carried out by MBA students at the Graduate School of Business of the University of the Witwatersrand. The conclusion they arrived at was that South Africa’s developed infrastructure and sympathetic tax system made it attractive for foreign businesses as a tax haven. The study says that with the development of higher taxes in the industrialized world many countries have attracted income and investment as soft tax areas, and many of them have come to be labelled as tax havens. They say that such countries should be divided into pure tax havens on the one hand and those countries which merely offer foreign investors a sympathetic Government on the other. They classify South Africa in the latter category. The study goes on in some detail to provide the reasons why South Africa should be regarded as a tax haven. There is nothing in the article that is new to the hon. the Minister of Finance or to his department, but in view of the fact that there is the possibility of further decentralization assistance and we feel that that may be forthcoming, would it not be worthwhile incorporating these future concessions and the study, together with the facts that the department has at its disposal, into some form of booklet? Thereafter, could it not be considered worthwhile to make a tremendous amount of publicity internationally in order to show the vast economic advantages of investing in South Africa? I think such a handbook could be made available to South Africans travelling overseas and to people coming to South Africa at a nominal price. Naturally, the handbook would be circulated internationally as far as possible. I know that there is much documentation on the subject but I do not know whether there is any documentation specifically dealing with South Africa as a possible tax haven. In any event, after the new decentralization concessions are announced, which we hope will be later this year, they should be incorporated in book form. Naturally, there are many other mediums of advertising the positive factors of foreign investment in South Africa.

Some years ago we found that the concessions in Ireland were in fact better than the concessions in some other parts of the world. I hope that after our new concessions are made available, we shall in fact have the best concessions in the world. It is important that our concession package encourage heavy foreign investment both in South Africa and in the homelands. South Africa has so much to offer foreign investors; that is why we are so highly rated by experts throughout the world.

Mr. Chairman, I found that portion of the speech made by the hon. member Mr. Aronson in which he spoke about gold to be tremendously interesting. This is not as altruistic as it may sound, because we in South Africa are of course always interested in gold. In addition one always hopes that the gold price will rise, not only because of what it could mean to this country, but also the individual. If one considers the predictions—the latest system I have read about is the “Euro-currency parity system”—one finds that it is being said that by 1984 the gold price will be $1 000 and even higher. In view of that prediction one does not merely feel like recommending to other people that they should hazard their money on it, but if there should at some stage or another be an improvement in the social structure of members of Parliament, we may even think of making something from the increased gold price as well! [Interjections.] For that reason, Sir, I hope that the hon. the Minister will listen to the hon. member and try to encourage the gold market.

Talk about estate duty.

I wanted to refer to that, but the hon. member for Smithfield covered that subject so thoroughly that it can be left in his capable hands. Apparently the hon. the Minister is also giving his attention to that matter.

Two remarks were made tonight to which I wish to refer. In the first place the hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to company tax. I should like to refer to the same article as the one to which the previous speaker referred, viz. “The benefits of South Africa as a tax haven”. The last paragraph reads as follows—

This is the point I wish to make. We are already in such a favourable position as far as tax is concerned that I believe we ought to convey our gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his department for the system which we have in this country at present.

I also wish to refer to the statement which the hon. member for Yeoville made. He spoke about “economic development and progress” and said that this should be the watchwords of this House. It is seldom that I am able to agree with this hon. member, but as far as that point is concerned, I do wish to agree with him. [Interjections.] And while I am agreeing with him, I wish to elaborate on his statement and address an invitation to him. If we consider the South African situation today, we will realize that there are certain things which are satisfactory, and a few aspects over which there are differences of opinion. If one wishes to buy a motor vehicle today one pays particular attention to the cardinal points of the vehicle in which one is interested. If a girl wishes to impress the fellow who is taking her out, she always uses her strong points, for example her pretty eyes … [Interjections.] I think I should rather leave it at that.

We accept your expert evidence.

The hon. member is conceding that point.

In the present South African set-up we have a political system with which none of us are satisfied. The Opposition is not satisfied with it, nor are We on this side of the House, and we intend changing it. However, there is one thing we do agree on and that is that the capitalistic structure should apply in this country. We are all in agreement on that point. It is our strong point, and now I wish to invite the hon. member for Yeoville and his party to help us to propagate that strong point. Consequently I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether we should not consider doing this in an African context, instead of in a Western manner. We must point out that we are the most progressive country in Africa, that the literacy rate among our youth is 60%, against an average of 15% in the rest of Africa, and that our income is higher than that of the rest of Africa. I invite the hon. member for Yeoville to co-operate with us in this respect. We could even go further. We could make use of television and radio programmes for this purpose. Let us forget such matters as “equal spending on education”, and so on, which are being referred to here. The hon. member and his party will lose nothing by helping us to propagate the capitalistic structure, and I shall explain why I am saying this. The hon. member for Yeoville and his party say that we are the “fat cats”. But what is the attitude of foreigners to his party, and to him? I am referring to a report in The Argus of 7 May 1981—“Zimbabwe Radio hits at PFP as party of exploiters”. I am not quoting this in a sense of criticism, for in my opinion it is a serious matter. The report read—

It was also stated—

[Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member and his party have nothing to lose. The capitalistic structure is something we are in agreement about. This is not only what people from outside think of us; it is also what people think of them.

Who said that?

What did they say about you in the same programme?

I concede that they may think the same thing about us, but they also think this of those hon. members. This is the image which those hon. members are creating abroad.

Who said that?

That is why I stand by my invitation to the hon. member for Yeoville. He agrees with me that the capitalistic structure is the one thing which works in South Africa, and that is why I stand by my invitation to him.

Let us see how the system works. Prof. De Wet, professor of economics at the Rand Afrikaans University, had the following to say on 10 June this year—

We have a Minister of Finance who is trying his best to cause this capitalistic system to work. Let us therefore co-operate on something on which we are in agreement, and this is something which we have just admitted. Let us then propagate this matter, in the African context, to our neighbours, our closest neighbouring countries in South Africa, and show them that this system of ours can work in the African context. Let us forget about the “one man, one vote” slogan, which can create misconceptions, and concentrate on the system which the hon. the Minister of Finance and this Government as a whole advocates, and that is “one man, one job”.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vasco has called for our support for the capitalist system that he says is one of the things that work in South Africa. That is not a point I intend to pursue tonight, but I think that he should understand that a capitalist or free-enterprise system involves a great deal more than what we have in South Africa. If one thinks in terms of things such as the mobility of labour and the right to own property, and various other facets that are essential aspects of a free-enterprise or capitalist system, one finds that there are large areas for debate. [Interjections.]

Previous speakers in this debate spoke about tax havens and gold, but I plan to speak about something far more mundane, and that is the position of the ratepayers and local authorities in South Africa. I believe that the financial plight of many ratepayers in this country has become desperate. Throughout South Africa ratepayers are finding it increasingly difficult to pay their escalating rates accounts, and each year more people are being driven from their homes because they can no longer afford to pay exorbitant rates, even on modest houses. This, in turn, places a greater burden on the State, as many of these people then require subsidized housing. It is against this background that we need to assess the Browne Committee report and the budget proposals of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

When the Browne Committee report came out, the hon. the Minister of Finance was very enthusiastic about it, but generally speaking other people were not. I quote Mr. P. R. Nel, President of the United Municipal Executive, who in March this year said—

In May this year the Administrator of the Cape, Mr. Eugene Louw, said—

Both those gentlemen are Nationalist, not PFP, supporters. Both those gentlemen also had many months to study those reports, so their statements were not just sudden, off-the-cuff reactions. I believe that the reason why most people are not enthusiastic about that report is, firstly, because the committee itself had no representatives from local authorities serving on it, nor people with specific local authority experience. Secondly, the committee reported extensively—it had three particular aspects it had to investigate—on one aspect relating to efficiency and the improvement of efficiency in local authorities, but made few suggestions about additional income for local authorities. The key finding of the committee was I believe finding 10.13.29, which reads—

I believe that was the basic cause of dissatisfaction over this report.

Looking at the Browne report and the things that have arisen from it, I think there are a number of general unanswered questions. First of all, on 12 June last year the hon. the Minister of Finance in this House said that he intended to publish a White Paper in which he would formulate the Government’s standpoint on the recommendations. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is going to be a White Paper on the report of the Browne Committee or not. If there is going to be no White Paper, are we going to rely merely on ad hoc recommendations of the Croeser Working Group?

There is a second point that needs clarification, and that is that the report of the Browne Committee, in paragraph 10.10.2(c) assumed that financial relief of up to R17 million per year would be forthcoming from the central Government by way of subsidies which would be made available in accordance with the Driessen report. Most of the local authorities are extremely disappointed about what has happened in this regard, and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us at some stage in the debate how much was paid in the financial year 1980-’81 and how much is going to be paid in the current financial year, 1981-’82, arising from recommendations in the Driessen report.

I come now to the actual suggestions in the hon. the Minister’s budget speech this year. A number of specific questions arise because, despite the fact that he spent some time on it in his speech, he was not able to go into detail, and I should like to ask him for some more details. Firstly, I should like to ask him for more details on rates. Am I correct in assuming that, when the hon. the Minister talks of rates on Government and provincial buildings, he is talking of all buildings, including schools, universities and so on? Secondly, the hon. the Minister referred to R9 million already provided this year. Does that R9 million apply to the existing formula plus service charges, which is the way in which municipalities are partially reimbursed at present, or does it apply to something else which has not been mentioned? The hon. the Minister talks of phasing in the rates less 20% as agreed over a short period. I should like him to elucidate whether “a short period” is two, three or five years; what sort of time span is he talking about? As far as this financial year is concerned, what is the formula for immediate relief? If one takes the rates less 20%, is he going to be paying half or two-thirds of that, or what is the formula? Does it apply to the 1981 rates of municipalities or will it only apply in 1982?

Secondly, the hon. the Minister mentioned ambulance services. Are the provincial administrations going to take over full financial responsibility for these services or, as per the Browne Committee recommendation, will there be a subsidy of 87,5% of current expenditure on those services? What is the hon. the Minister’s policy going to be? As he will know, most Cape municipalities receive a subsidy of 100% at present. When the hon. the Minister use the phrase “current expenditure”, does that include depreciation and other factors? What exactly is meant by “current expenditure”? Then, as far as fire protection services are concerned, the Browne Committee recommended 40% of current expenditure. What in fact is he going to do in this regard? It is urgent, because municipalities are now preparing their budgets for 1982 and they need to know what is going to apply.

The principle of “give and take” is admirable in certain circumstances, but I trust that the central Government will not indirectly take from municipalities as much as it appears to be giving to them. I mention here, for example, inadequate reimbursement when local authorities act as agents for the central Government. For instance, the formula for the maintenance of low-cost housing résulte in municipalities like that of Cape Town losing hundreds of thousands of rand per year. In the case of Durban it amounted to an estimated R1,7 million. There is the question of squeezing provincial administrations financially, which in turn cuts down on local authority subsidies. Then there are unsatisfactory services provided by the central Government which then have to be supplemented by the local authorities.

I welcome the fact that the Government has rejected some of the key recommendations of the Browne Committee which show little appreciation for the financial problems of local authorities and ordinary ratepayers.

That is not correct, you know.

In particular, the comment that “there is no good reason for believing that property owners in general are overtaxed” reflects a view that it is out of touch with reality. I totally reject it because it is not a true reflection of the position of the average man in the street.

I welcome the proposals to assist local authorities and I welcome the fact that they do not appear to impinge on local autonomy, but I ask the hon. the Minister to give an undertaking that, once a basis of assistance has been agreed upon, he will not arbitrarily withhold payments from time to time as has happened to provinces with their subsidy formulae. The exact extent of the financial relief is impossible to estimate, but I ask the hon. the Minister to recognize the desperateness of the financial plight of many local authorities and the urgency with which relief needs to be granted.

The measures that have been announced are certainly welcome steps in the right direction, but much more will be needed. A further measure which should be introduced without delay is the exemption of local authorities from general sales tax. It would be easy to administer and would assist all local authorities. I urge the hon. the Minister to grant this concession immediately, while the Croeser Working Group continues to examine other ways of assisting the hard-pressed ratepayers of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.