Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

The Manpower Vote is an opportunity for the Opposition in particular to call to account the Minister and his Department for the work that they have done during the course of 1981. It is a matter therefore of deep regret that there is no departmental report available to members. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that this is very unusual for this Department, and I want to take the very strongest exception to the fact that we do not have a report before us. It makes our task if not impossible, at least extremely difficult. I hope the hon. the Minister will lose no time in telling this Committee why such a report is not available.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Dr. Van der Merwe in his capacity as the new Director-General of the Department. This is the first debate on the Vote since his appointment. His fame, if I may put it that way, and certainly his detailed knowledge of the subject concerned, have gone before him and we know that he will give a very strong lead in that capacity.

The third thing I want to say to the hon. the Minister is that I was very pleased to note in the Budget that funds voted to the Department of Manpower were increased by 22,8%, and now total R63 million. I was especially pleased to note that R7 million has been allocated to the Manpower Development Fund. This is good news, as I believe that this is the area that needs development very strongly.

I should like to ask a couple of questions of the Minister concerning, as it were, work in progress. Firstly, I should like to know whether he can give us any report or ongoing report concerning the commission he appointed to investigate the working conditions of farm workers and domestic workers. I want to take this opportunity again, as I did publicly when this took place, of welcoming the appointment of this commission. It is something which many of us have been pressing for for years in this particular Committee. It may not always be realized that there are about 2 million people involved under the heading of domestic and farm workers, and all of them are excluded from the benefit of our labour laws. It is generally accepted that they are the most exploited sector of the economically active population. [Interjections.]

You can’t be serious!

Of course. Mr. Chairman, I am amazed to hear the reaction. The Department itself is on record about this, and we all know that they are excluded from the Industrial Conciliation Act. Therefore they are exploited in so far as that is concerned. Hon. members do not have to worry; I am not having a “go” at the farmers. I am talking about a section of the population which is by law excluded, and therefore they are exploited. The same goes for domestic workers, and all of us are involved in that. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister whether there is any report to make in this connection. It is an urgent matter, and I think the hon. the Minister himself stressed this when he made his announcement, and it is urgent not only because workers have been exploited for so long; it is also interesting to note that there has been a movement towards the formation of unions for domestic workers, and towards the working out of pension arrangements for domestic workers. I noted with some interest that on the very day that the Minister made his announcement, a group of farm workers in the Transvaal were attempting to start a special farm workers’ union. There is therefore obviously movement in that area, and I am delighted that such a commission has been appointed. I look forward to some comment on that matter from the hon. the Minister.

Finally, as regards the question I want to put directly to the hon. the Minister, I should like to know from him whether any progress has been made in the removal of job reservation in the mining industry. Here, I suppose once again, we shall have an interjection from the spokesman on that side of the House—or does he agree with me that job reservation is something that belongs to the past? The sixth report of the Wiehahn Commission recommended the removal of such discrimination, particularly in the Mines and Works Act in relation to the blasting certificate, and the Government’s response was to say that it was a matter which in the first instance had to be looked at by the Chamber of Mines—the employing body, in other words—and the unions which are involved. The mining industry is the last major industry charged with the task of negotiating its way out of a grossly discriminatory system. The question which we in this Committee ought to ask is: Have the Chamber of Mines and the unions made any progress in the question of Black advancement, and if not, how long is the Government prepared to allow the present log-jam to continue? Obviously it would be far better for management and labour to resolve this issue, but it certainly cannot be allowed to go on indefinitely.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move now to the activities in industry generally, and particularly the incidence of strikes which took place in 1981. Without the report before me, it is not easy. I put certain questions during this session of Parliament, as did other members, and I shall be referring to them, but there does seem to me to be some confusion, if not conflict, in the answers that have been forthcoming. Therefore, if we could get the up-to-date facts and figures concerning strikes, work stoppages and the loss of man-hours and workdays, it would help us enormously. According to the Department of Manpower, there were 342 strikes and work stoppages in 1981, compared to only 207 in 1980, which itself was regarded as a year of major labour turmoil. However, in a reply given by the Minister in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Brakpan, the figures, as I read them, were given as 130 strikes and 59 work stoppages. This involved a loss of 1 812 434 manhours. Yet, in reply to a question which I put on 10 February, namely Question No. 58, in which I asked how many strikes involving Black workers alone had occurred in 1981, the figure given was 278, so there does seem to be some confusion here. What is clear is that this was one of the most serious years as far as strikes, work stoppages and man-hour losses were concerned, since that very famous, or infamous, year of 1973, when a very heavy strike-wave hit the country. As far as I can see, at least 92 842 workers were involved in strikes and work stoppages, the majority of whom were Black and the rest Coloured or Asian workers. This is just over 50% up on 1980, when 61 785 workers struck. These startling and I am sure worrying figures become more serious when one bears in mind that the official figures reflect only those strikes or stoppages officially reported to the Department. In addition, the figures do not take into account go-slows, overtime bans or other forms of worker pressure on management, which would not be reported to officials. It is also clear from the statistics that strikes are now lasting longer, which suggest that unions are better organized than they have been in the past. It is difficult to arrive at all the reasons for the strikes. The hon. the Minister, in reply to the same question I referred to earlier, did indicate some of the reasons. For example, wage demands featured very prominently. 126 of the 278 strikes involving Black workers arose out of wage demands, and in the case of the remaining 152 strikes, the following reasons were advanced: The reinstatement of dismissed employees—46 cases; the repayment of pension fund contributions—44 cases; demands relating to conditions of employment other than wages—29 cases; demands for the recognition of trade unions—11 cases; and various other demands—22 cases. Very clearly, higher wage demands featured prominently and will continue because of inflation and the rising costs of basic foodstuffs. The allegedly unfair dismissal of workers also featured very strongly. The publication of the draft Bill on Pensions caused a great deal of unrest, as we all know, and the withdrawal of that Bill affected the situation in a very positive way, but I do hope that this will mean that the Pension Bill will not be reintroduced. I hope it is introduced. I believe it has great merit, but very careful communication and consultation must take place with labour—and I stress that—as well as with management, because it involves them very directly.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment about the way in which one has to regard these strikes. The strikes are officially illegal—all of them. This suggests to me that there is a need for serious reassessment and that it reflects the inability of present structures to cope with the labour situation as it is today. Clearly, the new dispensation which has been ushered in, and which we all welcome, has not caused, in the early stages at least, conflict to diminish. It is perhaps inevitable that conflict would actually increase in the short term, but to use the label “illegal” in the hope that it will make the problems go away is seriously clouding the issues which must be addressed by all of us. Management’s first responsibility in a work stoppage is to get the strikers back to work, and then to negotiate to resolve the problem. Disputing the legality of the strike and especially the police action that frequently follows does nothing to resolve the underlying issues.

Finally, in this first speech today, I want to address the Minister on a matter of very grave concern. I believe the rash of detentions, bannings and general harassment of many union leaders and union workers has reached crisis proportions. I further believe that the credibility of the Manpower Department itself is at stake. The time has come for the Minister himself to act and the Manpower Commission to put this on the very top of its agenda. It may be that they have— I do not know. It may be that they are very desperately concerned with this subject. I would hope that they are, but we need to know that, because I believe it deserves such attention. It is foolish in the extreme to liberalise laws on the one hand and on the other hand to use the security apparatus to negate them. The actions of these two Departments seem to be completely at variance, one with the other. Harassment, I submit, only leads to increased militancy. All of us in this Committee and many outside have welcomed the labour reforms which have been introduced over recent years. Slowly but surely employers and unions have been allowed greater freedom to negotiate, but on the other hand the Police have detained unionists without trial, raided their offices and banned their meetings. Strikers have been arrested and sometimes charged under very tough security laws. The death of Dr. Aggett in detention and the hospitalization of Mr. Thozamile Gqweta and Mr. Sam Kikine of Saawu is not only tragic and wrong, but has dealt a severe blow to years of enlightened work by this Department. Prof. Blackie Swart, for example, of the University of Stellenbosch, has stated publicly that these and related events have cast “a further shadow over the credibility of Government labour reforms”. He added “Co-ordination between Government Departments seems to be lacking, to put it mildly”. One could quote from many other leaders in commerce and industry who are desperately concerned about this. It is simply not good enough for the Minister or his Department or the Government to say that it detains individuals and not unionists. No one believes this any more, and certainly not the leadership in the Black trade unions themselves. Their perception and their understanding of what is happening is crucial. Black unionists believe—if their statements in the Press are to be accepted, and in talking with some of them—that there is a deliberate vendetta against them. They are on record as saying that the Police are “waging war” on them. Employers that I and many others in this Committee speak to are concerned that detentions and bannings often rob them of anyone credible to negotiate with during disputes.

Detentions, bannings and general harassment are almost a daily occurrence in union circles, and every incident raises the temperature. Workers become restive and angry, employers are frustrated, and labour reform is dismissed as part of Government strategy to control workers.

I put it to this Committee that South Africa has reached a crucial stage in the evolution of stable industrial systems, and it is nothing short of a tragedy that it is being bedevilled by direct State intervention. Brutal and archaic forms of repression and victimization of labour leaders are hardly likely to lead to constructive co-operation from unions. It is estimated that only approximately 10% of Blacks are unionized to date. Therefore one can understand that there is an enormous potential for growth, and therefore constant competition and driving to form new unions and to recruit new members. When one bears in mind that we are talking about approximately 3 million Black workers in South Africa at the moment, one can understand just how problematic this can become. The situation, in other words, can only worsen if growing Black unions are given cause to believe that there is a deliberate campaign mounted against them by the Government. I want to make a very strong appeal today to the Government: For the sake of labour peace in South Africa, the Police must get out and stay out and leave industrial negotiation to management and labour. Further, all labour leaders and trade unionists who are now detained without trial should be released immediately, not only because the system itself is barbaric, but also to gain the confidence of the unions in general and to prevent the growth of militancy in South Africa. Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the Minister himself to identify himself with this call, and to this Committee to do likewise. The Minister’s Department and his own work are impeded and handicapped in this way. He himself is directly involved, and the whole of labour reform is at stake. In addition, the Minister has collective responsibility as a member of the Cabinet, and it serves no purpose to state that Police action is not a matter for this Committee, but that it is a matter for the Police Vote. It definitely impinges on the life and work of this Committee, and I believe, in concluding, that it is nothing short of a tragedy that the outstanding developments which have taken place under the leadership of this Minister and his Department and his officials should be impeded so strongly by action from another Department. It is extremely difficult to understand the logic, and I hope that we are going to move away from this in South Africa. I hope that the Minister himself will give the lead.

Mr. Chairman, there is an old English expression which states: “There is no success like success”. I think the hon. member for Pinelands will agree with me that this is really applicable to the Department of Manpower.

I thought you were talking about me!

Well, I shall come to the hon. member presently. What always amazes me is the large variety of people and organizations that one normally finds on the bandwagon once one has achieved success.

I think the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands today was really not one of the best speeches I have heard from him. The hon. member tried to make something of the few shortcomings and problem areas that there probably are in the labour field—that I accept. However, the hon. member totally neglected to say something positive about what is really happening in the labour field.

That is not true.

But it is true. The hon. member preferred to devote three quarters of his speech to what we may describe as the politicizing of the labour field.

That is three-quarters of the problem.

That may be so, Mr. Chairman. Let us look at the labour field calmly. The hon. member came forward today with the issue of the farm workers and the investigation that has been instituted. The hon. the Minister will deal with that, but I want to say that that hon. member sat in the House when, at half past two in the morning, we repealed the laws relating to masters and servants. The following year the hon. member was again present in the House when I asked on behalf of the Government that as the laws relating to masters and servants were no longer applicable, we should start thinking along the lines of a service contract in respect of farm workers, and that we should start thinking along the lines of a pension fund and a medical fund. The hon. member was there. It is not a new cause that he pleaded here today. The Government took the initiative.

You are just moving too slowly.

I shall come to that. I want to say that I do not really find much to object to in the rest of the hon. member’s speech, but I really do not think that the statement about the “brutal and archaic methods of suppression of trade union leaders” can be directed at this Government. This Department of Manpower is trying its best …

Dr. Aggett died, and that is pretty brutal.

… to help to train and advise as far as possible so that the Black trade union leaders—and the White and Coloured trade union leaders as well— can lead their own trade unions for the good of their own members and of the economy of South Africa. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to deal with this argument at great length, but the hon. member said that all the strikes were illegal. That is not true; there were legal strikes as well.

Which one?

There were also strikes where the leaders of the strikers tried, sometimes under the guidance of the Department, to ensure that when an actual strike took place, it would take place within the provisions of the law.

Please give us an example.

I shall come to that. During the past three years, after we had begun implementing the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission, the hon. member and his party said in the first instance that the Government would not have the courage to implement the recommendations.

No.

Yes, that is so. I can get the hon. member’s Hansard for him. It was said that the Government would not have the courage to do that. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. member can argue. We may still read it to him; he should be very careful. Even later, when we undertook the first implementation, the hon. member was very reluctant to admit that a change and reform had really taken place in the labour field.

That is not true.

It is a fact, Mr. Chairman. It took some time … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, what have that hon. member and his party been waiting for? They have been waiting for the following: They have been waiting to see whether the Government would act in a revolutionary and precipitate way and embody the Riekert Report and the Wiehahn Report in an Act, because then, if there were dissatisfaction, that hon. member and his party would have been ready to say: “Yes, why is there dissatisfaction? There is dissatisfaction because you have waited too long.”

No, you are being very petty now.

That is what they wanted to do. But let us assume that the miracle happened. Let us assume that we precipitately embodied all the changes in one Bill, and that we put it into operation, and that nobody raised any objections—do you know what they would have said then? Mr. Chairman, I know what they would have said. The hon. member would have risen immediately and would have said: “Yes, of course, nobody is raising any objections, because you have stolen our policy.”

Of course, yes. [Interjections.]

Do you see, Sir? But let me shock the hon. member now. This party, which I represent, is the only party in this Committee, except for the hon. member for Brakpan, that knows what it means to govern in a country.

No, you are making a mistake!

Yes, I withdraw that as far as the hon. member for Durban North is concerned. His party knew something about it in former days, but they have forgotten it. It was therefore of vital importance for the Government to accept its responsibility quietly and calmly and to proceed with the evolutionary implementation of the proposals of the Wiehahn Commission. I think the Official Opposition would very much like somebody to be able to say that the Government has thrown the labour field open. But, Sir, we have not done so. We have thrown open nothing. Basically we have decided on one thing, and that it is to depoliticize the labour field as far as possible. In other words, we have decided to introduce greater domestic autonomy in practice between the employer on the one hand and the employee on the other.

You changed your minds about trade unions for Blacks.

These are the facts, and we have succeeded in granting greater autonomy to the trade unions and their members, and also to the employer vis-à-vis the employee and his organization.

Black workers as well?

Yes, of course, Black workers as well. Mr. Chairman, I shall come to that. The hon. member must just give me a chance. I never interrupted him.

You did! [Interjections.]

Never, Sir. Sir, we were aware of the fact that if one should set about the implementation of new legislation and a new dispensation in a revolutionary way, one would have chaos, not only, or mainly, because our people are allegedly not ready for change—that is not the point—but because it would be authoritarian. One does not do that in the labour field. One does not act in an authoritarian way in the labour field. That hon. member and his fellow members of the PFP have no idea how many discussions had to be held with trade unions, with employers’ organizations and with individuals in order to establish the right orientation. Days and weeks passed. The hon. member for Brakpan knows about that; he was concerned with it. It was essential, and it had to be done. I do not think the hon. the Minister has ever fully informed the House of his and his department’s endeavours to convince people that certain things had to be done for the good of all and for the good of the economy of South Africa.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. At one stage, and today we may as well say it, the President of the Confederation of Labour, which is a mighty organization in South Africa, was busy voting against virtually every recommendation of the Wiehahn Commission. This organization had to be persuaded that in the interests of everybody concerned certain recommendations had to be implemented in practice.

I have now made some reference to the left side of the Government, but everyone present here is aware of the fact that the doubts, the fears, and the misrepresentations have not come only from the left side of the Government. The left side of the Government revelled in the fact that the Government might possibly see a few other sides of itself when the measures were implemented, but on the part of the HNP misrepresentations were made. They fought the latest election of 1981 by presenting a totally negative picture of what the Government had done in the labour field.

However, if one of the largest and oldest trade unions in South Africa, namely the South African Association of Municipal Workers, which is also one of the most conservative trade unions in the country, comes to the hon. the Minister on its own initiative and of its own accord and says that it is prepared to let him withdraw its last work reservation determination, namely that in respect of ambulance men and traffic officers in Cape Town, one realizes that this very conservative trade union has come to the conclusion that the other safeguards for the interests of its members which are embodied in the legislation are good enough, so that they no longer have to resort to something like work reservation. I do not think one can pay the hon. the Minister, his Department and those who were concerned with the reforms a greater compliment than precisely this, that the interested parties come to one and tell one that they understand the legislation now, that they have put it to the test in practice and that it works. I think that is important. Many people say that what we are changing now or have already changed originated in the National Party’s latest regime, i.e. after 1956. That is not true. Many of the provisions that we are amending now or have already amended originated in 1924 with the first legislation in this regard. They were perpetuated in 1937 and again in 1956. They are not something that originated yesterday; this is evolution. That is why it works.

I should like to approach this debate from another angle for a moment. I recently addressed a meeting for a colleague in Port Elizabeth. I am raising a very serious matter now. At that meeting a father stood up and told me that his son has gone to the Army for training for a period of two years, but that he was enrolled as an apprentice. Coloureds were also enrolled with him. Because the Government had now in terms of legislation allowed Blacks also to be enrolled, he was of the opinion that his son was now two years behind. Mr. Chairman, with all respect, it was not an easy question to answer. I think the time has come that the House of Assembly of this country should give attention to this matter—and we must not politicize it. The Department should also give attention to it, so that we may see how we can overcome this very difficult hurdle. One cannot escape the facts. That is a fact. While the position is that the Whites in South Africa are subject to national service, it is also necessary to give attention to this. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is something that should really receive the attention of the hon. the Minister and his Department.

There is something else that should also receive attention, namely unemployment. I do not think the unemployment situation in South Africa is unique. Not at all! I think South Africa is in the same situation as many other countries, namely that there is an unemployment quotient that we should like to see levelling off. I believe, however, that it is not only the Government’s responsibility to try to create employment opportunities, but also that of the private sector and every employer. What sometimes bother me is when one has to explain to employees why employers complain endlessly, while their statements are published in the Press and it becomes apparent that their profits have increased by between 40% and 80%, and, secondly, it is said that the productivity of the employees in South Africa is the lowest in the world. Recently we again saw a number of examples in the Press of people analysing, criticizing and saying how matters should be put right. In spite of this low rate of productivity it remains a fact that industry is flourishing. Profits and dividends are increasing. I am also productivity conscious and I am aware that we should be able to do better. We must remember one thing, however, and that is that when we are very critical of the rate of productivity in South Africa, we should also look at the material with which we are working. We have the problem that we are faced with an oversupply of unskilled labour. We cannot just tell these people that we simply do not have work for them. One cannot tell them that they first have to remain at a distance while we do have a few people who can, for example, drive a tractor or a lorry, and that these should be employed first. The other day I read in a Sunday newspaper that a large chain store had been taken over by another large concern. In this case between 500 and 700 employees were involved. Of course, like all employees who are breadwinners, these people were concerned about their future. They were probably under the impression that everything was in order and that they would be looked after. Then, however, the personnel manager declared by way of a Press statement that these workers should not be under the illusion that they would be retained in service. They would have to go. I believe that if, in the economic climate in which we are living, I today appealed on behalf of every member of this Standing Committee to employers to keep calm at this stage when it comes to terminating the service of or dismissing staff members, I would have the support of all these members. I think it is essential that our employers, in the situation in which we are, keep calm when it comes to terminating the service of their employees.

The hon. member for Pinelands referred to the many strikes occurring. He made a very strange statement, namely that it seems to him that strikes are lasting longer now and that this probably indicates that trade unions are better organized now.

To strike!

But then we should quickly start reconsidering whether we did the right thing in propagating and assisting with the formation and organization of trade unions, because if that is the case, we have probably gone too far. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half-hour.

In the first place I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Pinelands said when he congratulated the new Director-General: Manpower on his appointment and wished him all the best. I should like to associate the Conservative Party with that.

In the second place I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Roodeplaat said regarding the problem of national servicemen who have to do military service for two years and who have then fallen behind other population groups when they return to the labour sphere. In this regard I want to say that while I was still a member of the National Party my constituency referred a draft resolution in this regard to the congress of the National Party. This is a matter about which we feel very strongly.

Having said that, I want to join issue with the hon. member for Roodeplaat. In the first place he takes the credit for the fact that an inquiry will now be instituted into the question of farm labour and the question of domestic servants or that an agreement must now be concluded after the Act to which he referred has been repealed. The hon. member for Lichtenburg mentioned that the National Party had stolen the PFP’s policy from time to time. This is also an example, because the hon. member for Houghton referred to this matter as far back as 1974. Then she was vehemently attacked by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt.

It could not have been in this connection.

It was in the Agriculture debate. The second aspect on which I want to join issue with the hon. member for Roodeplaat is where he said the Wiehahn Report had not been implemented precipitately. He said among other things that the trade unions and all involved parties had been consulted. I have no quarrel with that. However, the most important body, namely the congress of the National Party, was not consulted in the first instance. I shall come to that.

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to that. At the beginning of my speech I just want to point out to the Standing Committee that at Pietersburg the hon. the Minister, and I do not know whether he was reported correctly, said the following, and I quote from Die Transvaler—

Note that the same connotation is given to apartheid and racism—

It does not surprise me that the hon. the Minister made these observations, because he, more than any other member of the Cabinet, has abandoned the policy of separate development, especially since he took over this important portfolio.

You did not have any objections then.

But not only that, Sir; I charge him with having, more than any other member of the Cabinet, estranged the White worker from the National Party. I think he realizes it too, because it is significant that in the recent stormy weeks he has been conspicuously absent from the workers’ constituencies in the Transvaal. After all, he is the Senior Vice-Chairman of the National Party in the Transvaal. If he had had any confidence in his ability to sway the minds of the workers, one would have expected him to appear in Koedoespoort, Brakpan, Germiston, Langlaagte or similar workers’ constituencies. I think the estrangement gained particular momentum not so much—and I am now referring to the point made by the hon. member for Roodeplaat—because of the adoption of the recommendations of the Wiehahn Report, but because of the way in which they have been implemented. The hon. the Minister will remember what is contained in the programme of principles of the National Party. I should like to refer him to sections 15.3 and 15.4. I quote—

The hon. the Minister will also remember that, just after he became Minister of Labour, he made the well-known statement that the labour field would in future be approached with just as much piety as, for example, Defence. Yet, without first obtaining the approval of the congresses, he went and made drastic changes to the labour policy of the Government. This step caused him so much embarrassment, and hon. members of the National Party will remember this, that he even had to have a film made to calm the disturbed feelings of the people. [Interjections.]

You are talking absolute rubbish now.

It is true. There is no question about it. I think the hon. member for Pretoria Central even hired that film.

State your policy now.

I shall come to that.

Are you in favour of work reservation?

What brought the estrangement of the White worker to a head was the reaction of this hon. Minister to my leader’s speech at Marble Hall on 16 June 1981.

Who is he?

Strangely enough it again concerned the concept of “self-determination”. I should like to quote the relevant part of the speech made by the hon. member for Waterberg at Marble Hall and declare that the Conservative Party accepts these statements.

Are you in favour of work reservation?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, will you please protect me? I have little time at my disposal. I quote—

The hon. the Minister revolted against these statements, which are a reaffirmation of the labour policy of the National Party, and even then nearly split the Transvaal National Party from top to bottom.

Oh, shame!

It is so. The hon. member for Alberton himself was angry with the hon. the Minister when he said this. Now I think it is fair that the hon. the Minister should tell this Standing Committee what his objections to these statements are. As a matter of fact, he felt so strongly about the matter then that he refused to support a motion of confidence in the hon. member for Waterberg. I believe that when the National Party’s ship sinks one day, the hon. the Minister will be remembered in history as the person who shot the biggest hole in its hull from the inside.

Having said this, I want to stress that the Conservative Party strives for labour peace, fair wages and the combating of large-scale unemployment, while we shall especially look after the rights and position of the White workers in the labour situation as well as in the social and political field. The interests of the employer will be duly taken into account. To this I want to add that had the hon. the Minister laid as much emphasis on a healthy immigration policy and on recruiting selected White workers overseas, in other words Manpower Recruitment 2000, it would have presented a real solution to the labour problem. I think the Department of Manpower should maintain a much lower profile and should only in the last resort enter the labour field as a completely uninvolved arbitrator.

[Inaudible.]

The situation in agriculture, which is now being interfered with unnecessarily, will be further examined by hon. members on my side.

Since the implementation of the Wiehahn Report the number of man-hours lost as a result of strikes and work stoppages increased from 84 464 in 1978 to 536 748 in 1979, 1 396 000 in 1980 and 1 812 000 in 1981. [Interjections.] These are the figures the Department of Manpower made available to me. They lead one to the conclusion that it is perhaps too idealistic to think that one can confine the labour field only to labour by means of new and modern legislation. That is why the hon. member for Roodeplaat said that we must take another look at this matter. One becomes even more concerned when one reads the article by Mr. Tony Weaver in a Sunday newspaper of 18 April 1982. At the end of this week a “Unity Conference” will be held in Johannesburg. It is said that the debate will centre around the question of whether trade unions ought to register, and the role of trade unions in political organizations that are tied to communities. This is the situation in which we have already landed ourselves. [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Minister should look at these aspects very closely. They give rise to concern. The Government should take great care that the labour situation will not be used for future conflict.

Finally, I want to say a few words about the closed-shop question.

State your policy now!

But has the hon. member not been listening?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. member’s party prepared to reintroduce work reservation, and what is their attitude with regard to Black trade unions and their registration?

Mr. Chairman, but I have not said that we are against it. We have associated ourselves with it, but we have added meaningful workers’ protection to it. The hon. member should know, however, that the ordinary worker has no confidence in that method of so-called meaningful workers’ protection. [Interjections.]

I want to go further and in conclusion say a few words about the closed-shop question. It is a fact that the trade unions play a prominent part, especially perhaps with regard to collective bargaining. Secondly, the Manpower Commission has found that no proven instances of abuse or malpractice have been reported to it. In the past five years there was only one case in which an appeal was lodged against the refusal of exemption from a closed-shop provision and no problems were experienced with the application of closed-shop agreements. Consequently the Manpower Commission decided to recommend to the Government that this matter of collective bargaining be retained by means of legislation which was passed this year. The period of 30 days for consideration has, however, been extended to 90 days, and this has already caused some unhappiness among trade union leaders.

Concerning the closed-shop question, yes; concerning the question of collective bargaining, no.

Yes, with regard to the closed-shop question. I think the hon. member for Roodeplaat will agree with me that problems have been experienced because the period has been extended from 30 days to 90 days. I want to ask that we continue to look at this matter with particular circumspection. It is important now that the Department pay a little more attention to employers, the training of employers in the sensitive area of labour relations and everything associated with it.

Mr. Chairman, let me say right at the start that it was with a great measure of disappointment that I listened to my former colleague, the hon. member for Brakpan. I thought it was the special privilege of the PFP to suck poison out of flowers, but it seems to me that it is a characteristic which is conferred upon the Opposition ranks in general.

What have we done now?

I gained the impression, moreover, that the hon. member for Brakpan, although I hold him in high esteem, has totally forgotten his knowledge of the labour situation in South Africa and has concentrated solely on negative speculations in respect of the whole issue. He said that labour legislation had not been submitted to the congresses first. In the process of that legislation being laid upon the Table he and his colleagues were members of this party and he himself was a prominent member of the labour study group. He enthusiastically helped to defend these standpoints for us and to bring them home to our people. Now suddenly he finds out that he can no longer agree with them. How must one understand such morality? What is more, the hon. member for Brakpan said that the hon. the Minister of Manpower, his Department and this legislation have been responsible for the workers moving away from the National Party completely. I want to deny this categorically. Where was the largest moving away of votes from the National Party during the last election? It was not in the workers’ constituencies, but in the rural areas and in the border areas where there are exclusively farmers and other people. But I do want to say, and I say this with respect, compassion and great responsibility, that with the agitating element which has been added to that side of the House, an unhappy situation will eventually be created in the ranks of the workers. If that is the tendency, it augurs ill for the worker and South Africa. The hon. member said furthermore that we have completely removed the White workers’ protection. He knows very well that in the new dispensation even more meaningful protection than ever before has been built in for the worker in South Africa, much more meaningful than work reservation, which in any case did not work in practice. Why then adopt such a negative attitude, while in practice he has helped to implement it and is aware of the relevant facts? [Interjections.] I want to appeal to members of the CP, for whom I still have great respect, that we should talk to one another on a much calmer and more responsible level about these things which are very important to South Africa.

The hon. member for Brakpan also spoke about the inquiry into agricultural affairs. I do not think he has acquainted himself with the relevant facts. I just want to read a few of the terms of reference of this commission to him. They refer, inter alia, to the extent to which existing measures and institutions regarding conditions of service meet the needs of the industry, with special reference to the employers’ need for greater security, the availability of labour and the contractual responsibility of the employees. This inquiry is being undertaken by the National Manpower Commission, which is a very responsible and specialized body and on which the South African Agricultural Union is represented. After all, one does not cut one’s nose to spite one’s face. I can continue reading the hon. member what their terms of reference are, terms of reference with which he will not be able to find any fault whatsoever. However, I shall leave it to the hon. the Minister to do this in due course.

I want to repeat that to me it is a very unfortunate situation that we find this kind of approach on the part of members on that side of the House in respect of a very delicate area, namely labour in South Africa, which to a large extent, especially in the White sector, is in the hands of Afrikaans speaking people. Hon. members must please not gamble with the future and welfare of the Afrikaans-speaking worker. I want to make a very earnest appeal to them. It is after all a fact that the Government is faced with an exceptional challenge in respect of the normalization of labour practice and legislation in South Africa. It had to deal with a unique situation here. The hon. member for Brakpan said that it was their policy that there should be less direct State involvement in labour relations. This is the very essence of the legislation the hon. the Minister was busy implementing during the last three sessions, namely that there should be a decreasing measure of State involvement in the labour relations system in South Africa. We agree that this is the correct thing. Now, however, we have been confronted by this awesome responsibility that we have to deal with an enormous component of Third World orientated workers, not all of whom have completely developed the sophistication and sense of responsibility, resulting from this sophistication, to use trade union machinery responsibly.

Some of them, however, have indeed reached that level of development, and to continue denying them the concession to bargain collectively by means of statutory organization would in fact mean that we would be inviting malicious agitators to this particular sector. In spite of this the Government has succeeded in doing what it wanted to do without there being any serious repercussions. The hon. member referred to the congress held in Johannesburg and said that we had not succeeded. Apparently we have now placed a dangerous weapon in the hands of the enemy. But what are the facts? At present there are 270 000 Black workers who are members of registered trade unions, in other words, trade unions which are operating within the statutory system. Those outside, and they are the ones that are going to hold that congress, say that they have 85 000 members, but we doubt this very much.

Now I also want to come to the hon. member for Pinelands, who spoke about the way in which we are destroying our own work by detaining and restricting these people. These are the interesting facts which I also want to put to the hon. member for Brakpan. Not a single one of these detainees is, as far as I know, an official of a registered Black trade union, but only of those unions that refuse to register. What does this indicate to us?

That makes it much worse.

These are the facts. What does this indicate to us beyond any doubt? That we are dealing here with people who are the victims of militant, malicious agitators who have no good intentions as far as the welfare of South Africa is concerned.

Bring them before a court.

I want to go further. I want to tell you—I am sorry my time is running out so quickly—that the Government has succeeded, despite many difficult and taxing circumstances, in effecting a measure of normalization in respect of labour relations and practices in South Africa. Not only has it to a large extent gone smoothly and without hitches so far, nor has it been done particularly with a view to foreign consumption, but it has also improved South Africa’s image in the International Labour Organization to such an extent that there is an increasing acceptance of the South African labour situation as being in line with the international guidelines that have been laid down and requirements that have been set. I shall come back to that later on. There will probably be an attempt to make politics of this as well. The fact of the matter is just that this is the one organization which is feared by responsible members in this House, on whichever side they may sit. They fear the day when this organization tackles us. In this regard serious attempts were made by the International Labour Organization to enforce an international boycott against South Africa. I am telling you that they would undoubtedly have bled us to death. We should have no doubt about that. But what is happening now? As I have said, there is an increasing acceptance. The hon. the Minister of Manpower saw the gap and took it. He appointed a labour attaché in Europe and one has now been appointed in America as well. Mr. Geldenhuys, a young man who is with us in this House today, has been working in Europe for some time already and the impression and information I have is that this man is doing absolute pioneering work for South Africa with regard to the normalization of her relations with the international body as far as organized labour is concerned.

And the hon. the Minister of Police is destroying everything again.

The hon. member for Bryanston should present himself at the SABC as a sports commentator, because he thinks he must constantly be talking. This young man is opening doors for South Africa that have always been closed, also in the diplomatic field. If this is not a plus for this Department, this Minister and the Government, I still want to see one, because, surely, only fools say to the outside world: “You can go to the devil. We have absolutely nothing to do with you nor do we want to be associated with you.” Even the superpowers seek friends and support wherever they can find them.

In concluding I want to say that this Government has succeeded in withdrawing itself from the labour relations system except for laying down the guidelines and creating mechanisms for settling disputes in case the parties concerned are unable to settle their disputes by way of agreement. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I want to take this first formal opportunity to congratulate Dr. Van der Merwe on his appointment as Director-General of this very important Department and to tell him that, as the hon. member for Pinelands has said, his reputation has gone ahead of him. He will have a very difficult task to perform as innovatively as his predecessor did, who of course had a very fertile field to work in. We believe, as my colleague on my right reminds me here, that a Van der Merwe is capable of performing extremely well even under difficult circumstances. We are delighted with Dr. Van der Merwe’s appointment and we look forward with great anticipation to future co-operation, such as we had with his predecessor.

I would also like to say that this party is extremely disappointed that the annual report of the Department was not available prior to this debate. We are aware that sometimes there are infrastructural problems in the production of a report, such as translation, compilation, printing and transport. However, in a debate such as this, in which one of the most important Ministerial votes is discussed, we believe that every effort should have been made to ensure that the report was available prior to the debate, for no other reason than that one is able to obtain information directly from the report, rather than to possibly waste the hon. the Minister’s and this Committee’s time on an interchange for the sake of obtaining detail. I believe that the hon. the Minister will take note of our request and ensure that this unfortunate circumstances is not repeated in future years.

There are two specific matters I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister. The first legislation was passed by the House of Assembly quite some time ago. We have modified the conditions and factors applicable to the Industrial Court very recently, in fact, as recently as this session. Yet I believe that the actual implementation of the function and the undertaking of the function of the Industrial Court has been fairly dilatory in the recent past. This court has a very important function to perform in maintaining labour peace and stability. However, from outside it would appear that there has been a considerable degree of dragging of the feet to bring this Industrial Court to the fore in order to perform its function. I would like to inquire from the hon. Minister what the problems are that the Industrial Court may be experiencing and what involvement the Industrial Court has had to date in the limited functions which it could apply in maintaining peace and stability. Regarding a present strike in a certain adhesive company with German connections in Natal, one reads for instance that they had to bring in consultants from outside to try to draw up a memorandum for discussion for peace terms between the warring parties, if I may say so. It gives one the impression that they have not availed themselves of the possible utilization of an instrument of stability such as the Industrial Court. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to be quite frank with this Committee and tell us what his problems are regarding the implementation and effective utilization of the Industrial Court. Does he anticipate that its functions will be greater, over a wider spectrum and more active in the near future? Secondly, I would like to tell the hon. Minister that his Department is going to have an extremely difficult job in the next three to four years in coping with the rising unemployment and underemployment of our labourers in South Africa. I believe that it should be added to the objectives which the Department has set itself, as contained in the Department’s memorandum or explanation of expenditure, where it is stated that the objectives of the Department are labour peace and stability, training and retraining and productivity and security, that the Department should be extremely concerned about the availability of work to the massive labour force in South Africa. I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether he or his Department has direct co-ordinating links with the homeland areas, the independent and self-governing ones. The reason why I focus the hon. the Minister’s attention on this, is to determine what the manpower employment needs are for this year, next year and the foreseeable future. If the independent and self-governing homelands operate in isolation in terms of manpower, planning and the creation of job opportunities, we are fooling ourselves that we are in fact fostering labour peace and stability in South Africa.

To show you how bad the position is at the moment and how bad it is going to get, let me explain something about the official statistics which were made available to us this very week. In order to provide for the estimated number of new jobs which the economy must create every year, we require an average growth rate in the GDP of roughly 5%. That 5% growth should provide 200 000 new jobs per annum.

However, if we examine the latest statistics regarding 1981, we find that the total economy was only able to produce 107 000 new jobs, in other words, roughly 50% of the requirements for the growing economically active population. What is quite disturbing, is to find that in 1981 the mining industry actually decreased the number of employment opportunities by 19 000. The manufacturing sector were able to contribute an additional 45 000 new jobs, the construction industry 9 000 new jobs and State and semi-State sector virtually had a zero growth factor. The State and semi-State organizations were only able to create some 4 000 new jobs. This happened in a time when the growth in the economy was estimated to have been a full 4,5%.

This year the economy is unlikely to grow by more than 1,5%. The question is: Where are all the new jobs going to come from? I believe that the hon. the Minister’s Department has a very specific function to thoroughly investigate and make recommendations through the Manpower Commission, or vice versa, in conjunction with the labour reservoirs of South Africa, which are the independent and self-governing homelands of South Africa, as well as the major metropolitan areas. This is in order to ensure that we will be able to cope with the growing expectations of these hundreds of thousands of young workers who are going to come onto the market and who are going to be disappointed because jobs are not available. In this regard I believe that the hon. the Minister’s Department, through the guidance and placement centres, could play a very significant role in correctly steering and motivating the young Black worker in particular to reconsider entering the secondary industry field and to rather focus his attention on the agriculture and labour-intensive fields outside the metropolitan areas. Once again I would like to repeat my specific question to the hon. the Minister: Does his Department or the Manpower Commission have adequate liaison with the independent and self governing area of South Africa?

In support of what the hon. member for Pinelands has said, I believe that we should make a very serious appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should do everything in his power to ensure that we remove one very dark cloud hanging over the recent reforms in labour in South Africa. I am referring to this vexed question of detention without trial of trade union leaders. We are not here to champion the course of those people that have been detained, but we are here to appeal to the hon. the Minister to do everything possible in his power, which is very considerable, to see that the due process of law is fulfilled and that people are taken to court.

Hon. members on that side of the House who recently went to Germany with me to speak to various Government members there, will remember the emphasis that was laid on this problem of not bringing people to court when they have been detained. I believe the hon. Minister will improve the conditions for labour peace and stability considerably by doing everything possible to ensure that these people are in fact brought to court.

Mr. Chairman, I do not blame the Department and the hon. the Minister of Manpower at all for the fact that there is no annual report. In the last two years they have had a tremendous amount of work and they have been completely in the open and in the spotlight. Therefore I do not blame them for the fact that there was no annual report. As this new legislation which introduced the new era is now in force, I hope that it will be possible to publish a very good annual report this year.

I took offence at the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Pinelands. What new method is this to come and complain to the hon. the Minister of Manpower about trade union leaders that are arrested. They are not arrested as trade union leaders, are they? [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that they are arrested as terrorists and saboteurs.

Bring them before the court and prove it.

That is what you are standing for here. [Interjections.] You are pleading for terrorists and saboteurs.

How do you know they are terrorists until you have tried them?

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Manpower and his Department. They have done wonderful work for South Africa in the past two years.

Why then spoil it with this?

Why do you want to spoil it now? I also have a quarrel with the hon. member for Brakpan. He made a statement here today which he cannot justify. He said that these things have not been before the congresses. I have often seen people as offside as he is today. The procedure is that something is sometimes accepted by one congress and then it goes, by means of the annual report of the federal council, to all the other congresses for approval. I wonder if the hon. member for Brakpan is not on the wrong track. I want to ask him to investigate this matter.

I want to talk to the hon. the Minister about the mobile training units and then I want to talk to the hon. member for Pine-lands about farm labour. I want to ask the hon. the Minister that these mobile training units should also be introduced for farm workers. The farm workers are of course spread over wide areas. In every large area there is one meeting-place—there is a school. The school is the central point for the farm worker as well. And let me say this here today: The schools provided in the rural areas, away from the towns and cities, are mainly the work of the farmers themselves. It is the farmers who build those schools on their land. They build them themselves and pay for them out of their own pockets. They also build hostels at an extremely low interest rate.

They can close them too.

I myself am in that position. These schools are the meeting places. I should like to see these mobile training units being used in co-operation with the agricultural unions and the farmers’ associations and being brought to such central points for training the farm labourers.

Mr. Chairman, for the information of the hon. member for Pinelands I want to say that I do not think the farmers are at all concerned about an investigation into the conditions of service and wages of the farm labourers. On the contrary, on behalf of the farming community I want to say thank you very much for this. There are things that can be solved by such an investigation. The fact of the matter is that the farmer is bearing the medical expenses of his workers alone today. The hon. member can talk to any farmer about this. If one of his workers in one of these vast areas is taken ill, the farmer has to convey him to the doctor or to hospital. In addition, the farmer himself has to pay the bill too. The farm workers are regarded as part of the farmer’s family, as his children. When a farm worker is stung by a scorpion, the farmer takes him to the doctor. There is no question of this not being done. He is treated out of the domestic medicine-chest. If he has been working on the farm for a long time and becomes too old to work, there is no pension scheme for him, but he is not chased away. He stays there.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few statements today. One of the statements I want to make is that inflation has passed the farm worker by. I am now talking of the vast areas and the Coloured population. I say that inflation has passed him by, because in these vast areas he has to be provided with food, with everything. Let me say to you now: The provisions of one farm worker for one month cost R15 in the fifties. Today they cost R60 per month. However, he does not pay for them. He gets the same quantity that he got in the fifties, but what cost R15 at that time now costs R60 and he is still getting it. I say that inflation has passed him by.

You are talking nonsense.

As far as his clothes are concerned, inflation has also passed him by. I am talking of the Coloureds now and I am talking solely from experience. I shall open my books to the hon. member for Pinelands. Clothes and shoes, which he himself cannot buy in those vast areas, have to be given to him. Many people think the workers do not get wages in cash. I want to say to you today that I am not worried about an investigation. The one that gets the least, gets R15 a month. The cash wages vary between R15 and R50 a month. That same worker has a lot of other privileges as well. Apart from food and milk, of which he can get as much as he wants, he can also keep animals. He can keep donkeys and horses, his own riding-animals, and he can also keep goats. Let me tell you today: In my area and on my farm such a worker’s earnings from his goats are a minimum of R200 a year. He gets a bonus every year, and every year he and his family are taken to town at the farmer’s expense to buy goods during the festive seasons. That is apart from housing and water. Then there is also slaughter-stock. Each worker gets one slaughter-animal a month. In the fifties a slaughter-animal cost R10, but today it costs R50. As for the karakul farmer, this is not the only meat that the farm worker gets. The meat of the karakul lamb is of a much higher quality than that of these broiler chickens, and the worker gets as much of it as he wants. This is the true position. I have a very big problem with my employees—they do not want to go on holiday. They used to go on holiday—they loaded their slaughter stock on their carts, took their money and went on holiday. However, they do not stay away for a fortnight, but return after eight days. They visit their relatives, but after eight days they return and say: “Sir, I nearly died of starvation”. For the farm worker eating means eating meat. The other things are not food. Meat is food. When he visits his people, they cannot provide him with meat, and then he goes hungry and rather comes back. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I will not follow up on what the hon. member Mr. Van Staden was saying. I have a few things that I would like to talk to the hon. the Minister about.

When we talk about labour relations, we are talking about one of the most important aspects of a country’s economy. I would like to indicate that clearly there is something wrong as far as the aspect of labour relations of the South African economy is concerned. I am hoping that it is something which can be put right, provided the hon. the Minister can be persuaded to take effective action.

The average annual growth rate per capita in the GDP in South Africa from 1972 to 1979 was a mere 0,21%. The figure for Japan was 3,35%, Israel 0,98%, West Germany 2,58%, the United Kingdom 1,5% and the Republic of China 6,89%. South Africa’s figure compared to the figures of these countries, who are some of our most important trading partners, is not very impressive. When one attempts to identify what the basic causes for this unsatisfactory state of affairs in your economy are, one normally looks at the various factors of production and tries to analyse them in order to identify the cause of the problem. As far as natural resources are concerned, South Africa has no problem. We have a small problem with regard to capital in that our local raising of capital through savings is too low and we cannot get capital from overseas in accordance with our requirements, because of our policies.

As far as the skilled labour situation is concerned, we can identify a particular problem. Let us take just one aspect for instance: In terms of industrial engineers, the demand in South Africa today is 3 000. There are only 500 employed. In terms of industrial engineering technicians, the demand is 12 000—there are only 1 500 employed. It indicates that in this particular field, as far as this factor of production is concerned, there is a very large and extensive problem and I want to come back to that. Associated with this is also the other factor of production, namely the availability of entrepreneurs. South Africa also has a large shortage of entrepreneurs and there is a direct relation to the shortage of skilled and trained manpower, because of the fact that entrepreneurs are the people who normally take the lead in providing such manpower.

In any normal economy the standard of living is determined by productivity per person. If we look at the productivity in South Africa between 1975 and 1978, the output per person employed actually dropped. South Africa was one of the very few countries in the world where such a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs arose. At one stage an 80% increase in wages coincided with a 2% drop in labour productivity, which was in fact one of the major contributions to the growth of inflation in South Africa. Dr. Jan Visser, who is the executive of the director of the National Productivity Institute, sets out the reasons for the low productivity being experienced in our country. Firstly, he says: “South Africans of all races are not productivity conscious. Productivity has not yet become a way of life of the South African society and productivity has to be a way of life if you are going to bear a modern technological industrial state”. Where does the fault lie? It does not lie with the workers, but with the Government and the employers. It is their joint responsibility to see to it that productivity becomes a way of life. Secondly, Dr. Visser says: “The major part of the South African population have not had sufficient or adequate education and are not well trained”. In 1970, for example, 38% of the males employed in South Africa had had no education, compared with Japan where the figure was 0,24%. The third aspect is the “shortage of adequately trained managers in South Africa”. I would like to emphasize that if your management is inadequate, if your management is understaffed, if your management is undermotivated, uncommitted and untrained, then you will have a shortage of skilled and trained workers and then you will have an uncommitted and unmotivated manpower situation in your country. The management is absolutely vital in this thing.

If the ratio of executives to total population outside the agricultural sector is compared, it is 1 to 26 in the USA, 1 to 11 in Australia, 1 to 15 in Japan and in South Africa 1 to 42. Here we clearly identify the very basis of the problem in South Africa. We are now going through a manpower revolution in South Africa. New legislation has taken off the shackles on our manpower development situation. Some industries and businesses—a small number—are excelling in that they take the initiative themselves. They do not wait to be instructed and they do not wait to be coerced into undertaking manpower training and development, but the vast majority have not yet made a start. There is a lot of talk and little is done.

The most important thing we have to identify is that the Black manpower potential of South Africa is the key to success or failure of the South African economy from here on out. Due to the inexorable urbanization process, by the year 2000, Dr. Smit has said, there will be 21 million additional Black people in so called White South Africa and it has been said that four out of five of all skilled workers will be Black. Now what does this imply? It implies that for South Africa our economic growth and well-being will depend on Black manpower and will be the very foundation and basis of our economic well-being in the future. What does that require? It requires a dramatic, almost radical new training dispensation for the Black people in the country. I want to mention two of the factors that are vitally important. Firstly, I want to mention basic education. This is where the hon. the Minister must say to his colleagues in the Cabinet: “I cannot do the job effectively if you do not see to it that every Black child in South Africa is given a far better education than he is having at the moment.” It means that the standards must undergo a considerable and rapid improvement as far as the education of Black children is concerned. It means that career guidance must take place from the earliest age and that aptitude determination must take place and that their education must be suited to these requirements. Secondly, it means that our manpower training in South Africa must undergo considerable and vast changes, particularly regarding the attitude of management to the essential need for training. This is particularly so with regard to new training policies and the establishment of an effective infrastructure throughout industry to achieve this. If the funds are not adequate, then the Government’s job is to levy the people who need trained manpower in order to see that funds are available. If industrialists do not comply after they have been informed about the need for training within their industry and do not meet the requirements, it is the responsibility of the Government to see to it that action is taken to ensure that they meet these requirements. It is in the final analysis the Government’s responsibility.

The responsibility and task is vast. If one looks at the EDP between 1979 and 1987 the growth in total employment will be approximately 1,2 million workers in South Africa. If one takes into consideration the normal wastage it means that 2,7 million people will have to be trained. Allowing for the re-training and continuous training of all people already employed, it means that by the year 1987 we will have to provide training in South Africa for approximately five million workers. This is a tremendous challenge and a tremendous opportunity, but vitally necessary if this country’s economy is going to succeed in providing for the aspirations of the people of our society. It is often said that increasing training and increased productivity will lead to increased unemployment. I want to say very briefly that that is not so. The EDP for 1979 to 1987 assumes an annual labour productivity improvement rate of 2,4% for the manufacturing sector. If a productivity growth rate of only 10% higher, that is 2,64%, is achieved, the labour absorption rate by the manufacturing sector will almost double as a result of the increased economic growth. You can double the absorption rate of the manufacturing sector by increasing its productivity by only 10% because of the improvement in the economic growth in the country as a whole.

The position is that with a growth rate of 3,6% per annum we will have 2,4 million unemployed people by 1987, i.e. 21,9% of the economically active population. With a 4,5% growth rate, there will be 1,6 million unemployed, i.e. 15% of the economically active population, and with a 5% growth rate there will be 1,3 million unemployed, i.e. 11,5% of the economically active population. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. members who have taken part in the debate so far, very sincerely and I also want to associate myself with the hon. members who conveyed their good wishes to the new Director-General, Dr. Van der Merwe, who is here for the first time today in that capacity to follow this debate. I want to say to you that, as a Minister, I am happy to know that, in the period that we are going through at present, in which there is a general shortage of manpower in the Public Service and in the whole of the country and in which one is concerned about leadership in departments—my own department is suffering from a very severe shortage of professional staff—I can nevertheless say that the work is being done in an excellent manner under the leadership of the present Director-General, as it was done under the leadership of his predecessor. I want to say that I recently had the privilege of receiving compliments on behalf of the Department for the excellent manner in which the Department has been doing its work under very difficult circumstances of late. I would very much have liked to read a letter to you which I received a couple of days ago from someone whom I do not know at all who praised the way in which the Department answered questions and assisted the public at a seminar in Durban. I forwarded this letter to the Department with my comments, on behalf of the Government, on it—and they were very friendly comments.

In the debate today, various questions were asked and observations made and I shall come back to them later. At the outset, I want to say, however, that, in the work which has been done, the Department, together with the Government, can look back on a couple of years and can say to each other that, in the last couple of years, we have really tried to lay the foundation for peace and prosperity in the field of labour in South Africa. We have tried with all the insight we could bring to bear and the co-operation we could muster, to set matters right in many fields in such a way as to guarantee the satisfaction of everybody concerned in the field of labour. We have tried, with the insight that we have, to lay the foundations for future peace and prosperity. If we look back, we can say that this period of rectification—one can also call it a period of progress and change—-is probably over now and that at this stage the House can probably ask whether it was successful. I think we can ask one another now whether it was worth the trouble and whether the results we have had, are the kind of results with which a government can be satisfied. In replying to this, I must say that we set an ideal for ourselves, an ideal that we want to achieve despite the difficult circumstances of the country, the difficulties that it has to contend with, the rapid growth that this country has to accommodate in the field of labour, the demands that are made from day to day, the rapid development in the technological and scientific fields, a South Africa that is far from the rest of the world and does not always have all the resources, but still has to keep pace in its performance and its enterprises. In these circumstances and also in a rapidly changing world, the Government also has to make provision for bringing together two worlds, the First and the Third World. It has to do this in such a way that the Third World people who are concerned in the matter do not have any grounds for making reproaches and cannot say that they are being left behind and that we are neglecting them. This is not an easy exercise and I know of no country in the world that is called upon to undertake this exercise. Only South Africa is called upon to do so, and I want to say to you that I believe that, if we have to judge by the relations that have been established, we have succeeded admirably in doing so. In order to achieve this ideal, certain functions have to be performed. There are four main functions that have to serve as the foundation for a sound future labour dispensation. I want to mention these four main functions to you. Firstly, we have to promote stability and peace in the labour field. Without stability and labour peace it is not possible to develop a strong economy and to sustain a strong economy. Secondly, we have to promote the training and retraining of the masses of this country, because, as hon. members have also indicated, it is simply not possible to man a sophisticated economy in the future if everybody’s abilities and skills are not developed to the highest level. That is why it is also one of our aims to develop the entire labour force of South Africa to the highest level in this field by means of training and retraining so that they will be able to perform the task. A third aim is to maintain the productivity of the labour force of South Africa at as high a level as possible. If it cannot be maintained at a high level, it will not be possible for an economy to compete with the outside world if its workers have a low productivity, because labour inputs are a very large component of the total labour cost. In other words, this is extremely important. Fourthly, it is necessary that the well-being and the security of the workers will be guaranteed and will remain guaranteed. We are living in a world in which our own workers are looking to the north and hear of 80 and 90 million people on this continent who are unemployed and also hear that a neighbouring state with 6 million people only has 200 000 people in meaningful employment. Now they also hear of 16 to 17 million unemployed people in Europe and America. They also hear that between 8% and 9% of the labour force, trained people, are unemployed. In a situation such as this there can be grave concern among people who look across the border and wonder whether they are not going to lose on this competition. For South Africa to have uncertainty because there is no security, is a very dangerous position and not something to concoct stories about across the floor of the House. We should rather be deeply concerned about this, because our whole security depends on it.

If I therefore say that these are the cornerstones which we have been trying to lay in recent times, I want to say to you that the basis for success can be measured by the way in which the private sector has co-operated in the last number of years, the way in which the labour force of South Africa has signified its agreement and co-operation and the fact that we have run a great risk in that perhaps we have not always taken the labour force with us in everything that we are doing. Time does not allow me now—the message came too late—otherwise I would have read, in reply to the hon. members on the other side, from a message from one of the largest White trade unions in which they say that they just want to let us know that they unanimously support the Government in the execution of its task. If I had permission to do so, I would have liked to mention the name of the person before the end of the debate. In other words, the success can also be measured by the way in which workers themselves declare their confidence. We can therefore say that the economy and the stability in the economy are themselves an indication of whether success has been achieved, and that the confidence, also in the outside world, in the economy of South Africa and the relations here is also an indication of whether success has been achieved. There is a stream of people coming from Europe, and when they arrive here, they say immediately that they heard the opposite and that a totally different situation from the previous one has been created in the country. These are things for which a country should be very grateful.

I, therefore, say that the manpower situation has gained a new significance in the administration, the economy and the total political situation of the country, especially in the intermediate political situation of Southern Africa, where various countries are interdependent. They also look at the labour situation to see whether they can expect any benefit in the future. Therefore, if we measure it by this, there has been a great measure of success. I maintain that the results have been dramatic.

Let us look at the first cornerstone, i.e. stability and labour peace. What are the results of the past two years? Stability and labour peace, measured by the participation of the workers in the system that has been given to them, shows the following: Twelve additional trade unions were established in this country last year. All of them were established in an orderly way and are prepared to co-operate in the system in this country. Last year 246 000 new members joined the trade union movement. They consisted of Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks; in other words, they did not come from one sector only, but from the whole spectrum. A new life and a new confidence have been created throughout the trade union spectrum. Hon. members who are interested should take a look at what is happening at congresses now and see how lively the agenda are and how different things are from what they were a few years ago. This field, which used to be an inactive one, has come alive. There is success in this regard. I want to continue by saying that, if we measure labour peace, it can very easily be expressed in terms of many things. If a question dealing with figures in a sensitive area is put on me on the Question Paper by the Opposition, I know what the hon. member concerned has at the back of his mind is to use the facts that I give him, against me in a speech here in the House. I am referring to the hon. member for Brakpan, who put such a question to me—I knew what he wanted to do with it and he came back with it today.

To create the impression that there are big problems in this field, is not true. The South African achievement in this field is the best in the world. I can express it in terms of a figure and then I would like any hon. member on that side to tell me that it is not only by far the best, but that it will be difficult to equal, now or in the future. How many people are working in our factories, apart from agriculture and the Public Service? There are 5,5 million people working there. Overseas countries such as Britain, Germany and others also keep statistics, and their loss of man-days, when expressed in terms of labour stability, is expressed in days lost per year. Which countries in the Americas, Europe and the East do not express it in this way? In those countries they express it in days per year. What is the South African performance? I say to you that it is dramatic, in spite of the insinuations that have come from the other side. Do hon. members know what we lost per man-day in our 35 000 factories and with almost 70 000 service organizations in South Africa last year? I feel like asking the Committee to guess what it was. The total loss per man-day among our labour force of 5,5 million workers, of whom nearly 3 million are Blacks and the rest are Brown, White and Yellow, was 4,8 seconds.

Hear, hear!

These so-called strikes were not emotional strikes lasting for days. One does not even know of them. If I do not tell you when they took place, nobody will know, because the Press does not even take any notice of them. Therefore, if we take another look at the four foundations, I want to say that, as far as the first foundation, namely the foundation of stability on the labour floors, is concerned, the performance in South Africa was a dramatic one.

Let us also measure the success of the past year in terms of the second foundation, namely the foundation of training and retraining. I repeat: The second cornerstone of our success is the training and retraining of the entire labour force in South Africa in order to make this country strong and prepared to perform its task in the economic sphere, and all population groups should be able to participate in that process. Likewise, it was dramatic. You know what the position was—we talk about it every day and the papers tabulate it every day. What was the situation in the past year? In the past year 1 440 additional contracts were registered for apprentices. The curve is rising so dramatically that I can tell you that, if the rate can be maintained for five years, we shall have a completely different picture in 1987 from the one that we have now. What is more, three to four years ago we had difficulties in filling the centres that had to train adults. Last year the increase—and I concede that it does not run to thousands; we count them in hundreds at a time—was 50% in one year. It was dramatic. In 1979, however, we trained 6 800 people in all the training centres where we have to train Blacks, both semi-skilled and skilled—this Department took over the task at the end of that year. What was the figure for last year? It was 13 400, i.e. it had doubled.

Furthermore, we have activated the whole of the private sector and we have told them that they have to initiate their own in-service training schemes. They have co-operated everywhere in South Africa. What was the performance last year? An additional 76 000 people were trained by the private sector in these schemes. That was dramatic too. They established their own big centres, from the sugar industry in Natal to SEIFSA in the Transvaal. How many additional persons were trained there? The centres were started three years ago and an additional 51 500 people were trained last year. A total of 133 000 more people of all races were trained in the economy of South Africa last year. Now tell me where this is equalled. I almost feel like saying to you that, with the training possibilities that we have, we cannot do any better, even if we want to. I say that this is a dramatic achievement.

Despite the other types of criticism that we get, I want to say to you that, as regards the third cornerstone of the foundation on which we want to build the economy, namely productivity, the progress recently made by us has been as dramatic. Everybody is talking about productivity. It is interesting to listen again to parts of my own speeches made inside and outside the House. I can tell the hon. members a lot more about this subject. I am very grateful for the interest shown in this productivity aspect of our economy. Productivity is indicated and, of course, promoted by the training or education of people. If a man has a good foundation, he is a productive person and you can make better use of him. In other words, the training we are providing is of great assistance.

However there is also another aspect that is extremely important, i.e. the selection, placement and motivation of workers and the whole management system and changing the management system. This is receiving attention. We established a small instrument, i.e. the National Productivity Institute, the other day. They also had difficulties in obtaining staff and getting under way, but today this Institute is achieving dramatic results. I could entertain you for an hour telling you what results have been achieved. For example in the case of municipalities they have been able to change the whole management system in such a way that greater productivity was achieved and also that people became available for other services. The results are there. They are working in the field of agriculture, the industrial field and all other fields. In fact, their results are so phenomenal that we are already beginning to feel the effect in the economy. Therefore I say that there has been progress on this basis as well.

The hon. member for Bryanston said to me here that productivity was the responsibility of the State. I want to say to you that that is not so. The State is doing the best for the fatherland. Do we not understand that we are in a free-market economy? We are not in a socialist State, after all. We are in a free-market economy. What the State can do, is to provide incentives, which it is in fact doing. The State can also initiate, which it is also doing. However, it is not the task of the State to look at productivity everywhere.

I said employers’ organizations and the State.

The Government is doing this admirably and we have wonderful co-operation with employees’ organizations. Is this not so? Have we not achieved these results?

I continue and I say to you that when we speak of the fourth cornerstone, viz. security, we can say that this security is wonderful. Of course the Government also has a contribution to make on its part. The contribution that it can make, is to look at matters such as pensions and benefits of workers in this regard. That is why the pensions for our workers have been increased from R300 to a maximum of R600 per person per year. However, when it is expressed as a figure, I want to say to you that in the past year the economy paid unemployment benefits to 24 000 fewer workers than in the previous year. If there is a growing labour force in a country and these figures decrease, it can only mean one thing: the management is improving. I could carry on in this manner, but I do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time. This success has been achieved because there is confidence in what the Government wants to do and because there is co-operation from all sectors in the country, despite the insinuations from this new little party on the other side of the House. There is wonderful co-operation from all sides, otherwise these results could not be achieved.

However, this is also being done in terms of a certain philosophy. The progress that has been made in reaching the most important manpower targets is completely in accordance with the basic philosophy and principles underlying the policy of the Government in this regard and I want to mention a few things. From time to time I have mentioned the following matters here, but here I have them in tabulated form. First there is the belief in the validity of the principles of freedom of enterprise, in other words, in freedom of association, also in the field of manpower. Secondly, a belief in the freedom of choice for workers, workers’ organizations, employers and employers’ organizations. Thirdly, a belief in free and fair competition. Fourthly, a belief in promotion and renumeration on the basis of merit. Fifthly, a belief in order and stability, i.e. in the responsible, disciplined and rational behaviour of workers and employers towards each other and towards the community and the country. Sixthly, a belief in maximum self government by employers’ and employees’ parties within the framework of a threefold system of prescribing rules, i.e. a system in which the power to prescribe rules in labour matters is, in the first instance, a matter between the employers’ parties and the employees’ parties concerned as well as the State, but with the implication of minimum interference by the latter, maximum decentralization of decision-making and autonomy for the former in matters of mutual concern and a maximum degree of consultation regarding matters of mutual concern. Seventhly, a belief in orderly and evolutionary positive adjustment after consultation with and discussion among all the parties concerned, in which emphasis is placed on the recognition and protection of the rights of individual workers or employers and of specific groups of workers or employers, on whatever basis they decide to group themselves. I think that as time went on we said to ourselves that these matters are important to us and that this is the basis and philosophy to which the Government has committed itself.

Before coming to the questions put to me, I want to reply to the question put to me by the hon. member for Roodeplaat in connection with the position of national servicemen. Hon. members will know that there is very great interest in South Africa in the position of our servicemen, because it is a fact that those who find themselves on the border are offering two years of their lives to South Africa in order to guarantee our safety. When they return from there, they have to start from scratch and to train for some profession. Those who want to learn a trade, have to undergo training for four or five years in terms of our trade legislation and regulations before they can become artisans. Over the years these people have come to complain to me and the hon. the Minister of Defence that they are under a handicap and that they want an improvement. Representations have continually been made to us in this regard and we have really given them thorough consideration.

The first concession we made was to make provision for someone who has done two years of national service to have his period of service reduced by eight months. The second concession we made was to give people the choice of doing their national service before or after their training. This was an improvement, but still not good enough.

I believe that young men who are doing national service for South Africa deserve a position of preference, not an equal position. Hon. members will recall that we passed legislation in this regard which makes this possible. I now want to indicate what further steps we are going to take. In addition to these first two steps that I have referred to, I am of the opinion that a third step is now necessary. Theoretically this third step already came into operation in November 1981.I want to outline it further now.

In terms of the Manpower Training Act, minors as well as adults who have performed their initial national service of two years can be trained in various trades at State training centres. There are four such centres at present, one at Westlake in the Cape Peninsula and one at Vereeniging for Whites, one at Kasselsvlei for Coloureds and one in Durban for Asians.

Instead of training taking four or five years as at present, training comprising the following will now be offered—

1. (1) Full-time intensive training for one year at the centres themselves;
2. (2) weekly allowances ranging from R35 per week to R60 per week (depending on the number of dependants) during training at the centres—in addition to training they will therefore receive compensation as well;
3. (3) board and lodging during that training period at a nominal charge of R4 per week;
4. (4) the provision of all necessary tools— and when these people have completed their training, we shall, with the compliments of the State, give them a complete set of tools so that they can start their careers with their own equipment;
5. (5) the provision of overalls;
6. (6) practical in-service training for a period of 24 months with approved employers after the intensive training at the centres;
7. (7) a guaranteed prescribed minimum wage while they are undergoing such practical training with, among others, manufacturers; and
8. (8) subsidies on travelling expenses when they want to go home during holidays.

The practical training takes two years, but if someone has attained the required level of proficiency after one year, he may sit for his examination and obtain his certificate. In other words, it is now possible to train such a person in two years instead of the usual four to five years—and then he still enjoys all the additional benefits as well. I think we can regard this as preferential treatment for these young men. I hope the thousands of men on the border and the thousands of parents and other people who are interested in these young men who deserve this preferential treatment, will be overjoyed at this.

I want to add, however, that our facilities are limited. I am afraid that we may receive more applications in the first year than we can handle, but we shall not turn anybody away. This has already been discussed, and it has already been stated that provision will be made in good time that, if young men come forward to be trained as artisans, we shall see to it that it will be possible for all of them to be trained.

I now want to come back to a number of questions and arguments which hon. members raised in the course of the debate. The hon. member for Pinelands said that hon. members of the Committee had not yet received the annual report of the Department. Perhaps hon. members have just forgotten that the annual report of this Department has never been available in time for the debate on this Vote.

No.

The good reason for this is that the figures which are to be included in the annual report, viz. those in respect of unemployment and accidents and many other kinds of figures, are just never available in time. The hon. member has just forgotten about that.

Why always afterwards?

They are of course tabled subsequently, The hon. member can inquire about that after this debate is adjourned.

Set an earlier closing date.

Let us be sensible now. The fact of the matter is that we publish an annual report and then consider it the next year. It is never in time for the debate on this Vote. The alternative is for us to furnish incomplete figures. That is simply what it amounts to.

Like the hon. member Mr. Van Staden, the hon. member also referred to the question of farm workers. It seemed to me as though the hon. member for Pinelands was not fully informed regarding the commission that we were discussing. We were referring to the National Manpower Commission. This commission was not appointed by me. The intention was not to probe into all sorts of dark comers as far as the farmers were concerned. The fact of the matter was simply that it was said that this matter was being brought forward for a very good reason, viz. to provide an opportunity to set certain matters right.

I have already made a statement in this regard. It must be borne in mind that it was not the intention to establish trade unions in the agricultural sector. Nobody ever mentioned the words “trade union” or talked about “wages”; it had to do with criticism that was continually being levelled at the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector itself asked me to have this matter investigated, but then a whole lot of poison was strewn over the matter and therefore I want to make a more detailed statement, a statement that has also been welcomed by the S.A. Agricultural Union.

The agricultural industry maintains employees’ organizations, as far as both farm workers and domestic workers are concerned, that differ completely from what is customary in the rest of trade and industry in South Africa. That is true. The nature and circumstances of the agricultural industry also differ considerably from those of commerce, the mining industry, the manufacturing industry and other services. There is, and always has been, a very sound relationship between employer and employee in the agricultural industry. Employees in the agricultural industry also enjoy a large number of privileges which are difficult to quantify and to compare with those in other sectors. These include, among other things, free housing, food, water, firewood, medical services and, in many cases, grazing for animals and fields to cultivate for their own account. To these one may add the argument of the hon. member Mr. Van Staden about the set-up in the North-Western Cape.

Moreover, the circumstances and the nature of the services differ from farm to farm, from one type of farming to another and from region to the next. The conditions in agriculture are therefore completely diverse. There is a great deal of ignorance outside the agricultural industry about conditions in the industry, which frequently gives rise to unjustified criticism. In addition, there is sometimes a lack of understanding of the special risks and particular problems in the agricultural industry. In order to get clarity about this and to protect the agricultural industry against malicious attacks, I instructed the National Manpower Commission to investigate into and report upon—

1. (1) factors influencing the determination of conditions of service and mutual obligations between employers and employees in the agricultural industry;
2. (2) particular problems experienced by the agricultural industry in respect of the availability and stability of sufficient numbers of workers;
3. (3) the extent to which existing measures and institutions in respect of conditions of service meet the needs of the industry, with special reference to the need of the employer for greater security and availability of labour, and the contractual responsibility of employees; and
4. (4) whether, in the light of the findings of the said investigation, there is any need for adjustments to the existing institutions and measures and, if so, what the nature of the adjustments should be and how they can be applied effectively.

The investigation must be conferred to circumstances in the Republic of South Africa outside the self-governing national states and must be undertaken in the closest collaboration with the S.A. Agricultural Union.

The S.A. Agricultural Union is highly satisfied with these terms of reference. The chairman of the Union told me the other day that they are very grateful for this and that they will give their full support during this investigation. Therefore nobody has to look for sinister motives behind this instruction.

I asked for a report, that is all. Do not be so suspicious yourself.

I just want to say that there are a whole lot of other people who do mean it like that. I also want to say to the hon. member that I agree that farmers are not exploiters and employees are not exploited people. The hon. member said that that was not the case. In any case, we leave it at that, because we do not have to argue about it.

The hon. member also asked whether we were making progress with the abolition of work reservation in the mining industry. As the hon. member will know, the fact of the matter is that the various parties concerned are negotiating about such work reservation as still exists. It has been said that this will not be abolished without negotiation and co-operation. Both these parties have informed me that progress is being made with these negotiations. I do not want to enter into this matter any further now, because I do not want to create the impression that I want to interfere with the negotiations themselves.

As did other hon. members, the hon. member also commented on restrictions and detentions. He then said that “the Police must stay out of negotiations”. I just want to say to him that I do not know of a single police officer who interfered in the negotiations. It simply does not happen.

What about the report in East London last year?

The Police do not interfere in negotiations. If any trouble arises in connection with negotiations, the Police are drawn into the matter, but I do not know of a single case where a policeman interfered in negotiations. It just does not happen.

The hon. member wanted to know whether my Department concerned itself with the matter. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order stated very explicitly that, as is the case with all these things, the necessary follow-up work would be done and that there would be prosecutions. Now that he has said this, the hon. member and I do not have to ask any further questions about it.

What happened?

I want to say to the hon. member that not one person who happens to be connected with the labour field was approached by the Police or was arrested on the instructions of this Department or in terms of legislation falling under the Department. These things must be separated.

You cannot.

The hon. member knows what the answer is. My department cannot interfere in the affairs of another department.

The hon. member for Roodeplaat made a good contribution and I agree with the remarks he made. I do not want to come back to the numerous arguments that he advanced in this regard. He did it very well. I shall come back to the question of unemployment a little later.

I was, however, rather surprised at the hon. member for Brakpan. He launched a bitter attack and made a number of irresponsible and unfair statements. In the first place he said that the NP congresses had not approved this policy.

No, I did not say that.

Of course he said it. [Interjections.]

No, I will show the hon. the Minister my Hansard.

The hon. member said that we had done these things without the approval of the NP congresses.

You did them first and then you went to the congresses.

I want to say to the hon. member that there was not a single one of these congresses at which I personally did not give a full explanation of what had to be done. Moreover, I want to say to the hon. member that when he was still a member of the Manpower Study Group, I not only gave my personal attention to his problems and questions, but also went out of my way to listen to him for hours. Surely he must remember that. I cannot remember that the hon. member experienced any problems with any piece of legislation that we wanted to pass, except for one thing about which he came to see me one day, namely the question of the autonomy of trade unions, which he could not understand clearly or could not quite grasp. I told him then that we should talk about it again. As far as the autonomy of trade unions was concerned, I went as far—and I wonder who has ever tried this in our country—as to invite trade union leaders, the hon. member and a couple of other hon. members to my office so that they, the people who did not understand, could ask these trade union leaders what their reaction was and what they were doing. We went as far as that and then the hon. member says things like these.

The things that we have done can be summarized briefly. In the first instance, statutory work reservation has been removed. I now want to ask the hon. member if they would reintroduce work reservation if they came into power tomorrow.

I have replied to that.

I want to ask him whether he finds anything wrong with our having removed statutory work reservation.

What do you say, Frank? Say “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.]

He cannot find anything wrong with it.

I want to refer to the second important thing that we have done. We found that we could not allow millions of people in the labour situation to belong to trade unions outside the system, trade unions that we knew nothing about, because that was dangerous. We then created an opportunity for them to be registered too and to become part of the system.

I now want to ask the hon. member if we should turn back the clock and eliminate this. What does the hon. member for Rissik say in this regard? Should we eliminate this?

You must make your speech now. Perhaps people want to reply to it. We cannot conduct a debate in this manner. [Interjections.] Surely you know the rules of the House.

I want to ask the hon. member a further question. When he was a member of this party, what did the Government do that he did not like? What did we place on the Statute Book that, in his opinion, was wrong? They cannot say anything. The hon. member had many opportunities over a long period to obtain all the details and to participate in conversations. There was not a single occasion on which he did not agree with these things. He agreed while we were talking man to man, in small groups and in the big group with each other. He agreed everywhere. One day, before Parliament was to begin, when he was my guest in Pretoria so that we could discuss all these things, he also agreed. They were my guests on more than one occasion. When we went to take a look at the places that we are opening in order to satisfy him about what we are doing, the hon. member and I sat next to each other in buses. And then the hon. member produces a speech made by a man who knows nothing about labour matters, namely the leader of his party, and wants to put questions to me on the basis of that speech, but in the meantime he leaves the country under the impression that he is now the champion of certain rights that we have taken away. That is the impression that he wants to create. I now want to ask him again what we have placed on the Statute Book that should not have been placed on it.

We have looked at all those things. [Interjections.]

Do I have to make a speech now? [Interjections.]

Just imagine, the hon. member says that I have estranged the workers. I have not estranged the workers. The workers voted for the NP because they have faith in it. I want to say to those hon. members that the workers are more behind the NP and what it is doing than the voters of Rissik are behind the hon. member for Rissik. [Interjections.]

We shall see at the next election. Ask the hon. the Prime Minister to call an election.

[Inaudible.]

I want to leave the hon. members there. In their bitterness they have climbed on the wagon and now they are completely unreasonable. Just the other day they still sat and applauded with us. Just before the election they went from platform to platform and told the people what a wonderful dispensation it was that the NP stood for. There sit the hon. members who during the last election said that one of the things we could boast about in South Africa, was the labour dispensation that had been accepted so wonderfully by the whole world. Now they turn around and attack us here. In any case, I want to leave them there.

The hon. member for Durban North put a question to me in connection with the Industrial Tribunal. He knows that we were busy improving the regulations. As far as I know the committee concerned, which also looked at the regulations of the Industrial Tribunal, has completed its work and will probably reach finality about the matter soon. The hon. member can be completely satisfied, as I am, that the Industrial Court, which, as I said in a previous debate on my Vote, initially was something new and a strange sort of thing that was not generally accepted, is now better understood, and also as far as the regulations are concerned, we have eliminated a whole lot of problems that we had in the past.

The hon. member asked us to investigate the question of employment. The whole question of employment, not only the employment of us in South Africa, but also that of Black commuters and contract workers, is constantly being watched by the National Manpower Commission and is being handled by the Department and existing committees that were established in the past year or two. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we already have interdepartmental committees as well as interstate committees in which we, the homeland leaders and also the independent states are represented and which give attention to these matters, that work is being done in this regard and that there is the necessary co-ordination and consultation in regard to labour problems, problems in connection with the provision of labour and future training problems. There is no need for the hon. member to be concerned in this regard. The situation is being looked at and dealt with in the broadest possible way. The interdependence between us and other states around us is recognized and also incorporated in the agreements that we have concluded with them.

The hon. member Mr. Van Staden spoke, among other things, about the question of mobile units. Such a mobile unit is an interesting type of thing. There are eight training centres. One of them, Boskop near Potchefstroom, is for farmers. Farm workers are trained here in a great variety of tasks. Hon. members will understand that this is expensive. There are many people working on our farms and we can never keep abreast in meeting the need. The South African Agricultural Union then struck upon the idea of forming a number of mobile units that would go from place to place so that workers would not have to be conveyed to training centres over long distances at heavy expense. Such a mobile unit, which you can almost describe as a laboratory and workshop on wheels, will visit a district for a period of six months in order to provide training. This idea has not yet taken final shape; it is still only an idea, but I believe that, with sound co-operation and the ingenuity of the farmers, we can provide a quick solution in this way, because we can obtain such mobile units at a much faster rate and at a much lower cost than we can build training centres. I hope we can take this matter further in the future so that I can report on it when we discuss this Vote next year.

I have already replied to the question of productivity referred to by the hon. member for Bryanston. He also referred to high-level manpower. The problem is precisely that we are not only experiencing a problem in regard to low-level manpower, i.e. untrained people that we have to train on a large scale, but that we are also experiencing a shortage of leaders, because there must be a relation between the number of people regarded as high-level manpower and the people lower down. It is for this very reason that we are paying attention to having this developed in a balanced way.

The National Manpower Commission published a report on high-level manpower. The hon. member should take a look at it. That report is of great value to us and the Government is using it everywhere in its planning, because it is the first really thorough investigation undertaken in this regard.

However, there are two other levels which this same commission is looking at, namely low-level manpower and medium-level manpower. I hope that when the Commission has finished with that, we shall have greater insight into this matter.

As regards the hon. member’s argument that the Government has to accept responsibility for low productivity, I want to say to him that it is the responsibility of all of us. The Government is responsible for it in the sense that it has to help to create the necessary instruments. I want to give him the assurance that we will help to create those instruments in future. It is important that the private sector should co-operate in order to help to promote productivity. If the private sector co-operates well with us, it will make a big difference, as has been indicated by what has in fact already been happening.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great privilege for me to speak after the speech made by the hon. the Minister, a speech in which he, above all, made the important announcement in respect of national servicemen.

The recommendations of the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions are changing the entire labour field in South Africa. And let me add at once: “Thank goodness for that”. South Africa could not have changed its labour approach more timeously in order to adapt to the ever changing world and especially to face up to the enormous challenges set by our economy.

Before continuing, I want to say a few words about the one man who, more than any other, brought about the whole revolution in the labour field. I want to pay tribute to Minister Fanie Botha, who, under extremely difficult circumstances, has displayed the courage and conviction to phase out work reservation gradually, especially now that there are delicate negotiations in progress about work reservation in the mines. He also contributed towards introducing a completely new approach to labour, training and trade unions in South Africa. Had it not been for this man, Fanie Botha, the fires of hell would some time or another have broken out over our labour force.

It remains a fact that it will not help us at all to win the war on the border while we do not have any labour peace in our mines, factories and workshops. In other words, victory on our borders depends upon whether we have labour peace in South Africa. Labour peace is very closely bound up with a strong and growing economy. If South Africa can maintain a growth rate of 5% per annum, there will be work opportunities for everybody who want to work, because essential work opportunities can then be created for the millions in South Africa.

An economic levelling-off, however, should it come, will necessarily lead to unemployment. Unemployment, again, leads to all kinds of socio-economic problems and eventually, in some cases, to crime as well. This, again, eventually leads to domestic unrest, which is the breeding ground for communism. Those who become unemployed are usually the weak worker or the semi-skilled worker or the poorly trained person. As the hon. member for Bryanston has already said, we shall find, if we look at projections up to the year 2000, that in South Africa approximately 20 million Blacks will compete with the White man, the Coloured and the Asian in the labour field. This necessarily gives rise to the fear—especially with the White man, but also with the Coloured man and the Asian—that the Black man will deprive him of his work because he is so-called cheap labour, or that the White man will eventually have to work under the Black man. These fears are substantial, but I want to say this here today, because I also say it in my own constituency, that with all the training opportunities and facilities as well as with specialized training, the fears of the White man are unfounded in every sphere. It means that the White man will have to train and qualify himself better all the time, because only in this manner will he be able to maintain his position of leadership in the labour field. In the future, however, it will in the first place depend upon himself whether he can maintain himself against the Black man, the Coloured man and the Asian, and not because his skin happens to be white. The cry that is raised is: “Equal pay for equal work”. Nobody wants to find anything wrong with that as such, but I rather want to put the emphasis on equal pay for equal standards. Herein lies, as far as I am concerned, the next component of labour peace. If South Africa trains people of all races, just because there is such a dire shortage of skilled labour—in other words, trains people like putting meat through a sausage machine—without the standard of training for all people being the same, we are heading for a major catastrophe. In this context I want to issue a timeous warning to the trade unions to take care in ensuring that the training institutions will see to it scrupulously that the standard of training is the same for all people. If we can succeed in this, I believe that we can compete with one another on an equal basis. This applies not only to the so-called “blue-collar worker”, but also to the so-called “white-collar worker”. This should also be the position—and here I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Bryanston—particularly in our schools, colleges, technikons and universities. If it is the case that in future standards will at all time count of our labour field and in any field, I do not think that colour need play any part at all in labour peace in South Africa.

Finally, I again want to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister said and pay tribute to the Department for their programme for adult training, in which provision is made for persons who are no longer apprentices but who are over 21 years of age, as well as persons who are under 21 provided that they have performed their military service as the hon. the Minister announced. After undergoing aptitude tests, a person is given intensive training for one year and then he is placed with an approved employer for practical in-service training for a further 18 months. The hon. the Minister went even further today and announced that should a national serviceman receive in-service training while he has the qualifications and abilities, the possibility exists that he may write examinations after only one year of practical in-service training. The most important courses which may be followed are those in respect of motor mechanics, fitters and turners, electricians, boilermakers and welders. The best-known of the centres for adult training are those at Westlake, where Whites are trained. This institution can accommodate 200 persons. In 1980 a similar centre was opened at the M L Sultan technikon for Asians, which is able to accommodate 80 Indians. In 1981 a similar centre for 100 Coloureds was opened at Kasselsvlei near Bellville. On 12 January this year the hon. the Minister opened a centre for 50 Whites at Vereeniging. The need is so great that the Department is already investigating the possibility of enlarging the existing facilities. Over the years literally thousands of adults have been trained at the various centres and placed on the labour market. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and his Department to investigate the possibility of establishing a training centre for adult Coloureds in Kimberley. I am convinced that there is a great need for such a centre in the Northern Cape.

Finally, as far as our farm labour is concerned, the accusation is made that we are neglecting the farm labourers and that we are not treating them well. This is perhaps due to the fact that our farming community did everything for the farm labourer in the past, as the hon. member Mr. Van Staden said. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, allow me firstly to express my gratitude to the CP for the fact that that party has come into being and for the fact that the Government is now doing something for the worker as the hon. the Minister mentioned in his announcement on national servicemen. In all the years we sat there, we could not convince them that these things had to be done, but the moment we entered the field on behalf of the voter, the Government was forced to do it. [Interjections.]

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

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister should rather sit down. If he gives me ten minutes, I shall reply to him. The hon. the Minister must tell me whether the Act was passed by Parliament before he took it to the congress. I am referring to the Act which the hon. member for Brakpan mentioned.

Which Act?

The hon. member should just listen when there is a debate in this House and then he will know which Act.

The Industrial Conciliation Act.

It is the Industrial Conciliation Act. That Act was first passed by Parliament. Do those hon. members want the congress to reject an Act that has already been passed by Parliament? Do hon. members want to persecute people about that? What nonsense is it to say that a congress must vote against an Act that has been passed by Parliament? I have made my point and I do not think that we should try to score points off each other.

Are you against the Act?

From 1948 to 1977 there was labour peace. Why? Because the worker was trained, somebody who was ready for the trade union movement. He was a person who had knowledge of his work situation and who bargained only for his work situation. What is the position with the Black trade unions? The Black trade union consists mainly of people who have entered a new work situation and who are in a new bargaining situation. One cannot really imagine that such a worker will not also bring in his political aspirations in these circumstances, although we know that it is quite wrong to combine trade unionism and politics in the same situation. We have said, however, that we are dealing with the Third World, but now we have to be careful. We have to be careful what we do with the trade unions and we have to be careful where trade unions are established. We must be careful how fast those trade unions are established and how fast we push them into a field where our security situation in the country is involved.

Are you against the Black trade unions?

I think that hon. member should put on his little AWB shirt so that he can show us something.

Are you against Black trade unions?

The fact remains that the Black worker, where he finds himself in a trade union situation, finds himself on a big breeding-ground of political unrest for the first time.

Are you against Black trade unions?

The fact remains that we have to be careful. Our Police are occupied on the borders and we are experiencing terrorism throughout the country. As the hon. member said, we should not interfere unnecessarily. If we should establish a trade union today …

Which trade union was established by Government? Just mention one.

I just do not want the Government to interfere in the situation in which the domestic servant and his employer find themselves. The Government should keep out of matters that have not been brought forward by domestic servants.

Which trade union was created by the Government?

The hon. the Minister must first give me a chance. We must not become excited.

You may just refer to one.

We must not become excited.

There are 200. Which one was created by the Government?

The point I want to make is that the Government interferes between the worker and his employer. The Government appoints commissions and even investigates where people have not complained.

Such as which commission?

The hon. the Minister must please give me a chance. He had a long time to speak. The only person who spoke about domestic servants was Donna Wurzel and she asked for a pension scheme for those people. Thereafter the Government fell in with that and wanted to investigate it. Now, however, the Government goes further and—as far as I can see— the State is interfering between the employer and the worker, but we should stay out of this.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member made a very good speech on labour.

We have nothing to hide.

That is so. That hon. member treats his servants very well and we heard it ourselves today. We can understand that somebody like that hon. member is concerned about a labour situation. That hon. member has done a great deal in the political field in his life. He knows politics and he also knows that the things with which the Government is busy now, are going to cause big problems. The Government must not fall into a trap—as a result of legislation that is adopted in the neighbouring states—that we place our Security Police in a situation where they cannot do their work without other people pointing their fingers at them. We must organize our labour situation in such a way …

But you say we should not interfere.

The trade unions and other organizations should be left in peace to do their work. The Government should not poke its nose in everywhere and investigate matters. I want to ask the hon. the Minister which domestic servants complained that they were being treated badly.

I thought you said the trade unions should be left in peace.

The hon. member for Sasolburg must just give me an opportunity. I see he says we must not read what was written by the NP in the past. I think he has a good point.

Do you want to form a Government with such a man?

I was in the Government for years and that hon. Minister often tried to get me to support him. That is a great truth. There is only one situation which I think contains a real element of danger in the cities for the country and that is when organizations establish trade unions among workers such as domestic servants, in the cities and throughout the country, which provide a fertile breeding-ground for people who want to incite others and to others who want to do mischief. Therefore I say to the Government: Stay out of this field. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Langlaagte was very clearly rather out of his depth on this subject. He is apparently opposed to certain Acts, but at no stage could he tell us which Acts he is opposed to. I do not think he will be able to tell us which Acts he is opposed to either, as he is busy with generalizations as in the case of many of the arguments put forward by members on the other side of the House. It is suggested that the Government is responsible for the establishment or creation of trade unions, but that is a nonsensical argument. Trade unions or any association comes into being as a result of the natural association of people within any community, whether it is a working community, a sporting community or a political community. The CP came into being as a result of their association with one another because they deemed it necessary to establish a political party. To suggest that the Government is responsible for the establishment of associations which result in the formation of trade unions is a completely nonsensical argument. Trade unions came into being long before the Government recognized such trade unions. I want to ask the hon. member whether he agrees that trade unions that are not controlled and not recognized can be a greater source of problems and difficulties than a trade union which has been brought into the open and which is subject to certain control measures and which has been placed in a bargaining position by means of legislation so that they can enter into a discussion with their employer. Does the hon. member want these people to scheme underground continuously? He must tell us whether he wants the trade union movement in South-Africa to become involved in underground scheming in the dark or whether it should enjoy the recognition of the Government and employers. For any management to be able to judge, information must be obtained at some stage or other. If the Government should find it necessary to make certain decisions about specific circumstances, it must gather certain information, but then the hon. member must not say that the Government is interfering, also where it is not necessary. I believe that if there is unnecessary interference, it is the CP itself that is interfering unnecessarily where they have no business to interfere.

I do, however, want to address a word of thanks to my neighbour, the hon. member for Brakpan. When we entered the 1981 election, I was a very junior backbencher in the Provincial Council. A small group of trade union leaders asked me to come and speak to them one evening. However, I did not consider myself equal to the task, but I felt that there was a way out, because I could ask my friend, Uncle Frank, to do it for me. He did so and I am very grateful to him for that. He did it so well that evening …

I had to defend like anything that evening!

… he explained the Goverment’s policy and standpoint so well that evening that I gained five very good workers for that election. Thank you very much, Uncle Frank, I shall always remember that.

Then you chased me out.

No, Uncle Frank, you chased yourself out.

Then you threw me out.

I should like to speak about the biggest source of energy in any industry, i.e., the top management. Every entrepreneur has a few basic production factors that he uses to establish his business and to achieve his aim, namely to make a profit. He needs capital, equipment and raw materials, but he also needs labour. Management is probably the most important of all these elements, because without management that can plan and that can determine strategies, that can control and co-ordinate, he cannot achieve his aims. Investing in management is the cheapest investment any entrepreneur can make. The right investment in the right person is the most important and most profitable investment that can be made. To my mind there is no single factor that can have a greater influence on productivity than management. It is true that South Africa has a low productivity figure. This applies not only to labour, but also to capital. Our experience is that the productivity of each unit invested in capital, is even lower than that in the labour field. Increased productivity is absolutely essential for the economic future of South Africa. In South Africa we observed the interesting trend that when we want to increase production, we simply employ more people. We have such a large reserve of workers that we do not have to increase the production per person, as we simply employ more people. If by doing that we can achieve our national goals as regards the provision of employment and can eliminate backlogs, it is in order, but in the process we should also try to increase the productivity of the worker. It is a fact that in South Africa the industries have become more and more capital-intensive as a result of incentive mechanisms in the form of concessions in respect of investment in machinery, etc. Over against this wages in South Africa increased and we have therefore had two contrasting factors, i.e. low rates of interest and concessions in respect of capital expenditure, and an increase in wages without a corresponding increase in productivity, which has had a substantial influence on the employment pattern in South Africa. It is also true that the increase in capital expenditure has not led to increased production. This state of affairs may be attributed to our top and senior management.

Management tend to think that they have performed their function when they have mechanized and automated, because then— so they think—they can sit back and wait for the results. The fact of the matter is, however, that when automation and mechanization have been introduced, that is the very time when managerial skill is required, because managerial skill is very closely related to the way in which the manager is capable of managing the capital. I am afraid that we have a very big problem in South Africa in this regard. In South Africa we are making tremendous efforts to train our workers to a greater extent. We are busy making our technicians even more sophisticated, and in this process greater challenges are set to our management corps, because these people have to be equipped in order to be able to employ these trained workers and the sophisticated technicians in an orderly fashion to increase our production accordingly and, by so doing, to combat rising costs and inflation. Managers must at all times remain aware of changed circumstances and methods. We in South Africa must take note of the fact that the trends in other industrialized countries cannot be applied to South Africa. At most we can take certain general features from those countries and apply them to our country, because our circumstances are absolutely unique. The principles and techniques we have to apply here, are principles and techniques that we ourselves have to develop in South Africa.

Any manager’s actions are influenced by internal aims and problems as well as external factors. He cannot sit watching the work flow past. He is the greatest single source of energy influencing quality, rate and development of product and production. Training programmes are often only for training purposes and not for the sake of better performance. We in South Africa should not train with the object of providing certificates, but with the object of achieving results. It is in order to rely, up to a certain point, on a manager’s instinctive feeling for what is wrong or right, but thereafter we must equip managers with the necessary techniques to enable them to justify certain courses of action and to observe where deviation occur, what the reasons for deviations are, to realize that adjustments have to be made, to make forecasts and to realize why production is good or bad. They have to be able to determine what opportunities there are for the future. They have to know whether the product is good or bad and why it is doing well or badly on the market. Furthermore, he has to be able to determine why he has a large or a small labour turnover. He must therefore know what he is doing right and also what he is doing wrong. When referring to the manager, we are not only referring to a very scarce commodity that is full of energy, but also to a very unique person. In the times in which we are living, the worker as a human being has become an increasingly important link in the whole process. He is no longer simply a production link. As a result of the fact that the worker has become more and more important, structures in the hierarchy of employees have changed. This suggests a field of training for management, namely orientation and training in labour relations, a field in which there is much leeway to be made up in South Africa. Managers must take note of concepts such as self-esteem and the desire of workers to achieve. They have to succeed in synchronizing and reconciling the wishes of the workers with the aims of the employer. South Africa’s limited managerial corps is subject to greater pressures and more unique circumstances than managers elsewhere.

As there is, to my mind, no other factor in industry or in any enterprise that plays as important a part as management, we must take another look at the manager in South Africa. Top management is the main energy providing factor in any industry, but it is also one of the scarcest products. An incentive policy on the part of the authorities which will lead to the large-scale training of workers and capital investment in equipment, can further increase the existing problem, i.e. the shortage of managers. I want to plead for a scheme for encouraging undertakings to train managers, and which will be even more beneficial and more imaginative than the program that has been followed to date.

I want to conclude by saying that the cheapest and biggest source of energy is management and that the best investment is in management. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member for Springs will take it amiss of me if I do not follow him, but broadly speaking I am in agreement with what he had to say.

On behalf of my party I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the announcement he made this afternoon with regard to national servicemen and their training. I should think this is definitely a step forward and should really facilitate matters considerably in this regard. We give our full support to that measure. We once again took note of the sound achievements of the Department of Manpower. I hope that next year we shall be able to add to the list of impressive achievements of the Department an annual report which is published in time for the discussion of the Vote.

I have on other occasions expressed my appreciation for the part played by the hon. the Minister himself in connection with the extremely important developments and changes that we have experienced during the last few years. I am not a man who hands out praise easily, and in addition I am afraid that if I praised the hon. the Minister, my friends on my left would use that statement as proof that the NP has taken over the policy of the PFP. It is, however, not necessary for me to defend the hon. the Minister, because I think he is capable of doing it himself. At this stage, however, we on this side are really sick and tired of the arguments we have had in the House during the past weeks. I am referring to the reproaches that have been hurled to and fro about what some person had allegedly said at some particular stage or what some person had done or would not have done. This is a sterile type of debate and, as far as we are concerned, it is a waste of the time of this House if hon. members engage in it. As regards the debate this afternoon and the reproaches that have been hurled to and fro here as well, I want to add that I myself have never thought that a Government which is worth its salt first has to go to the congresses to obtain their approval whenever it has to introduce a Bill in this House. I cannot understand that any government can govern in this way. We oppose bills and we take up an attitude, but we do not go to our congresses each time to ask them what we should say or what we should do.

In this case it was a radical change of policy.

But we have principles.

We have principles to which we adhere. In my lifetime I have often been present at the birth of new ideologies. At the birth of such an ideology I have very often said that that ideology was an anachronism. However, I want to say in all modesty that the kind of ideology propagated by those hon. members—and what I am saying is not meant as personal remarks towards them, but I am referring to the political ideologies—is not only an anachronism of our time, but a fossil. I say this in all honesty and decency.

There are two aspects that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. One deals with the subject touched upon by the hon. member for Pinelands, namely the connection between the trade union movement and politics and more specifically the detention of trade union leaders. The hon. the Minister said earlier—and by implication repeated it this afternoon—that one would be drawing the wrong conclusion if one asserted that trade union leaders were being detained on account of their activities as trade union leaders, and that there must therefore be other reasons for their detention. I think the hon. the Minister knows what our attitude is in regard to detention without trial. The impression that has been created—this is something which the hon. the Minister and his Department cannot ignore—is that action was taken against these people because of their trade union activities. This is an unfortunate impression. According to our information many Black labourers are …

But you created that impression.

Do not talk nonsense. We have nothing to do with it. I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that the Department of Manpower unfortunately cannot evade its responsibility to see to it that that impression is removed. That impression can only be removed when those people who are accused of having taken part in other activities, appear in court as soon as possible. That is how simple it is.

There is a fact which has to be faced, and in this regard I do not expect a reply from the hon. the Minister now. As far as the Blacks are concerned, we have not created sufficient machinery over the years for them to satisfy their political aspirations. It is therefore understandable that they will be tempted to use the machinery which they do have at their disposal, for eliminating other problems and disabilities affecting their lives.

What about Britain?

One of the reasons for the refusal to recognize Black trade unions in the past, was that constant references were made to labour conditions in Britain, to the British Labour Party, etc. These are factors which are not relevant here. Not only did we not create avenues of political expression for the Blacks, but in the labour field, before this hon. Minister brought about changes, we also recognized Blacks half-heartedly as labourers.

The situation is very serious indeed, and in this regard I want to make a statement, to which I do not expect the hon. the Minister to reply. Unless we create other avenues for political expression of the aspirations of the Blacks, we are going to land in increasing difficulties as far as Black trade unions are concerned. We cannot say in all honesty that we have created their own political avenues for those people by means of the homeland policy and the establishment of independent Black States. Indeed, the very fact that we recognize Black trade unions and that we do not involve independent Black Governments in the determination of conditions of service and so forth for Blacks, is an indication that we do not accept those countries as the channel through which the Blacks who are permanently settled here in so-called White South Africa and who work here, can realize their ideals.

The second aspect I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister if time permits me to do so, is the implementation of the Act passed in 1980, namely the Black Labour (Transfer of Functions) Act. In this regard I want to express my disappointment. In the absence of an annual report I do not have any knowledge which forces me to a different conclusion. I get the impression that apparently nothing has been done to give effect to the provisions of that Act. I am convinced that if we want peace in South Africa, Black labourers have to be accorded equal treatment with all other labourers as regards being placed in employment and so forth. I want to go further by saying that if we want peace, we have to free Black labourers from all the other control measures that apply to him outside this labour field. This we can only do if the people who are charged with placing Blacks in employment and with their conditions of service are separated from the people who are charged with other measures that are often regarded by Blacks as oppressive. That is what we hoped would be achieved by the adoption of that Act of 1980. In fact, in motivating that measure the hon. the Minister said that that was in fact the intention, namely that it was hoped that the people charged with placing Blacks in employment would in future fall under the Department of Manpower and would no longer fall under the Department of Co-operation and Development or, more specifically, the Administration Boards.

I have also taken a look at the Department’s budget. I notice that in the budget of the Department for the current year no provision is made for an increase of the amount voted for taking over a large number of people to carry out this task on behalf of the Department of Manpower. I want to express my personal disappointment at this. I think it is absolutely essential that this should happen, and as soon as possible. I should very much like to hear the hon. the Minister’s explanation in this regard. If this is not done, I am convinced that we shall land in an ever-worsening crisis situation with regard to the place and role of Black labour in South Africa. I regard it as absolutely essential that action be taken in this regard as soon as possible.

In conclusion I want to say that if the Act requires the Department of Manpower to take over all the work everywhere in the country—something that is impossible in view of all the duties the Department already has—I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the Act be amended in such a way that he does it from place to place so that the Department will have the necessary elasticity in this regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member prof. Olivier will pardon me if I do not refer to his speech now, but briefly turn to the hon. member for Brakpan. As far as the hon. member for Brakpan is concerned, I just want to make a correction for the record and in defence of the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Brakpan said that the hon. the Minister had not attended certain meetings in certain constituencies and, inter alia, mentioned my constituency. I cannot speak for Brakpan, but I do want to give the hon. member for Brakpan the assurance that the hon. the Minister on two occasions …

I am talking about now.

I am not talking about now, but about during the election when it counted. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister has agreed again to appear in my constituency in the near future and we gladly welcome him there, because Germiston is one of the largest industrial cities on the whole of the Witwatersrand.

In spite of the fact that the Republic of South Africa has most of the world’s most sought-after minerals, the time has arrived that we can no longer rely only on the mining of certain minerals to ensure our economic prosperity. Industrial and labour development is therefore absolutely essential in the national interest. The fact that a serious shortage of technicians, artisans and operators has developed over the years, has a negative effect on the country’s economy and is leading to increased inflation. In order to meet the shortage of trained labour in particular, we shall have to make use of all our population groups to supplement the deficiencies. We can only have praise and appreciation for the great success which the Department of Manpower is achieving under the leadership of the hon. the Minister.

Both the private sector and State departments are already making a success of Manpower 2000 through their support. Highly developed industrial countries such as West Germany, France, Britain, Japan and Taiwan, which have limited mineral deposits, already found their economic salvation in the development of industries years ago. The training of apprentices will have to be looked at soon in order to assist South Africa in this regard. Through the media and on other occasions the hon. the Minister of Manpower repeatedly and with great earnestness speaks about the subject of vocational training in the different branches of commerce and industry. The programme Manpower 2000 is being emphasized throughout the country and our nation is being conditioned, motivated and attuned to this. Both Whites and non-Whites will have to be trained speedily and in large numbers in order to promote the proposed labour growth. This applies especially to non-Whites if regard is had to the statistics.

At the end of 1981 the total number of apprentices in training was 31 757. The 1981 intake was approximately 11 967, which consisted of 9 232 Whites, 1 595 Coloureds, 645 Asians and 495 Blacks. Manpower can be defined as the power, ingenuity, knowledge and serviceability of the employee. To acquire this power, ingenuity, knowledge and serviceability, intensive scientific training is required. Producing people of quality through training requires staff of outstanding ability. Productivity and productivity alone is the watchword of the modern economy. Success can only be achieved in this regard if we train our workers effectively and if their labour is utilized fully.

The approach of placing a machine in the hands of an untrained worker in an attempt to increase productivity is useless. The solution is definitely to be found in training. The fact that employees often do not perform their tasks productively enough, can be attributed to the employer’s inability to ensure that the employee’s working ability is utilized effectively. The grandfather of productivity is training, leadership and organizational ability. The question that arises is where and how trainers and instructors are obtainable. They are certainly not available in large numbers in the Republic of South Africa. The vast majority of these professional people will have to be trained by technical colleges and technikons. The question is how this almost superhuman task can be carried out. The remuneration of the teaching staff must be such that they remain out of reach of the private sector and are retained for our colleges, technikons and other institutions. Education is definitely the key to success and the future for any country. Without first-class teachers or instructors, apprentices and tradesmen of quality cannot be provided. There are definitely shortcomings in the practical training of apprentices. Some of our large firms do offer training facilities to their apprentices, but unfortunately the same cannot be said of all small undertakings. Training is sometimes provided in practice by persons who are in the trade themselves or by fellow apprentices who have an insufficient knowledge of the trade, something which naturally has adverse effects. Many apprentices fall victim to mass production and therefore receive limited training in the trade concerned as a result of the repetition of the same work process. In the same way certain firms perform work of a higher standard which it is difficult to undertake. This has the result that apprentices learn only a few aspects of their trade. The last-mentioned circumstances force the person to stay with the same firm after completing his apprenticeship, otherwise such a person would find it extremely difficult to adapt elsewhere.

Both cases I have mentioned have adverse effects in that apprentices are not afforded the opportunity of receiving training in all the facets of their trade. To ensure that uniform and scientific planned training is provided, it is essential that away-from-work training centres be established at technical colleges and technikons under the direct control of the Department of National Education and the National Training Council, in co-operation with the Department of Manpower. Apprentices can for the sake of convenience be concentrated at centrally situated centres. Smaller firms can in this way ensure that their apprentices receive the correct training through the practical handling of the most modern apparatus or tools.

It has been suggested on occasion that industrialists should contribute to a central fund by means of a levy which would be used for the erection and maintenance of training centres. This method would give firms the assurance that the training of their apprentices was done in an efficient manner. Larger firms would still be able to train people within the work context, but would have to comply with the prescribed standards, as would be the case with smaller firms.

If the Republic of South Africa wants to retain its position among the large industrial powers of the world, we will have to examine our labour situation closely and create sufficient training and employment opportunities for all race groups so that we can utilize our labour resources to the full. It therefore affords me pleasure to thank the hon. the Minister of Manpower and his Department for and to congratulate them on the initiatives and successes which he and they have achieved through his Department and the Manpower 2000 project.

Mr. Chairman, I have no fault to find with the plea which the hon. member for Germiston made for greater productivity. Perhaps I should just refer to his first statement about the hon. member for Brakpan. I think it was a wise decision of his to invite the hon. the Minister to his constituency, because I think that if the hon. member for Brakpan went there he would probably have an adverse effect on the hon. member for Germiston’s political productivity.

I should like to return to the question of the investigation which the hon. the Minister ordered into farm labourers and domestic servants. I want to confine myself specifically to farm labourers.

I think that in the first place I should refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Pinelands, namely that “farm workers and domestic workers are excluded from industrial laws and are exploited”. I do not agree with that and I reject the hon. member’s statement that farm workers are being exploited. I want to say that if there is any exploitation of farm workers it is the absolute exception. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that a tradition has been built up in the agricultural sector over many years and many decades as far as the relationship between the farmer and his labourers is concerned. It is one of the fine relationships in the South African community. I therefore think that the hon. member for Pinelands overstepped the mark when he said that farm workers were being exploited. It is not true, because farm workers are not being exploited. I want to give a few reasons for saying this.

Firstly, over the past 20 years, since 1960, there has been a very positive increase in the real income of farm workers. In the early seventies Merle Lipton of the Royal Institute of International Affairs published a report on the question of farm workers in South Africa. She found that between 1961 and 1968 the wages of the farm workers had increased by an average of 24% in real terms. I want to suggest that that tendency has been continued since 1968.

Secondly, I want to say that when you travel through the rural areas of South Africa you will see that every farmer is really doing his best, within his means, to provide good housing for his farm workers. It is however not possible for every farmer to do this, because they do not all have the necessary funds to do so.

The third proof that the farmer is concerned about his labourers is that so much is being done for them in the field of education. If I remember correctly, 117 farm schools were registered in this year alone, at the beginning of 1982. Surely this was not done by people who want to exploit farm labourers.

Before continuing, I want to address my plea to the hon. the Minister, in case my time runs out before I have done so. In view of the investigation which has now been launched and the fact that the hon. member for Roodeplaat said that the object was to depoliticize labour—I agree with that—and that it is also the declared policy of the Government to interfere less in the private sector rather than to interfere more, I want to ask the hon. the Minister—the hon. the Minister indicated that he knows that we are dealing with exceptional circumstances here that are different from those in the rest of the economy—that we maintain the tradition that has been built up in South Africa. Since the Government has indicated its desire to do something, I want to ask that it be done in a different way, i.e. by not involving agriculture in all these Acts. I ask this for the simple reason that if agricultural labour is brought into all this legislation, it will be drawn into the political arena. If it is brought into the political arena, it will immediately be the international political arena. As our products have to be marketed internationally, I feel that the Government should be very careful in this regard and should not enter a field which will cause trouble where it is not necessary. Rather than involving agricultural labour in legislation, I therefore want to ask that consideration be given to other measures to accommodate the agricultural industry. There are only about 70 000 or even fewer farmers left today, but almost half of the Black people living outside the national states are on the farms of these 70 000 farmers. This means that 70 000 farmers are responsible for the welfare of so many people. The farmer is responsible not only for the welfare of his worker, but also for the welfare of his worker’s family. In view of this one must keep in mind that the agricultural sector earns only 10% of the gross national product. On the other hand those earning the other 90% in commerce and industry are subsidized by the Government with regard to housing, transport and many other things. In the past few years the farmer has been subsidized in a small way in regard to housing only. However, he does not receive a subsidy for building a house and has to accept full responsibility for the cost thereof. He does receive a subsidized rate of interest on capital that he uses for that, but the fact remains that he has to provide all that capital.

The farmer also receives assistance in regard to Black education. He receives a subsidy for school buildings that are erected.

I therefore want to address a plea to the hon. the Minister that, rather than interfering in agriculture with regard to labour by means of legislation, other methods of bringing about changes should be found. The improvement of conditions of service conditions and fringe benefits to assist farmers can be brought about in a different way.

I am pleading for this because various investigations that have been undertaken have shown that the cash income earned by a farm labourer is less than 50% of the remuneration that he receives from a farmer. In this connection I want to refer to a thesis by Dr. Louis van Zyl on this subject in the Coligny district. He found that the fringe benefits in the form of housing, in the form of rations and in the form of services to the labourer and his family and many other things which are known to everybody and which I do not have to enumerate are worth much more in total than what the labourer earns in cash. Dr. Van Zyl also made an investigation in a certain tribal area. He found that some people living in that area went to work on farms and that others went to work in towns. He established that those working on farms, if everything they received was added together, were earning more than those working in the towns.

In my own constituency there is a man who has business undertakings in the town and who also farms. Some of his farm labourers said to him that they wanted to be treated in the same way as the people in the town and that they wanted to receive the same wages. He agreed to it, but also told them that he was now going to charge them the same amount for housing, milk, meat, vegetables, overalls, etc., which they had been receiving free of charge, as the people in the town had to pay. After he had done this for the first month, his labourers asked to return to the old system as it was better than the new system.

If this investigation can show this and it is confirmed in practice, it is surely proof that the farmers treat their people well. I therefore want to plead that the hon. the Minister should not bring farm labour into legislation, but that farmers should be assured in different ways. There are a few exceptions, but farmers generally want to do the best for their labourers. Therefore, leave this matter to the private sector, viz. the farmer and the agricultural unions. Grant them the necessary assistance, but do not drag this matter into international politics. If that should happen, new arguments for getting at South Africa would be created at the places where we market our maize and oranges. The hon. the Minister is a farmer himself and I want to ask him that we should not enter a field here that will cause us difficulties.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lichtenburg pleaded the cause of the farmer in a calm manner here today. In view of what the hon. the Minister said about this matter earlier, I think he may feel reassured. History shows that as far as the farmer and our workers are concerned, the NP has always done its duty towards these two groups. It is for the very reason that the farmer has in the past been unjustly criticized for his treatment of his employees, that the Government in collaboration with the agricultural unions has asked that this matter be investigated and put in the right perspective. Everybody will then be able to see how well farm workers are treated. It will also show how large a part is played by the farmer in the welfare of his workers.

I should like to address a few words to the main speaker of the CP. The hon. member was our leader on the East Rand, and this evening I want to take my leave of him as our leader on the East Rand. Over the past eight weeks this member has really undergone a metamorphosis. Why has this hon. member become so frustrated and so strange to one? Perhaps his frustrations arise from the fact that his bench-mate and some of his colleagues received promotion, but that he did not. I think that is why the hon. member has taken this step.

It is clear from the hon. member’s statements earlier this afternoon that his party has become the mouth-piece of the HNP in Parliament. However, I want to leave the hon. member there.

When the hon. the Minister spoke earlier, he referred to the four corner-stones of the security of the worker. One of these cornerstones is safety. In the time at my disposal I should like to deal with that aspect in greater detail this afternoon. The protection of the safety and the health of a worker in a factory or a work-place is not only the duty of the State, but it affects the State, the employer and the employee himself. The State has to see to it by means of legislation that there is enough protection for the safety and health of the labour force. It also has to prescribe certain regulations with which employers have to comply in order to have a factory. The employee in a factory is exposed to the dangers of his particular profession. If that employee sustains an injury or loses a limb or even contracts an industrial disease, so that he is temporarily or permanently unable to do his work, it disrupts his family life and causes him financial loss.

The employer, however, also has a duty towards his employees. He is responsible for the safety and the well-being of the workers in his factory. He has to see to it that the equipment in his factory is adequate and that it is properly maintained.

The employer also has to see to it that his employees are not exposed to unnecessary risks and he has to take positive action to prevent accidents and diseases. It sometimes happens that when new factories are built, possibly costing millions of rands, a great deal of money is spent on and attention is given to the external appearance of a factory, to its offices and gardens or its parks. But when it comes to the safety of its machines, half measures are taken for the sake of a few thousand rands and matters are only put right after an accident has occurred.

The employee also has the right to be protected in a factory. This, however, imposes certain obligations on him as well. He has to use the safety equipment and comply strictly with the protective measures. In addition, he has to work carefully and precisely. If he does not do so, his rights as regards safety and health would be worthless and he could also endanger his fellow-workers.

The right of a worker stands on two legs. The first leg is the right to bargain, and the second leg is to be responsible. The State provides the necessary legislation in this regard and the State provided the Workmen’s Compensation Act as far back as 1941, and the primary object of this legislation was to ensure the protection, safety, health and welfare of the worker. It is also the duty of the State to supervise the use of machinery by means of inspectors who are attached to the Occupational Safety Branch and to see to it that the Act is applied. The Workmen’s Compensation Act forms part of the labours legislation in South Africa, legislation of which we can be very proud indeed. In comparison with other countries in the world we are on equal terms and in some cases even in a better position. There are of course exceptions, as in the case of England and Sweden, where their legislation is completely based on socialist lines.

In Part IV of the Wiehahn report certain positive recommendations are made on the legislation with regard to safety and casualties. The Government has accepted most of these recommendations, or has referred them back to the commission for further streamlining. In the 1982-’83 Estimates provision is also made for a contribution of R4,7 million towards the safety and health of workers in factories. In a young industrial country such as South Africa, where there is in fact a shortage of trained workers, we cannot afford workers being injured on a large scale and the shortage being exacerbated in this way.

If, for example, we look at the statistics for accidents in factories in 1981, we see that at the 35 523 factories with their 1,9 million workers, 15 482 injuries occurred, i.e. approximately 9,98 persons per thousand. If one looks at the causes of these accidents, it appears that most accidents were caused by workers falling or tripping over objects in the factories, or sustaining injuries in handling material without machinery, or being struck by falling objects or moving material, while fires and poisonous material also took their toll.

If one looks at the persons responsible for these accidents, it appears that the employees themselves were the greatest offenders, while management also played a large part in the accident figure.

In the prevention of occupational accidents the National Occupational Safety Association, NOSA, plays a very important part, and for this reason this association is annually granted financial assistance by the Government. Last year the Government gave R1,163 million to NOSA. NOSA has been in existence for 30 years and its trained staff annually presents courses to train employees and to make them aware of safety measures. It is NOSA’s aim to reduce factory accidents to the minimum and to contribute to the welfare of the country in this manner. In order to make workers aware of the advantages of safety control measures, an effort is made, by means of annual competitions, surveys and gradings, to reduce accidents to the minimum and to raise safety standards. The success achieved by NOSA over the years has attracted the interest of the S.A. Defence Force to such an extent that officers have followed the course. Lately some of our national servicemen have also been brought into this, in such a way that when the national servicemen are placed in factories one day, they will already know what safety in factories entails. In this way NOSA is also doing its share. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Alberton rightly referred to the worker’s need for security, but I want to refer briefly to the contribution made by the hon. member for Roodeplaat.

†It seems to me that the hon. member was more sensitive to praise than to criticism. I think this is a pity because I believe hon. members on that side should think carefully about what the attitude of the PFP is towards this particular Department. People who think we have a negative attitude, that we always tend to tear things down, should think what our attitude is to the legislation that comes from this particular Department. I actually believe that it is all a good democratic government wants from an opposition. We, as an opposition, are probing and constructive and, without any beating about the bush, I believe most of us have a considerable admiration for what this Minister and his Department has done.

Hear, hear!

Our attitude moves very closely in line with what our hon. Leader said it would do. Our hon. Leader said that the Government can expect support when it is constructive and moves in the direction of real reform. Judgement as to whether it is moving in that direction, and what is good and bad, is obviously ours alone. I want to make it clear that I believe that the Department of Manpower has done, and is doing, a courageous and an imaginative job in meshing together the different races of this country at the work face in a manner which is absolutely essential for our social and economic future.

From the reports which I have got back from contacts in trade and industry it is clear that these people have an appreciation for the honesty and competence of the effort and the comprehensive way in which this was approached. I believe there are two critical areas which, in honesty, must be raised in any debate on this. They have been raised by my colleagues and I do not apologize for repeating them.

The first is the harassment of union leaders. I have been in touch with personnel managers and managers of companies in Port Elizabeth and they are not politically orientated, although I wish more of them were. They are people trying to run a difficult job in a sort of fragile climate. Their attitude is that the security forces are making their job almost impossible. They have been approached by their union members, who say to them: “We believe you are hand in glove with the security forces”. That is what they think of their personnel managers. It is a sort of logical inference. Somebody is appointed as a workers’ representative, he starts negotiating with management, and if he is any good, he negotiates toughly, and within two or three weeks he is picked up by the security forces and they don’t see him for weeks or months. He is subjected to Heaven knows what and it bedevils the relationship between employer and union, and this is a tragedy.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this makes his job more or less difficult. I am sure it must make it infinitely more difficult and I do not think it is sufficient to say that that falls under another department. Something has to be done about a difficult situation.

What is the second problem? There is a danger of carrying out critical reform in one area while the rest of the body politic struggles vainly in the arms of an ideological zombie. Here I cannot do better than quote the hon. the Prime Minister—

The hon. the Prime Minister and his Government are failing to heed his own very well chosen words. This represents, I believe, the greatest single threat to the hon. the Minister of Manpower’s initiative.

Finally, I should like to raise the matter of the closed shop principle. I am moving here with a high degree of caution, because this is one of those areas which at first glance seems simple. It takes about five minutes to come out with a real fine-sounding policy over closed shop. However, the closer one gets to it and the more one looks at it the more difficult and complex and the more open to different interpretations it becomes. I am very tentative here.

Right at the outset of the investigation into our industrial legislation certain basic principles were established. The degree of success that has attended this Department in a minefield of difficulties is, I think, largely due to the fact that the hon. the Minister has been able to keep people’s eyes focused on those principles. The Commission of Inquiry into Industrial Legislation was to produce recommendations that were non-discriminatory. I quote from the Commission’s report—

One of the few areas covered by the Commission where it can still be argued that these conditions do not obtain is that of closed shop agreements. These have been dignified by long usage and have fulfilled a need. They made sense when a union supplied staff, particularly skilled staff. For example, I have been on construction sites in the United States where the union actually contracted to supply the labour at a schedular wage rate. In certain circumstances, obviously, an employer can get tremendous advantages out of a situation like that, for example, the recruiting function, a labour contract for a specific project or for fixed time without fear of strike action, stable industrial relations, a disciplined work force, and few and more responsible unions to deal with. But despite this, I think most employers will tell you that they believe that the retention of the closed shop agreement is bad in principle. They will tell you that closed shop affects freedom of association, that it can promote the interests of a union for other reasons than merit or worker support. It can create monopoly powers for a union and an artificial scarcity of skilled labour. It can also preclude people or groups from opportunities. It infringes the principle of self-governance and minimum government interference. The prohibition of the employment of employees who do not become members within ninety days of their employment, does not adequately cater for the problem. It would further appear that Black workers are not really in favour of this system at all and that overseas, in Britain for example, it is tolerated but restricted and regarded as a necessary evil. Whereas it is impossible to establish an open and shut case as to whether to dispense with or to retain closed shop there would appear to be a strong argument for relying on the principles of freedom of choice, freedom of association and the ability to sell one’s labour on a free market, which was originally established as the basis on which policy was to be developed. If this were done I suggest that the policy decision reached would be to allow no new closed shop agreements and to phase out existing agreements over a period.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the speech made by the hon. member for Walmer. I do not want to reply to it, but I do want to say in passing that as regards certain practical implications of the so-called closed shop agreement, I have sympathy with him. I think that other statements made by the hon. member in his speech are particularly negative, and I trust that the hon. the Minister will furnish him with a reply to them.

I should like to come back to the hon. member for Lichtenburg, who, in my opinion, made a particularly good speech today. His speech proves that if one has knowledge of a matter one knows exactly what one is talking about. The hon. member for Lichtenburg examined the Wiehahn Report thoroughly. I refer specifically to Part 5 of the Report. I think it would be a good thing if we read the recommendations of the Report for record purposes and also look at the White Paper in view of the Government’s statements. In this manner the matter, which has been taken out of context to some extent today, can again be put in its proper perspective. I quote from page 58 of Part 5 of the Wiehahn Report—

I also quote from page 59 of Part 5 of the Report—

I now want to come to the Government’s comments as contained in the White Paper that was published. I know the hon. member for Lichtenburg made a thorough study of this, because we were still in the same caucus at the time. I quote from page 32 of the White Paper—

But then a further investigation should be made.

A further investigation is being made as a result of this and therefore you probably agree with me.

The hon. member for Langlaagte spoke in general terms about the principles of freedom of association and trade union autonomy today. The hon. member could possibly go home and study the report concerned again for a subsequent debate which we may have on this subject.

Is there something that we did not see, brother?

About the principles of free association and trade union autonomy the Commission makes certain recommendations. I want to read it to the hon. member for Langlaagte for record purposes and I trust that he will look at it to-night during and after dinner. The Commission finds that—

The Commission further makes the following recommendation—

According to the White Paper the Government accepts these recommendations and steps have already been taken to implement them. We sat in the same caucus at that time and the hon. member did not object to it then. I think he will still agree with the National Party about this matter today.

A great deal has been said about productivity today. When one talks about manpower and labour it is not the time to try to canvass for votes. One should try to listen in a balanced way to all the arguments of all hon. members, because one is dealing here with the most precious possession of South Africa, namely its manpower. The man in the street is on the one hand a man who votes, but on the other hand also the man who keeps the wheels of the South African economy turning. It is therefore a good thing that the hon. member for Bryanston, for instance, referred to productivity. I think the hon. the Minister replied to him on that. The hon. the Minister particularly emphasized that stability had to be created and I am of the opinion that the Government has already created stability for the labour force in South Africa. But more and more emphasis should be placed on the word “Productivity”. Productivity has been referred to repeatedly this evening, but what is productivity really? Is it simply a matter of working harder and more being done? “Productivity” is a word with a very wide definition. When one looks at productivity, training and the manpower of South Africa, one should keep in mind that the Government and the private sector are partners. Who is in the middle between the two partners? It is the worker and he has a right to demand from the Government that the Government should create a framework for his security, etc. He also has the right to demand that the employer provide a certain measure of security, stability and training for him. If one looks back in the light of the Wiehahn Report and the Riekert Report, it is clear that the Government has created this broad framework. I think the onus is shifting onto the shoulders of the private employer more and more. The Government has given him the initiative today, whether from a taxation or a concession point of view, to enable him to make better use of his employee, the most precious possession of his undertaking, to train him better, and to apply him to the greater benefit of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Overvaal. As was said earlier in the debate, South Africa, like European countries, is experiencing an economic recession. Although the number of unemployed persons in the Republic is at this stage not large in comparison with those in other countries, it will still increase. At the moment, according to the latest statistics, about 2 400 Asians, 5 500 Whites, 34 000 Coloureds and 402 000 Blacks in the Republic are unemployed. Many of them are unemployed because they do not have the necessary training to enable them to be applied in an advanced technical, productive milieu. The Manpower 2000 Training Programme makes ample provision for the training and retraining of workers by means of differentiated in-service training and other schemes. This training is praiseworthy and the country and all its inhabitants will eventually benefit by it. Unfortunately there are still many workers who do not make use of the existing facilities to qualify themselves better. Thus the opportunity which is given to adults to train themselves as artisans is not always used in the full. As a matter of fact, it is amazing that there are still many people who are not aware of the existence of such facilities. When economic activities begin to level off, as is the case now, it is necessary that provision be made for the training of work-seekers, in addition to the existing in-service training facilities for persons who are already employed. In the Manpower Training Act of 1981 the hon. the Minister made provision for the training of work-seekers. It is encouraging to notice in this year’s Estimates that the Treasury provided an amount of R9 million for this purpose. As the hon. the Minister has created the necessary facilities for the training of work-seekers and the necessary funds have been made available, I am sure that the hon. the Minister will also have this scheme put into operation soon. The training of work-seekers in the type of whork which they would like to do, and for which they have the necessary aptitude, is a particular asset to the country, especially at the present time. I particularly want to thank the hon. the Minister and his Department for everything which they have done to implement this scheme. The Treasury also deserves a special word of thanks for the R9 million which has been provided under difficult circumstances to launch this scheme.

I should also like to thank the staff attached to in-service training centres throughout the country for the wonderful work which they are doing to uplift the workers of the Republic, and I trust that this new dimension in training will present them with greater challenges and that the training of an unemployed person to become a productive worker will become another goal of the Manpower 2000 Programme.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the concession made by him in respect of the training of apprentices who have completed their compulsory military service. This concession ties in well with the facilities for the training of work-seekers which have already been provided.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the absence of a departmental report I should like to have a few progress reports from the hon. the Minister. In the first place I want to raise a matter which I touched upon last year, as well i.e. Black building workers and the qualifications which they obtained under the old dispensation, when we still spoke about Bantu building workers. Black building workers then got certificates on which it was indicated that they were, for example, bricklayers, plasterers, painters, etc., and that the qualifications only applied in Black areas. With the repeal of the Black Building Workers Act they could theoretically enter the building trade, but subject to certain industrial conciliation determinations their qualifications were not equal to those of, for instance, the Whites, Asians and Coloureds, with the result that they could not carry on their trades in practice. Here I am referring to, for example, Black bricklayers who were for instance only allowed to lay blocks and not bricks. I should like to enquire of the hon. the Minister what, in the first place, the progress is in connection with a better structuring of the trade so that people are not excluded from practising the profession in which they have a degree of skill but not a top qualification.

Secondly, today, 19 April 1982, I want to make sure that the Department has taken over the trade tests from the Department of National Education. I read about it on the 1st of April, but one cannot always believe what one reads in the Press on that day.

Are you talking about the test centres?

Yes.

They have been taken over.

I am glad about that and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give attention to rating the certificates at a certain level in a new structuring in order that old certificates can be withdrawn and new certificates be issued, so that they can take part in the new dispensation without the stigma of the old certificates.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Mr. Chairman, as we are now experiencing a downward trend in the economic cycle, the second aspect I want to mention is the question of unemployment. I should like to tie it up with two other important aspects of the stabilizing of the labour front, i.e. training and housing. I do not want to bore hon. members with statistics about unemployment, but everybody knows that we will be faced with large-scale unemployment as the economy levels off. There is no greater destabilizing influence on the labour front than unemployment. As we saw with the previous upswing in the economy, it died a sudden death, because when the upswing came, there was not enough skilled manpower to make full use of the opportunities for growth. Therefore the best time to do the training for the boom period which is going to come, is now, during the levelling-off period. Last year, with the opening of the trade training school in Bellville, the hon. the Minister said that a new programme would be announced, specifically for the training of unemployed persons. I have not seen that such an announcement has been made, perhaps I missed it, but I should like to know from the hon. the Minister exactly what his Department is planning, during the levelling-off period, in connection with the training of unemployed persons. More important than doing something for unemployed persons is of course combating unemployment as such. In an economic curve which is levelling off or declining this of course means that rather than looking at one’s employment policy one should look at one’s discharging policy, in order to be able to maintain one’s employment opportunities on a sound basis.

†I should therefore like to make an appeal to employers to look carefully at their policy of discharging employees during this period of economic downturn and to consider the fact, Mr. Chairman, that on being discharged a person firstly suffers a loss of remuneration, and therefore has his basic livelihood jeopardized, and secondly that he suffers loss of medical and insurance benefits, as well as continuity of pension service. Thirdly he suffers a loss of experience and training opportunities in his field. Fourthly and finally he suffers a loss of self-respect, joins the ranks of the dissatisfied and becomes an easy target for those who prefer instability to peace in order to achieve their ends. [Interjections.]

The company also suffers, because it loses out on the training invested in the person and loses the loyalty of a worker that is known to the firm. That company possibly also causes that person to be lost to the particular industry forever, for example as we saw in the building industry during the previous economic downturn. This also creates uneasiness amongst those who remain in service. The company is also put into a position of having to scramble around in order to replace people when a new upswing comes along. I would therefore suggest that employers consider other alternatives than simply discharging a part of their labour force. I am, for example, thinking of such measures as going onto short-time, the reduction of overtime work and also partial employment, especially in the lower echelons where workers are easily interchangeable. This could result in say five workers each getting eighty per cent of the wage attached to a particular job, rather than four workers getting one hundred per cent and one worker nothing. Another measure is that of using the slack times for the training of existing staff. This can be done by making full use of the incentives provided by the Government. There is also the possibility of linking the downturn with the provision of housing. By linking up partial employment to the provision of housing one could make use of the current trend towards self-help housing. We know of the new approach, but the problem is always that with self-help housing those who are fully employed hardly have the time to make use of the self-help system, whereas those who are unemployed cannot afford to embark on self-help housing projects. However, by linking the wages applicable to those days on which an employee is laid off, to a housing allowance in an approved scheme, one could turn the current gloomy prospects into an opportunity to stablize and consolidate the labour force. I do hope that employers and the Government will do all they can to make this possible.

With regard to the training facilities that are available, and the available incentives for training, let me also suggest that the hon. the Minister and his Department could do more to ensure that all training facilities in South Africa are fully utilized every day of the year. This could be done, for example, by maintaining a data bank of all the training facilities available in the country, and if the Department does not want to do it itself, it can ensure that in every sector of the economy there is somebody who is designated to keep such a data bank. It is hardly conceivable that one could plan the future provision of manpower without such a data bank. This would also serve as a central reference point—especially for small businessmen— who could use it to find out what training facilities are available.

Lastly I want to say that the Department could perhaps spend more time and energy on advertising the incentive parcel for training and the available training opportunities, since these facets have not been fully taken up by small businesses. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have no swords to cross with the hon. member for Greytown about the question of training and its importance. However, I just want to ask an important question with regard to unemployment. With our population composition in South Africa there is to my mind always another side to the matter as well, because how many of our people are in fact unemployed and how many of them are work-shy? In other words, how many of these people do not want to work, do not want to work in a certain industry or do not want to do a certain type of work? Then they simply say they are unemployed. I think we should take very careful note of that.

In any developing country it is possible—it is in fact normal—that at any specific moment there will be a shortage of a suitable type of labourer in particular or in general in any specific industry or in specific industries, seen in the light of the efficient carrying out of a specific job or specific jobs. If South Africa is experiencing a shortage of suitable manpower at present, it should not be seen as something new in the economic history of South Africa, nor is it the result of the policy of the National Party, as some people want to allege. [Interjection.]

Jan van Riebeeck experienced such a shortage of suitable manpower shortly after his arrival in South Africa. His solution was to import slaves. When the establishment of sugar plantations in Natal was started, there was at that time a shortage of suitable manpower, in spite of the thousands of Blacks who were available for that type of labour. The solution was then sought through the importation of Indian labour, but today, under different circumstances, there are almost no Indians working as labourers on the sugar farms.

The mining industry experienced such a shortage of suitable manpower of local origin at a certain stage. In order to solve this problem Chinese, as well as thousands of Black labourers from outside the borders of South Africa, were imported.

At present we are also experiencing a shortage of manpower and our industries are recruiting suitable labour overseas. Those people are brought to South Africa as immigrants. At the same time we are launching large-scale schemes to train suitable labour. I stress the “suitability” of the manpower for the performance of a specific task, because that is one of the most important facets in the pursuit of increased productivity. Striving to increase productivity is not an end in itself. It is much rather an attempt to improve the level of prosperity of a country. In the words of Dr. W. P. van Niekerk—

Because the increasing of productivity plays such an important role in the economic life of a country, it is not surprising that more than 70 countries already have productivity institutes with the object of promoting greater productivity. In South Africa we have the National Productivity Institute. In order to understand the concept of productivity correctly, it is necessary to remember that an industrial product results from the application of a number of means of production, namely labour, capital, raw materials, land, etc. Increased productivity does not necessarily mean increased or enlarged production or output. However, if possible, it is important to decrease the input of the means of production, i.e. man hours, raw materials, space, machine time, fuel, etc., to obtain the same output or production. In other words, to maintain the same output with a smaller input is one of the objectives in increasing productivity.

For example, an industry manufactures a thousand units for which production means equal to one hundred input units have to be used. In a corresponding subsequent period two thousand units are manufactured, but three hundred input units are used. The output has therefore increased, but the productivity has decreased. Productivity is therefore a criterion, an indication of how effectively means of production have been or are being used.

With regard to the whole question of increased productivity Rostas did pioneering work in 1948 with the publication of “Comparative Productivity in British and American Industry”. He found that the productivity performance of American industries was more than twice that of similar British industries. Rostas further found that a large variety of factors were responsible for the difference. However, he could not succeed in quantifying the contribution made by each separate factor. However, by his research he did prove that it was essential to measure productivity. This led to an intense awareness of the productivity problem. This in turn led to the realization that it had become urgently necessary to find methods of identifying the cause of differences in productivity performance among the same industries under the same circumstances. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I really have no quarrel with the hon. member for Kimberley North’s viewpoint on productivity. I think the point was made very well indeed by the hon. member for Bryanston when he indicated in his speech that productivity was something that opened up whole new vistas and possibilities and, in fact, offered an opportunity for far greater employment, something very much to be sought after.,

I do, however, have an argument with him about his party’s immigration policy in 1948. Just for the sake of reminding him of that fact, let me say that a lot of the problems we are experiencing today in the manpower field—certainly as far as skilled labour is concerned—can be traced right back to the National Party’s lack of an immigration policy in 1948. I just want to remind my hon. friend over there about that. It is nice to know that this party’s policies are at last bearing fruit …

What happened to that party?

We are very happy about your buying the product. [Interjections.] The principles hold good. [Interjections.]

I should like to deal with a matter that has been touched upon by other hon. members. I am referring to the question of the National Manpower Commission and the minimum conditions of service of farm workers in agriculture, some aspects of which were very well put across by the hon. member for Lichtenburg. I should like to focus, however, on one or two aspects. In particular I should once again—so as not to miss this opportunity—like to ask the hon. the Minister to make quite certain that this Commission will be operating right at grassroot level, because the variety of circumstances pertaining to the employment of workers in agriculture is so vast and intricate that unless we get right down to grass-root level and liaise with the various farmers and farmers’ associations we are not going to get a very true picture of the situation. I therefore do hope that we do not stop short at the level of organized agriculture, because that would not be sufficient. We have to go right down amongst the individuals themselves.

I want to make it quite clear that we welcome this investigation by this Commission, but for reasons other than merely to satisfy us and assure the workers that they are, in fact, being catered for within the general sphere of manpower and labour in South Africa. I think that out of the activities of the Commission will come some of the results mentioned by the hon. member for Lichtenburg. I am thinking of results in connection with housing and other areas in which agriculture finds itself at a distinct disadvantage.

There have been many comments made about the recent Good Hope Conference and the concessions and other aspects arising out of it. Various industrialists have commented on this in relation to the fact that agriculture, in employing nearly fourteen per cent of the nation’s workers, has an enormous role to play in absorbing more workers and, in fact, assisting in combating the phenomenon of urbanization by maintaining as many people as possible in the rural areas. In that regard I would say that this Commission should have a very hard look at the question of incentives for training, on the same basis that industrialists have incentives for training their people for the various roles in which they have to function. The hon. the Minister did mention, in this regard, a mobile unit that could tour the country and visit various areas. I know that the NCD in Natal already has such a scheme functioning for the dairy farmers, a scheme which is being carried out with great success. I know, in fact, of certain areas where they have established their own in-service training centres to try to assist with the training and improved productivity of farm workers.

In agriculture as a whole I feel that one could absorb a great many more of the workers coming off the line every year. With a better overall concept of exactly what a person has to look forward to in agriculture, this is an aspect the Commission must also involve itself in. Here I would like to say that we have to look further than just the employment, wages, possible pension schemes and matters of that nature because, as was mentioned by the hon. the Minister in the seven points he made, the whole concept of work in our country relates to the free-enterprise system. The free-enterprise system is an open-ended system in the sense that the sky is the limit, because if one goes to work responsibly and with application to the task, there is no limit to the heights to which one can build oneself up. I believe that the one area in which there is a real lack in agriculture—one we shall have to have a real look at—involves the question of ownership. This is where the worker in agriculture is going to run right into a cul-de-sac. He has no possibility of building himself up into a senior position, whereafter he might find himself able to go off and hire a small property, thus becoming a farmer in his own right. There are indeed very limited opportunities in the homelands and probably no opportunities at all in the Republic. If one is really going to bring productivity training, and the Western attitude to the free enterprise system, into the agricultural sphere, one has to end up with ownership as the end product. One must be able to own one’s own enterprise, or at least that must be a goal that one can strive for. It must be a target that is attainable in the normal everyday system of things. I therefore think that the Commission has a much broader field than merely that of wages, salaries, pensions and security to cover. The Commission must look at how much more we can absorb in the agricultural field to lighten the load of urbanization. I believe that this must be looked at in terms of what opportunities there really are for any particular person in terms of the free-enterprise system and how we can set about introducing changes into the system in such a way as to really bring about the same changes in agriculture and offer the same opportunities that are offered to workers in the industrial and commercial spheres. Whilst saying that, I must obviously also mention that the same must apply to anybody in commerce and industry. That is why this party has always stood so clearly for the opening up of all the Central Business Districts; because where does a worker who has the necessary qualifications and has stood the test of reliability, honesty, application and expertise, exercise his final spark of ingenuity or entrepreneurship within the free enterprise system unless it is within the commercial centre in which he finds himself? All the latest regional development plans relate to urban centres, and it is a well-known fact that internationally 70% of the world’s population lives within 100 kilometres of the sea. This is the case throughout the world, and our labour is naturally going to be drawn to these commercial and industrial centres. If we therefore seek to employ such people on a more productive basis, within the free-enterprise system, the final goal, that of ownership, must be available to them. The goal of one day owning his own enterprise must be available to such a person so that he can envisage himself prospering, along with the system, having a goal to which he can apply himself, even as an employed person. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we can find much fault with the hon. member for King William’s Town’s arguments, except that I think such optimism could drive one mad, and I am referring particularly to his supposition that the type of training which he propagated in this regard could lead one to the point of entrepreneurship. I think one must concede that there are limits in this regard. [Interjections.]

I want to express some ideas about wage demands. It is becoming clearer to me that negotiation and deliberation are the key to labour peace. Both management and trade union leaders must understand this, because any conflict situation in the labour world which is not defused has the potential to develop into a volcano which has to erupt. Should this happen, productivity in any sector would decrease and the economic development of the Republic would be adversely affected, with of course everything which is attendant upon that. This is something of which all of us present here should be aware. For people to organize themselves into a trade union and as such to negotiate better wages and service conditions, is the right of every worker. It should be like that and it should stay like that. One cannot find any fault with it. If part of this negotiation process includes wage demands, and the demands are fair, there will always be the necessary goodwill on the part of the employer to accede to them. We do not doubt that either.

However, what has happened in the Republic, with its growing economy, over the past ten years? Let us look at just one facet of our problem, and more specifically at wage demands. Statistics show that the wage per capita in manufacturing industry in South Africa grew at a rate of 268% during the past decade. During the same period, however, the production per capita showed a strongly fluctuating trend, but even the highest growth rate was only 25,1%. Surely this is alarming in any language? One of the reasons for this trend is surely that in the past we in South Africa took one-sided decisions about wage increases. It was often not negotiated by which process it could be ensured that not only increased wages were granted, but also that more effective work ensued and that the increased investment in wages was recovered by means of increased productivity per capita or by work of a better quality. This can only be rectified if management and the trade union leaders will learn and understand and apply the game and tell their workers that negotiation and deliberation can be the answer to everything. This education programme will of course be difficult, but the harvest will be very rich in the interest of more people than only the few who are involved in that negotiation process.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask this question: Does our system of remuneration, which predominantly emphasizes monetary remuneration, meet the demand made by the worker today? Surely it is true that satisfying the need of the worker today includes, among other things, housing? Surely it is true that satisfying the need of the worker today includes, among other things, favourable working conditions? It also includes security, wages, good service conditions, etc. However, these things are not equally important to all workers. The White worker knows that performance must be linked to reward, but the Black man still has to learn this. Primarily the reward for their labour is instrumental in satisfying their status needs and the normal need to be able to eat and to live for most of the Black workers. For most of the Black workers the speed at which work is performed is in itself without any significance. This is a view which arises out of a traditional existence economy, which is the background of most of the Blacks. Experts will be able to indicate many other differences which occur among groups. Once we have acknowledged that, I plead for adequate channels of communication with the Black man as an individual and the Blacks as a group with one object in view, i.e. to get to know them better and then to be better able to decide whether a matter is in the interest of the worker or not. I believe that the leaders who will then come to the fore as representatives in the trade union context as well, will be acceptable to all parties. This is essential if we want to consult with one another in good faith. Then the worker will believe that his rights are worth more than the paper on which they are written. Once this position of trust has developed, an employee, an employer and a trade union leader will very soon notice it if he becomes a tool in the hands of political manipulators for achieving unholy aims. The worker must know that politicizing in the labour set-up in the R.S.A. very easily leads to polarization, which we can afford least of all.

When we have said all this and the worker is assured that his interests will be looked after, it is not unfair if the employer demands a quid pro quo, and then the employee will understand if the employer endeavours to reach the stage where the worker will play a more sympathetic part in his organization and will play an effective part.

There need be no doubt about the objectives of the State if we look at the Estimates of Expenditure, and they are to bring about and maintain labour peace and stability, to ensure the safety and well-being of the worker in his labour set-up, to combat unemployment, to organize training and placement, to protect workers or their dependants against financial loss in the event of accidents occurring while a worker is in service, to create employment opportunities and to provide career opportunities for qualified people, and so forth. As part of the programme for achieving these objectives the Human Resources Division of the National Productivity Institute has launched an exciting research programme which will help the National Manpower Commission to formulate a training policy and training objectives for the future of this country. However, I want to issue a warning. It is equally important that those objectives be achieved, because failure to do so lead to massive frustration among workers which will find expression in irresponsible action. That we cannot afford.

Mr. Chairman, I will not follow the hon. member for Rustenburg, but should like to come back to the opening remarks of the hon. member for Roodeplaat today.

Yes, terrible they were, too.

The hon. member criticized the PFP and suggested that we adopt a negative attitude to the labour reforms of the Government. He also suggested that we would have liked to have seen the Government run into certain difficulties with its reforms and said that we predicted that the Government would not accept the Wiehahn recommendations. I wondered why the hon. member did this. He obviously must have had some sort of a purpose. Then I realized that he was trying to distance the Government from the PFP and that this was as a result of the problems that they were experiencing with the Conservative Party. [Interjections.] The hon. member will know that I am always very prepared to give my friends in the NP good advice. I want to give them some good advice now. I want to say to them: You are defenceless against the onslaught from the Conservative Party if you attempt to pretend that you are not actually making liberal reforms, if you attempt to pretend that you are not accepting policies which are in accord with the policies of the PFP. It is nothing to be ashamed about. You are doing an excellent job of work for South Africa when you accept the policies that we are propagating. That is not to say that we have all the answers or that all our policies are necessarily the only really good policies. However, in many respects what we are trying to propagate for this country are good policies. You are welcome to them and we are pleased when you accept them. It is in the interests of our country. Obviously, for those reasons we are not negative about it when you adopt our policies. In fact, I can speak on behalf of my party and say that you can have the lot. You are welcome. It can only be in the interests of our country and in the interests of good relations in the future among all the people in our country.

It was also said that we were less than enthusiastic about all these labour reforms. I should just like to make this one point. Speaking on behalf of the PFP at the time, both the hon. member for Pinelands and I warmly welcomed the labour reforms that this Government introduced. We wished you well and we said in clear language that you could depend on our support at all times whilst you carried out those reforms. However, we also emphasized at least two warnings which have been proved to have been prophetic in the light of recent events. We warned the hon. the Minister that the Blacks of South Africa, who have been deprived over the centuries of political rights, of any means of expressing their political aspirations, of any means of achieving their legitimate political ambitions, would obviously use the negotiating instruments handed to them by the labour reforms of this Government in order to work for political reforms. That is obvious. It has been the experience in many countries over many years in other parts of the world. If you are deprived of political instruments you will use whichever other instruments are at your disposal. Obviously, labour relations instruments are effective instruments and are the only ones which are available to the Blacks. We also warned the hon. the Minister—I can remember this very specifically in respect of the events in East London—that the intervention, the unnecessary, uncalled for, callous and irresponsible intervention of the Security Police in labour affairs in South Africa would go a long way to destroying the advantage gained by the labour reforms which this Government have introduced. History has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that when the Government listen to us, they do the right thing. When they do not listen to us they make costly mistakes.

Now I should like the Government to listen very carefully because I have a few other points of advice which I should like to give to them. It is good and to be welcomed that the Government accepted certain aspects of PFP policy. It has brought about many positive advantages for South Africa in human relations in the economic and political field, but do not stop now, do not stop here, do not be put off by the emergence of the CP. Do not stop here, please continue on the road of accepting our policies. [Interjections.]

I should just like to mention a few. First of all, if you want to bring about a balance in the total South African society, having brought about labour reforms you now have to bring about reforms in many other respects. The most important, which will assist to make the labour reforms effective and successful, is immediately to balance them with political reforms, with the granting of political rights, of citizenship, of negotiating procedures, of constitutional rights for the Black people of this country. The moment you do that you take the pressure off the labour situation and you allow normal labour relations to develop unfettered, unsullied by political activities, which will then take place in their own field. I should like to make the following suggestions. I hope the hon. the Minister is listening and I hope something comes of it. You know, if we can come back here every year and say thanks to the Government because they have accepted some aspect of PFP policy then in a matter of a few years the PFP will have run out of policy and South Africa would be safe. Then we would be extremely happy.

Let me come to suggestion number one. Very seriously, the rule of law, which in South Africa has been trampled underfoot by this Government more than any other aspect of our society …

What do you know about the rule of law?

I know a little bit about the rule of law.

What you know is dangerous.

I do not want to give a long explanation of the rule of law now, because, as that hon. member says, it can be dangerous.

But have you never heard that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?

Mr. Chairman, the rule of law is specifically being destroyed in South Africa. It is obviously and conspiciously being destroyed by detentions without trial.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that detention without trial is not under discussion on this Vote.

But, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking about detention without trial of labour leaders. I am saying that by detaining labour leaders without trial you are destroying the rule of law. However, what is more important, you are destroying the possibility of success, you are destroying the potential for success of the labour reforms which you have brought about. You are creating suspicion and mistrust and a lack of confidence between labour organizations on the one hand and the Government on the other hand. You are in fact undermining the possibility of success of negotiations. You are spoiling our image in the outside world and you are destroying the potential of our representatives selling these labour reforms in other parts of the world as they are being brought about in our country.

I should like to make a very serious appeal to the hon. the Minister. He must not say it has got nothing to do with him, that it does not fall within the laws administered by his Department. He must realize that with regard to what he is doing—and we are all the way with him in that respect—it can make the difference between success and disaster if the Government continue to allow the Security Police to interfere in that particular field. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is as follows. He sits in the Cabinet with the hon. the Minister of Law and Order. Can he not go to him and say to him simply: Please, lay off. If these people are guilty of subversion, if they are a threat to the security of the State, then charge them in a court of law, where everybody can see what the activities are that they are guilty of. For goodness sake, do not create the impression that the Security Police are taking police action to prevent our labour reforms from being fully successful and fully applied in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, a third bit of advice is the following: A free labour situation is part of a free society. To have apartheid in your universities and your technikons is the contrary of a free society. You build certain contradictions into the South African society which are a danger for your labour reforms. Unless you are prepared to open universities to all races, unless you are prepared to open technikons to all races, unless you are prepared to open educational and training institutions to all races, you are effectively undermining the impact and the potential for success of your labour reforms. I think the hon. the Minister here again can take the steps which are necessary in the Cabinet to ensure success. [Time expired.]

Mr, Chairman, if I have to respond to what the hon. member for Bryanston said, I will probably have to spend so much time on it that I will not have any time to say the positive things that I want to say.

Say what you want to say.

I should nevertheless be allowed to point out that the hon. the Minister’s reply was that trade unionists were not being harassed by the Police. These are people who ostensibly belong to trade unions for other reasons. By continually making statements of that kind, by setting up the skittles himself and then knocking them down, he is placing an argument in the hands of those people. What is more, he is harming our name abroad. [Interjections.]

†With reference to the speech of my colleague the hon. member for Walmer, I want to say that I also had discussions with employers in Port Elizabeth. As a matter of fact, I think both of us were present at one of the meetings. I find it surprising that I have to give evidence here tonight that I have experienced exactly the opposite response to that which he experienced. I can only hope that we were not speaking to the same employers.

*On reading through the Explanatory Memorandum on the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from the State Revenue Account during the financial year ending on 31 March 1983, one is struck by the fact that there is an increase of R5 306 000 in respect of Programme 4: Training. This is the largest increase in this Vote. If one reads further, one sees that with regard to the subprogramme co-ordination and Promotion of Manpower Training, R7 245 400 is being appropriated for the financial year ending on 31 March 1983, while no provision was made for this in the previous financial year. In respect of this subprogramme the following observation is made—

To my mind this is a remarkable ideal, an ideal which, if it can be achieved, promises a glorious future for the South African worker. It is not only a glorious future that awaits the worker of South Africa, but it is also a glorious future that awaits South Africa if that ideal can be achieved. Without fear of contradiction I want to say that South Africa is still full of development possibilities. I am sure the hon. member for Walmer agrees with me. If this ideal can be achieved, we have a golden future indeed.

Let us be practical for a moment and look at what the Department has already done to achieve that ideal. We see that in the previous financial year a non-recurring amount of R2 million was spent on establishing the eight existing in-service training centres. This was capital expenditure. The running costs of those in-service training centres are borne by the employers. Of course the State makes tax concessions in this regard. That is of course a further contribution which cannot be reflected in these estimates. The contribution made by the State is therefore considerably larger than shown in this Explanatory Memorandum. There is therefore teamwork between the authorities and the employers in the process of in-service training. Teamwork is of course a first essential in establishing certain uniform standards. Five of the institutions are in the Transvaal, one in Natal, one in the Free State and one in Port Elizabeth in the Cape. These institutions are mainly intended to be training centres for the unskilled worker to enable him to make a more sophisticated contribution to the economy. This is an important step towards achieving the ideal to which I referred earlier. Full use is being made of those institutions. The hon. the Minister quoted statistics in this regard this afternoon. I regard them as so important that I should like to repeat them. In 1978 the attendance figure was 6 619 persons; in 1982, four years later, it was 13 401 persons, in other words, an increase of more than 100%.

This brings me to the artisan. The only test centre where artisans can at present qualify to be admitted as tradesmen is at Olifantsfontein. I want to confine myself to a specific subdivision of the artisan’s field, namely the automobile industry. When an artisan is ready to be tested he has to apply to go to Olifantsfontein. It is not always possible to go immediately. I believe the waiting period is sometimes as long as six months and even longer. Hon. members will understand how frustrating it must be for an apprentice whose training has been completed if he still has to wait such a long time before he can complete his trade test and can qualify and reach artisan status. We already have a shortage of artisans and then they still have to wait before they can be tested. In Part II of the Wiehahn Report it is mentioned on page 31, paragraph 3.11, that the Employer’s Organization stated that it was unsatisfactory that the trade tests were conducted at Olifantsfontein. When the report was compiled the centre was still under the control of the Department of National Education. It was recommended that it be placed under the control of the Department of Manpower. This recommendation has since been implemented. The other recommendation that was made, i.e. that test centres be decentralized, should also receive attention. I actually have more knowledge of Port Elizabeth. We have three large motor manufacturers there. We in the Eastern Province like to call them the three big ones. According to my information the number of apprentices in the automobile industry increased from 198 in 1979 to 338 in 1982. This is an increase of about 70%. This excludes apprentices in the motor repair industry. The figure relates only to the automobile industry. The request is that apprentices who are ready to sit for the test should not necessarily have to go to Olifantsfontein, but that they should be able to undergo the test locally, in this case in Port Elizabeth. The position in Port Elizabeth is that the motor manufacturers have all the test facilities there. I am assured that they have all the test facilities that exist in Olifantsfontein. In some respects their equipment is even more modern than that which is available at Olifantsfontein. In addition, the Employers’ Organisation informs me that it would like to give some artisans a more sophisticated training. For that purpose equipment which they have, but which is not available at Olifantsfontein, is necessary. I am not speaking with the approval of the Employers’ Organization only, I am also speaking with the approval of the employees. The iron and steel industry supports this request which I am making to the hon. the Minister. They do not support it only on a local basis, but their head office also supports the representations I am making. I understand that it often happens that apprentices who go to Olifantsfontein have to take equipment with them in order to do their tests. In this process some of their equipment is lost. This is also an unnecessary risk which can be eliminated if trade tests can be decentralized.

It seems to me that the central organization for trade testing can still prescribe the standards which should be maintained in conducting the tests. Employers and employees, as has been said here, are equally jealous of the standard of the tests to be completed and want a high standard to be maintained, but the examining can for example be done in Port Elizabeth. If necessary, assignments could even be moderated by examiners from Olifantsfontein, as is sometimes done at universities.

Mr. Chairman, before actually coming to what I prepared myself to say here, I just want to refer to two matters that have been raised here. The first is the allegation made here by the Official Opposition that farm labourers are being exploited in the farming community.

You are very, very sensitive about it, very sensitive indeed.

I am not a farmer, but I can only say to the Official Opposition that we as a local authority sent quite a number of Black workers to the Boskop Training Centre to be trained as tractor drivers and that not one of them returned to the local authority although we pay reasonably good salaries. They were all employed by the farmers in the immediate vicinity. The farmers can therefore not be paying too bad a wage to their labourers on the farms.

Methinks the farmer protests too much.

Another matter I should like to refer to is the remark that the worker no longer supports the National Party and that they are being driven away from the National Party. I probably represent the constituency with the largest number of workers and I just want to tell the people who make those allegations that they are underestimating the intelligence of the worker. [Interjections.] Those hon. members now say that we shall see later on how matters stand. I can only say that they recently had meetings there and they were a complete flop. They were a total fiasco. However, I leave it at that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make use of this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister and his Department for the zeal and enthusiasm displayed by them in this Department. Tonight I actually want to pay special attention to the people in the mining industry and I want to refer more particularly to the mine-worker himself. It is a fact that the mining industry certainly cannot manage without the expertise of the White worker. The White worker also realizes this. Now there are those who are spreading poison here and who are telling the mine-worker that, if training is provided, he will lose his job as a result. I want to say here allegation today that if training is also given to the Blacks, it will be of great benefit to the mine-worker himself. At the moment there is a tremendous shortage of trained people in the mining industry. There is a shortage of approximately 700 men with blasting certificates. There is also a shortage of more than a thousand artisans in the mining industry. I am aware that large extensions amounting to several millions of rands are being envisaged in the mining industry, and now I have to ask the question: If no training is done, where must the men come from to do that work?

Do you want to give the Blacks blasting certificates? [Interjections.]

I want to say this, Sir, that if no training is provided, those extensions in the mining industry could not take place, and I think that is a luxury that our country cannot afford.

I want to go further, Sir. It is alleged here that all types of work in the mining industry will now be thrown open to half-trained people. That is absolutely untrue, Mr. Chairman. The people who say this ought to know that it is untrue. The hon. the Minister has on various occasions—in fact, whenever he has referred to this—said that no change will take place which does not meet with the approval of the employer and the employee. What better guarantee does one want than this? I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that there is far too much suspicion-mongering, instead of assisting so that the mine-worker can also have the benefit of having a trained man at his side to help him where he too is earning his daily bread. The increased wages paid to people of colour in the past years—there has been an increase of between 400% and 500% in wages—has resulted in less use being made of these people and in the employer preferring to employ trained people. Hence the large increase in apprentices in the mining industry. I may just mention that the mining industry is also suffering as a result. As I have said, an increase of between 400% and 500% has been granted to people of colour, but it has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in productivity, because these people have not received the necessary training. It is after all a fact that a well-trained person is a motivated person, and that he is also a person who pays more attention to safety in his work than somebody who knows nothing about the work that he is doing.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the spreading of poison among the mine-workers. I want to go back to the strike which occurred in 1978, where these people were incited to go on strike because training was being provided and because people of colour were employed in certain posts. The strike lasted from 6 to 13 March, and now I want to indicate to you what the mine-worker lost as a result of this irresponsible conduct. He lost plus minus R1 000 in salary, as well as his bonuses, his medical service, his house and his years of service.

That is a disgrace—because they go on strike once, for six or seven days! [Interjections.]

Sir, it is now being said that it is a disgrace. I want to tell you: If you know why they went on strike, you would rather have called it a disgrace, because there was no reason at all for going on strike. I just want to point out what this irresponsible talk can cost the mine-worker. Please, stop it. It is causing that poor mine-worker and his family heavy losses.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say something about training in the mining industry. A mine-worker is trained and he works 312 shifts. Then he has to undergo a test and he obtains a blasting certificate. As soon as he has obtained that certificate, a team of Black workers is allocated to him to assist him in the work which is then given to him, and sometimes at more than one work-face. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as we come towards the end of this fairly long day of discussing manpower utilization, I just want to say to the hon. member for Roodeplaat that I found his speech very strange. It seemed to me as though he was struggling desperately to find something to say, and for him to suggest that this side of the House has responded in a lukewarm fashion to the reforms as initiated by the hon. the Minister and his Department, is of course just not true. For him, and indeed other members on that side of the House, actually to criticise the members of the Conservative Party—and I hold no brief for them whatsoever—and to question them as to their feelings on job reservation and trade union rights for Blacks, is quite absurd, because that hon. member knows better than most that when we were pleading for just those two things and when we pleaded for a commission of inquiry, which the hon. the Minister sitting over there has now introduced and launched, there was not a single member either in that party or in the Conservative Party who would accept that. When we pleaded for trade union rights for Blacks, we were regarded as agitators, as saboteurs and as unpatriotic. During the dinner break I read through the Hansards, and I could take all night quoting speech after speech by hon. members sitting on that side of the House. They must not come along with this nonsense and say: Who voted for what, when and why? The fact of the matter is: Let us accept that we are all agreed that these things are necessary, and let us move on from there. Let us not try to suggest that the one did not like it and the other did. The fact is—and the hon. the Minister knows this better than most—that year after year we have stood up and given credit where credit was due. I leave the matter there.

The other point which I find fascinating is the remarkable number of references made by hon. members on that side and in the Conservative Party to the decision made by the hon. the Minister, and not by me, to refer to the Manpower Commission an inquiry into farm workers and domestic workers. No-one seems to care very much about domestic workers, but the farmers are so sensitive about what is going to happen and they are so nervous about it, but if they have nothing to hide, that is fine; let us go ahead with the commission of inquiry. All I asked the hon. Minister was what progress, if any, had been made. The hon. the Minister replied and told me that the Manpower Commission was looking at it. [Interjections.] No, I said it was generally accepted that farm workers and domestic workers, because they are excluded from the labour laws, are the most exploited people in industry, and they are.

Nonsense!

Of course they are. You can dismiss them without any reference. You can pay them what you will. They do not fall under the Wage Act.

“Boerehater!”

Oh, look who is here! Mr. Chairman, that side has now even brought in reserves to try and bolster up the farmers, and now I am very worried! I think the hon. the Minister has put it very well. He has stated that the minimum conditions of service are going to be looked at. I am quite happy about that. The farmers say they are very happy about it, “but”. Let us leave it to the inquiry. I would suggest that there is a pattern of feudalism and benevolent paternalism which cannot be continued forever, and obviously there are going to have to be changes.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg and I have often crossed swords in another capacity, and I welcome his entry into this debate. I look forward to talking to him on the subject of education and training as well, from a different perspective. He made the point and pleaded with the hon. the Minister not to let the farm workers fall under the normal labour laws of the land. He said that what would happen would be that one would internationalize this and that people would then take action against it. What utter rubbish! The fact of the matter is that because farm workers and domestic workers are not under the labour laws, they are subject to exploitation from outside by people who are against the country.

You are talking nonsense.

Of course that is so. Let us look at the facts. The fact is that we have actually made changes in South Africa, and whilst we are not all that popular yet at the ILO, there is no doubt about the fact that there is a change of attitude in the world towards South Africa in so far as its labour laws are concerned, and we welcome that. One must wait for the inquiry and wait for the recommendations, but as soon as farm workers and even domestic workers can have certain basic and fundamental rights, I guarantee that this will move us even closer to acceptance at the ILO, and I think that would be a very good thing for South Africa indeed.

There is another matter I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister. I have referred to him a request which we and, I think, hon. members from the NRP, have made in the past. Certainly we have tried to do so. I refer to the request that literacy training should qualify for the tax incentives which are offered for all other in-company training. I have been approached by someone who is involved with an enormous amount of training across the industry. He makes the point that again and again, to his utter amazement, even today there are many Black workers who are illiterate. Therefore he suggests that literacy training should be accorded tax incentives so that we can proceed from there.

There is one last item I should like to refer to the hon. the Minister before I sit down. Prof. Roelf van der Merwe from Port Elizabeth has from time to time referred to the preference, particularly amongst unregistered trade unions in Port Elizabeth and elsewhere, for work-place negotiation, and their suspicion, or even outright rejection, of the Industrial Council system. Those of us who know the system, know that it is a trusted and tried system which has served South Africa well, but the facts of the matter make it imperative, I believe, for us to take a hard, objective and careful look at the Industrial Council—not to scrap it, but to make absolutely sure that it can be used in the best way possible in this modern and new movement in South Africa. A number of reasons have been offered as to why some of these unions prefer work-place negotiation. Some of them are quite straightforward. Firstly, they point out in their literature that the Industrial Council system is slow and inefficient when it comes to resolving work-place issues, and that newly emergent unions have a need to demonstrate an active presence in the work place, and therefore they opt for that. Successive governments, and not just this one, they say, have dragged their feet in the matter of incorporating Blacks into the official negotiating channels, which therefore hold no benefit for them. Now they seek to bypass them, and they have actually obtained certain results. Some unions have recognized that considerable short term benefits can be obtained from selective pressure on certain individual employers. I would warn unions who opt for this, that this could be very bad. It could be destructive, by isolating certain individual employers. Therefore the best answer to this, I believe, is not simply to say: “The Industrial Council system is there. It has served us forever. They must use it or they can use nothing.” I believe that if the Minister’s Department could take a look at this again and see if there is any way in which we can improve a system which has served well, it will encourage union leaders to be more responsible in their attitudes towards negotiation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston seems to live in a dream world. He thinks that political rights will automatically lead to labour peace. I wonder when last he studied the “gentle and peaceful” labour scene in the United Kingdom and on the Continent. All those countries have the so-called “constitutional rights” which he referred to, and all those countries are then automatically supposed to be models of labour peace. And what about the model countries north of our borders which some hon. members have referred to? All those countries are also supposed to have very good constitutional systems going for them. What about their transport strikes? What has gone wrong there? Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member should look at Europe again. He should again study what has happened in the past few years. If he does so, he will discover that their lists of strikes certainly make some of our horror books look like fairytales. If he looks at how they have dealt with their strikes and their labour unrest, I think he will agree with me that our Minister and Department of Manpower have certainly come up with some unique solutions in our own country. One only has to look at the number of strikes that we have had, and compare manhours worked with the number of manhours we have lost through industrial unrest, with the figures in the UK. One can then ask oneself: Are we as bad as the hon. member for Bryanston wishes to make out?

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, that hon. member has had his opportunity. He must now give me a chance.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to come back to the question of the domestic workers. We pass so glibly over the scene of domestic workers in the Republic, but let us be quite honest. Who are the people who started living in luxury, which streams of domestic servants in this country? I do not even have to refer to the mink and manure set of Johannesburg; it is well-known. Let us quote only one fact. When a certain lady in this country came up with the idea of creating a pension scheme for domestic workers, she went on record as saying that she had had quite a few applications and requests from people to participate, but not a single one from the mink and manure set of Johannesburg. This is very interesting. [Interjections.] She is on record as stating that she had not had one single request, during the first week of operation, from those people. And these are the people who are supposed to be the do-gooders!

*Mr. Chairman, I want to go further and tell the hon. the Minister and the Department that we are proud of what they have achieved over the past year. We are really encouraged by it. They have brought about industrial peace in this country. But let us be quite honest—it has been done by co-operating with managements and trade unions.

Sir, but there still are people who are trying to upset the labour peace in our country for their own political gain. I have been in such a situation, and hon. members will know to whom in Durban I am referring—a certain lady from Bolton Hall. I stood among the people there and saw how Whites who were among the Blacks were inciting those Blacks to have nothing to do with the Whites and with management and with the labour leaders in the then Department of Labour. It is those Whites which are sitting behind a part of our labour force and inciting them for political gain.

The Official Opposition is now making a tremendous song and dance here about certain labour leaders who allegedly are being treated so terribly harshly by our Security Police. But, Sir, if those people have done nothing wrong, what are they afraid of? I am not afraid to have a policeman entering my house. I am not afraid if a security policeman comes to me and puts questions to me. This is the type of tactics those hon. members are trying here. There is constant suspicion-mongering. Our Security Police have a job to do, and if they do not do their job, I want to tell those hon. members opposite that they will not, because they are members of the PFP, be spared the unrest which will develop here. They will share our concern about how to solve the matter. We have industrial peace now, and we want to ask them to count their words, to ensure that this industrial peace will continue in our country. They should not come here in the highest council chambers of our country and try to sow suspicion against the Security Police, the Police and our labour leaders. It is a disgrace that they can even attempt anything of the kind.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak very briefly about the concept of “equal pay for equal work” this evening. There are a couple of hon. members sitting here this evening who apparently became very excited about this situation in the past. Sir, we should define this concept very clearly. It is not “equal pay for equal work”; it is much rather “equal pay for equal work performed”, or, as I should like to call it, “equal pay for equal performance”. That is what it is about. Let us just take a look at the education situation. These people all have the official designation of “teacher”, but that does not mean that they are all paid equally. There are different scales and there are different wages that they receive. We should not lose sight of the fact that there are people who are beginning and that there are also people who have been in a post for many years. They all have the same official designation, but the people who have been in a post for a long time, have already had merit payments, service payments, achievement awards, etc., added.

Now there are many Whites who turn around and say: “Yes, you may employ people of other colours, provided you pay them the same wage you pay us.” Sir, that is a false notion, because the payment to which such a person is referring, is his present income, and his present income has all those factors of years of service, of merit increments, of achievement bonuses, etc., built into it. That is his total income. Obviously you cannot want to give the same total income packet to somebody starting now. That is obviously a fallacious argument and an incorrect approach. Even the Parliamentarians on that side of the House know that such a situation would be quite absurd. In any case, people who argue like that, do not take the economy of our country into account at all. What should much rather be done is that a systematical evaluation of posts should be carried out.

We were the first to recommend it in this House.

Such an evaluation of posts will show what the actual values of posts are. After all, Sir, we know that the Whites’ scarcity factor played a part and that his salary gradually moved up. Post evaluations that have already been done, clearly indicate that the White person’s payment and wages have reached an artificially high level, and those same post evaluations have also indicated that there are certain Blacks whose level of remuneration has been fairly low. Between those two extremes lies the correct payment; between them lies the correct level. I say this openly today: A mineworker who earns R2 300 or R2 500 per month should not come with the emotional story that you can grant a Black a blasting certificate provided you pay him R2 500 as well. If you establish what the real value of the post is, you will find that it is not near the level of what those people are earning today. They are rewarded for, among other things, years of service, bonuses for achievements, etc. It is obviously absurd to say off the cuff that a man should be allowed to earn the same as another man simply because his post has the same designation.

Sir, this problem of “equal pay for equal work” has unfortunately acquired a political colour and flavour. There are members, of the Conservative Party as well, I think, who are now all of a sudden try ing to make some political capital out of this. They are the people who are now suddenly saying that we as a Government are selling out the White man by means of “equal pay for equal work performed”. But, Sir, nothing is further from the truth than just this. If those people just want to be honest and sincere, they will broadcast to the people who belong to their party what this Government had created for the worker with the very object of avoiding this. The industrial peace, the Industrial Tribunal and the whole labour set-up which have been created by this Government lend themselves excellently to protecting the interests of the White worker and the other workers of our country. Surely this is a unique system! [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Opposition and also the Conservative Party whether they are opposed in principle to political interference in the labour field. This is a serious question. Are they against it, or do they support it?

We are definitely opposed in principle to interference.

What do you mean by that?

It means that one wants to introduce political elements such as one man, one vote and party politics into the labour union and on the factory floor. I think those hon. members owe us the reply to that question.

But it is the wrong question, because it is going to happen.

Right, you say it is going to happen?

Of course. (Interjections. ]

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue across the floor of the House.

Sir, we have here a labour revolution, a revolution in the sense of a new system, a system in terms oí which we are now expecting the employer to maintain peace in his organization We have here a system under which the labourer is protected individually. We have here a system under which the employer has to negotiate has been created, and we are now coming to the point where we have to let the players act correctly within this framework. We are faced with a great challenge, where we have White foremen and Black workers, and also the beginning of Black foremen with Black workers. Therefore, Sir, we cannot afford the pattern which is developing being disrupted by political vultures.

I should like to tell the hon. member for Pinelands a story. He was the chairman of a committee, and it so happened that I was a member of it. One day, when we were considering the establishment of an institute for labour relations, Mrs. Lucy Mvubelo told those young people of Durban—and he knows who they are: “Every time you bring politics into the trade union movement, you set us back ten years.” But, Sir, we have to accept that these vultures exist. The World Council of Churches and the S.A. Council of Churches are actively busy with the idea of bringing home to the worker class the concept of exploitation. We know the World Federation of Trade Unions plays an active part against mechanization, about unemployment, against multinational companies, and against the political system. We have a problem, because these people are joining hands to form one international force against us. We cannot ignore this. These people are also operating upon our non-White trade unions in an intensive way and giving them moral support. They are bombarding them with negative propaganda. We need only look at the Sunday Times of Sunday. There we see the pronouncements of Jan Theron of the Food and Canning Workers’ Union. “Political involvement is inevitable,” it is said. Then we have Joe Foster of Fosatu: “The workers’ struggle—the official Fosatu theme for the years to come.”

Have you forgotten 1922 and the White Mine workers’ Union? [Interjections.]

I continue quoting from the Sunday Times of 18 April—

Then Foster continued by praising the ANC. He pointed out that through the unity of trade unions socialism was entering the bloodstream of South African politics. But, Sir, it does not only come from the side of the trade unions. There are certain other persons as well. I also want to refer to Stuart Pennington of Freight Services, who is also mentioned in this Sunday Times. He declared that politics and labour were inseparable.

In an interesting report which appeared in The Argus, a certain Edwin du Brois of the Careers Council of Soweto said, inter alia, the following, and I quote—

This is a rejection of our system and we cannot get away from that. This type of article appears in our newspapers and comes from our trade union leaders and from what we ourselves call “good friends of ours”. [Interjections.] When trade unions start asking for an allowance of R3 per hour, I happen to know that certain ex-students of certain universities are supporting them actively. I cannot understand what they are doing in the trade union movement. We cannot argue away the fact that we have people in our trade union system who want to sabotage this beautiful system which we are developing at the moment. How can we compete when an unskilled labourer in the rural areas asks for a wage of R3 per hour? I do not think we will be able to compete. All that we find is more mechanization, more automation and more unemployment.

I want to conclude by referring to the reply of the hon. member for Brakpan that he is opposed to political interference. I also hope that he is not going to ask for job reservation again.

We did not ask for that.

I said I was hoping they were not going to do it.

Oh, well, then you are wasting our time.

Yes, but with you people one never knows.

Then I want to say to the CP that I should very much like to hear them for once telling those trade union leaders, whom they know, to get out of the way, so that the normal process between employer and employee in this country can run its normal course and we can find one another. We cannot afford to bring politics onto the factory floor.

Mr. Chairman, we in South Africa are experiencing a serious shortage of skilled workers. According to the latest statistics I have at my disposal, the shortage is about 28 000 people. This is a big problem. In certain sectors there is even a shortage of semi-skilled workers and this is also a big problem. With respect, I think that this problem has perhaps been over-emphasized in this debate, because to my mind there is a much bigger problem, and that is that South Africa also has an over-supply of unskilled, untrained workers. Therefore I do not want to associate myself with the hon. members of the NRP and the CP who said that the situation would have been better if there had been a more extensive immigration programme, but rather with hon. members on this side who placed the emphasis on training, particularly in relation to apprentices, but also in-service training. Therefore I was highly gratified by the fact that the hon. the Minister was able this evening to announce a large increase in the number of apprentices enrolled. Training of apprentices is of course a long-term solution. What is equally important, if not more important, in the short term and in the immediate situation is of course in-service training. In this regard I also want to thank the Department and congratulate them on the success they have achieved in involving the private sector in this praiseworthy objective. In addition I want to congratulate the Department on the fact that they have taken action themselves and are running the eight in-service training centres in the Republic, inter alia, at Chamdor, Boithusong and Apex, which is in my constituency. The hon. the Minister will recall that we visited Chamdor a year or two ago as a study group and that we were particularly impressed by the equipment, but also by the accommodation, the study facilities, the library and the training itself and also in particular by the involvement of the private sector, which had made large donations in terms of equipment and even buildings. The hon. the Minister then told me that we also had to do something at Apex in my constituency, and I fully agreed with him. I want to thank him for the fact that he and his Department remained firm in their resolve and voted more than R5 million last year for extensions at Apex. I want to tell him that the new workshops are already being built and that the site is looking beautiful and that good progress is being made. I also want to say that, since the Department of Manpower took over these training centres, enormous progress has been made, especially at the one at Apex. This training centre concentrates mainly on civil engineering, and at the request of this profession its courses have been increased from 32 to 54. In addition, the centre also offers courses in respect of the building industry, the metal industry, the hotel industry and management and various other courses. Last year 2 000 people were trained there. This year the centre expects to train more than 4 000 people. Because of its large hinterland, the large industrial area served by it and the applications of civil engineering firms throughout the country, it can develop into the largest in-service training centre in South Africa. It did, however, have one drawback. Chamdor, and Boithusong at Bloemfontein had accommodation facilities for the students. Although the Department of Manpower had voted money for the erection of three hostels in which 120 students could be accommodated, there were various technical and other problems and stumbling blocks which proved to be almost insurmountable. As a result the hotel school was no longer prepared to send its students there because there was no accommodation for them. A large motor-car leasing company that wanted to do all its servicing and training there, decided not to go there any more because there was no accommodation. So it went on. Fortunately, with the co-operation of particularly the hon. the Minister and the Director-General of Manpower, the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development it was possible to iron out the problems and approval was obtained on the very last day of the financial year for the erection of those hostels. I want to thank them very sincerely for the co-operation which made that possible. I think that it is a great investment for the future not only for my constituency, but also for South Africa and the development of our manpower in future.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. members who have spoken since this afternoon and participated in the debate, very cordially for their participation and for the very fruitful discussion to which we could listen. It reminds me of the remark which has been made before that the level of debating, but also the variety of topics that are dealt with and discussed meaningfully, have changed considerably during the past few years. I think that is a good sign. After all, I think that the whole field of manpower is broadening and that in-depth investigations are being made into matters which in the past we did not consider it necessary to look at. This augurs well for the future, because in a developing South Africa with its complexity of people and activities, especially in this field, which covers the entire economy, it is so essential that we also take a look at all the facets and aspects of the labour sphere. I think it is just as well and also fortunate that we had the insight to do something of which South Africa can pick the rich fruit today. I am referring to the day when we appointed the National Manpower Commission. In the past few years that Commission has, with the way in which it has been constituted, with its terms of reference and with the composition of its personnel, performed work and come forward with assistance and insight for planning for the future. The country would have been much poorer if they had not been there. Therefore I am so glad that we could have Dr. Reynders, the Chairman of the Commission, here to-night. I want to say to him that I want to convey my own and hon. members’ thanks to him for the really great task that has been performed. A short while ago the Commission handed a very thick report of its activities to me. I approved of it and it is in the process of being printed. I can tell hon. members now already that they would do well to take a look at it. Then we can have a much more meaningful discussion on it next year. I have looked at the report and I am looking forward to it that the whole of South Africa will benefit from it. I therefore say to Dr. Reynders and his personnel that we have confidence in them and are greatly indebted to them for the work they are doing.

Having said this, I want to revert to another topic and refer to a speech made by the hon. member for Sasolburg this afternoon.

The hon. member spoke about relations. Since his speech various things have been said about relations, which are so extremely important in the labour situation. In the final analysis everything revolves around good relations. If the State does not inspire the workers with confidence, there cannot be any progress. If employers and employees do not have a good relationship, we have the position that obtains in other countries of the world. The fact that we can today boast of an achievement such as the low loss rate per day per person in this country of ours, is also attributable to the fact that we still have very sound relations in comparison to other countries. Mr. Chairman, you will now allow me to say on this occasion that there is one thing I do not want. It would be a catastrophe if we should create the impression in this country that there is mistrust of trade unions, White trade unions, Brown trade unions, mixed trade unions or whatever trade unions. It would be a catastrophe, because it is wrong.

I therefore come back to the speech made by the hon. member for Sasolburg today. I want to tell him that the relations between the Government and the Department and the trade unions of South Africa are very cordial indeed. I am glad that that is the position.

How many registered trade unions are there?

There are 200 trade unions. As I said this afternoon, about 12 have been added this year. These trade unions do not only obey the laws. It is not so much a question of the laws being abided by, but the fact of the matter is that there is co-operation with employers and employees to use the bargaining machinery, but also to indicate progress. We have the benefit of it. That is why the figure has been mentioned here today. I myself also mentioned it. Although there were forecasts that a large section of the Black workers in their trade unions would not co-operate, the facts are, however, that almost three times as many Black people belonging to trade unions are today co-operating and are achieving peace, quiet and progress for their people, as opposed to others who have become a small minority, people who did not want to register. It is not really a question of not registering either, but a question of a number of trade unions who are led by people who tell them that they should be militant, whatever that may mean in different spheres. I think that is wrong. I think it is only by setting a good example and by having good relations that we can bridge this in order to show that benefit can be gained from having good relations and good co-operation in this country. After all, who in South Africa does not want to do only the best for the workers of this country?

I also want to say that I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the workers for their co-operation and loyalty, and I want to tell them that I stand by them in their endeavour to promote prosperity, benefits and development for their own people and in their endeavour to improve their skills, and that I for my part will do my best to co-operate with trade unions and to respect and to make use of these instruments and to maintain the very best relations with them. There is a great lack of understanding concerning trade unions and their aspirations among many of our people. I want to issue a warning to those people who do not know what those aspirations are and who think that a trade union is an organization of people who are only looking for trouble. That is not true. Trade unions have rendered very good services in this country. After all, the fact that we have had so much labour peace during the past year, is due to our having had responsible trade unions who could pursue that. We therefore should not allow people to think that this Government has something against trade unions or does not want to co-operate with them. That is not so.

We have had a brilliant record of labour peace and I mentioned the figure today. I may as well repeat this. As regards the total manpower in this country of ours, and I am now referring to 1,83 million workers working in our industries and factories and not to the workers in the mines and in the public services, the man-day loss is simply an achievement for South Africa. I thank the trade unions for managing to do this. It is also a fact that a large number of workers are joining trade unions, and that the trade unions, while on the one hand a cross-current of militancy has been evident are on the other hand creating a good life, which augurs very well for the future. I want to emphasize it very strongly today that no trade union is being forced to register. Let us understand this clearly. Nobody is being forced. The facts are that if trade unions want to make use of the bargaining machinery and all the benefits attached to that, we believe that they should co-operate in the well proven way. We are not forcing anybody to belong to a trade union and we are not forcing any trade union to register. If they do not register, however, it simply means that they forgo certain benefits. If they think they can manage without these benefits, it is their business. The point is, however, that we are not going to force anybody, and I also want it to be very clearly understood that there is no compulsion. There are, in other words, benefits that are being offered. I myself said on a previous occasion in the House that I initially thought that there was a case to be made out for saying that unless a trade union registered, quite a number of things would be prohibited. While the registration of trade unions was under consideration, I initially thought that there was something in this, that this would perhaps be the course to follow. I then abandoned the idea and today I am convinced more than ever that it should not happen.

I therefore want to say that we are not experiencing problems with trade unions. I do, want to add, however, that we are experiencing problems with certain militant people who, in my opinion, want to lead trade unions in wrong directions. It is true that trade union members have to decide who are to be their managements and leaders. It is not for us to say who they are to be. However, I want to warn them and tell them that they should be careful of militancy and the type of leaders who until now have really caused them problems and have not helped them. But I want to add that when I look at the past six months, I see so much promise and so many signs of sound development that it would be unnatural to think that in South Africa one would not also have extremes in various directions in the trade union world. This is a normal type of phenomenon. I therefore think the attitude to adopt is the attitude of balance, fairness towards everybody and caution. I think if all of us maintain a balanced, cautious and fair attitude, we shall progress very far on this road.

I share the hon. member Dr. Marais’s fears about political interference. That would not be a good thing. I too am careful about this matter. In order to formulate precisely what is meant by this, the matter should be given very careful thought in future. However, I want to say that, in general, it would be wrong if a trade union were used for purposes other than those for which it actually exists. It is there to bargain. It is there to help its people, to negotiate conditions of service for its people and to obtain the best for them. It is not there, as has been said to me, “to be used as a tool in our liberation struggle”. That is not what it is there for. I can only hope that the day will never come that trade unions, as has been said here today and as I have my own fears and have said myself, are used by certain people to spread unrest, to bring in other motives and to seek to achieve other goals than making the labour field a prosperous one for the labourer in South Africa. In saying these things in passing, I want to get this off my chest, so that trade union members will also know that on the part of the Government there is no feeling against the existence of trade unions and the large number of trade unions which are playing a great and good part in our economic life today.

The hon. member for Rustenburg made the observation that demands should be made in a responsible way and that the process of negotiation should be properly understood. I want to tell the hon. member that I agree with him. The crux of the problem for us that there should be a balanced attitude and proper understanding when demands are made and in negotiations.

Mr. Chairman, may I also refer to other speeches made subsequently? When we look at the adult way in which negotiations are conducted in the outside world, which has much longer experience of this matter with trade unions which are much older, if we look at a country such as Germany, there is a relationship between what is asked for by way of higher wages and what is given. If there is no such relationship, we land in the situation that, as has been pointed out here today, there is eventually such a difference between what is put into the production process and what is extracted from it that inflation is stimulated by it. That is the basic reason why we in South Africa, compared with the outside world man for man, have a productivity per factory worker which is so much lower than that in Europe. I therefore want to say that it is important that this relationship should always be kept in mind.

†Mr. Chairman, I should like again to come back to the questions put to me by the hon. member for Durban North. He asked me a question about the implementation of the amendments of the Labour Relations Act with regard to the Industrial Court. The amending legislation was only published in the Government Gazette on 14 April 1982. The Department has no control over this and a Rules Board must be appointed to enable the board to come into operation on the date when the amendment act comes into force. Nominations for the appointment of the Rules Board have been called for and the National Manpower Commission and the president of the Industrial Court are busy investigating the functions of the Court Further action will follow once the report is received.

*Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kimberley South made two points. Firstly, he raised the point in connection with equal pay for equal standards. The hon. member for Stilfontein spoke about the same subject. I want to say that I agree with the hon. members. In South Africa we have to be very careful not simply to think that when somebody fills a post he should receive the salary attached to that post. In disciplined and old economies of disciplined countries— when I speak of disciplined, I want to add that age does bring with it the type of discipline that a young country does not always have—the fact of the matter is that there is a very good understanding in regard to the question of what a man can expect for the service rendered by him. On a previous occasion we said, and I agree with hon. members on that, that our employers in South Africa will have to realize more and more that they have to remunerate their workers on the basis of the merit of the work performed by them. That is what it amounts to. Remuneration will have to be linked to merit. If that is not done, we shall simply move in a socialist direction in which South Africa does not want to move.

The hon. member for Kimberley South spoke about a training centre for adult Coloureds in Kimberley. I want to tell the hon. member that we have been looking at this for quite some time. There is a need for it. A training centre of this type has been erected at Kasselsvlei and I am sure that we have to make further provision for the future at another place. I cannot give the hon. member a reply now, but we are looking very carefully at what he proposed here.

The hon. member for Springs spoke about top management. He spoke about training and labour relations. He also asked for a training scheme that must be imaginative in this regard. I just want to tell the hon. member that what he mentioned is extremely important. I have said before that it is extremely important that we should look at top management. Just to draw the comparison again, it is simply a fact that there is a relationship between the ability of the number of people controlling top managements in a country and the workers under them. The more sophisticated the economy is, the more top management people are required. The ratio in South Africa is a very negative one at the moment. We do not compare well with other countries, because we have a small group of trained people at the top with a large mass of untrained people below them. The only way of achieving a balance and managing the mass better and to get more out of it, is to see to it that this mass is trained to a high level and that the number of top management people is increased. This ratio in America and Europe, respectively, is one to ten and one to fifteen, which is a sound ratio, while the ratio in South Africa is higher than one to forty. This will probably increase to a ratio of one to seventy. I mention this merely to indicate what our backlog is. That is what we are fighting against at the moment to see whether we can narrow this gap.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Are we not as a result of the Defence Amendment Act in fact going to have a decrease of top management in the manpower situation within the next four years or so because more Whites are going to be called up?

That is not really quite correct. The hon. member should know that the people who will be withdrawn will in fact be untrained and young people. Top management is also related to age.

By extension?

I do not think it will work out like that in practise. After all, the hon. member should bear in mind that the Department of Manpower, together with the Manpower Commission, co-operates very closely with the Department of Defence, also in regard to the employment of top management.

I also want to tell the hon. member for Springs that it is of course extremely important that training in labour relations should also be looked at, as he said. That is very important. We cannot think that these thousands of industries and million employees of ours can any longer have no-one to watch over their interests. When I say that they have no-one to watch over their interests, I mean that on the factory floors there are no trained people who can look after the human aspect, in other words, the labour relations. Therefore, with the new realization that is dawning, all the universities are now introducing courses in this regard and we on our part are also making special concessions. Tax concessions are also being granted to institutions that want to train such people. The important point made by the hon. member, however, is that we will not be able to preserve the peace and maintain good relations in the future if we do not have the people by means of whom we can do so. This is extremely important and I want to assure him that we are going out of our way to fill this gap.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier spoke about a solution for employment provision services by transferring them from the Department of Co-operation and Development to the Department of Manpower. I want to tell him that the labour bureaux have been taken over by the Department of Manpower as from the end of November 1981. Administration boards are still being used as agents at present. For the 1981-’82 financial year an amount of R4 million was voted for this and for the 1981-’82 financial year a similar amount was voted. The important point is that the Chief: Vocational Services visited various regions and had discussions with administration boards. To me it is very clear that in the next few years the Department will have to promote its programme for the improvement of services and the provision of employment services by its own staff—and this has in fact been decided upon. In other words, we will have to change it completely. The whole point is that having two bodies responsible for the same thing does not work. Hon. members will understand, however, that one needs many people. It is not so easy simply to change an administration overnight, but we are moving in that direction. I may just mention that 25 posts for Black vocational guidance officers and five posts for White vocational guidance officers have already been approved. Hon. members will understand that, with certain specialized professional services already being rendered and still to be rendered in the next few years, we hope to be able to render a very special service in this regard as well in the future. What is important, however—and this is also the hon. member’s request—is that this matter is in fact being looked at.

We have spoken about training. The hon. member for Germiston pleaded for the revision of our training system in South Africa. I think what the hon. member has in mind, is that we should consider whether it is necessary that it should take so long, four to five years, before an artisan is trained. In the private sector ten centres, such as those of the sugar industry, have already been established by means of which training can be provided in a much shorter time. SEIFSA is also working on such a centre now. In this regard I refer you to what has been said today i.e. that by means of an urgent programme we are trying to provide training at Westlake to military trainees in a year from now. I think we can change the whole situation in South Africa by means of this process. I agree with the hon. member, but for that we, of course, have the National Training Council, and this Council has been instructed to look into this, but it was only established at the end of last year. To tell the truth, this Council has not even been in existence for six months. We do have to give it a chance. I am satisfied that the National Training Council is already giving attention to this whole matter.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to refer to the hon. member for Alberton, who spoke about our safety. The hon. member referred to NOSA. NOSA is an organization which is doing exceptionally good work. That is true. This organization has been in existence for more than thirty years. NOSA is in fact the safety watchdog on our factory floors and I agree with the hon. member that NOSA has rendered exceptionally good services. We have a high regard for NOSA and we cannot do enough to protect the safety of our people in South Africa and to ensure that it remains like that. I thank the hon. member for what he said in this regard.

I want to refer to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. In my opinion he made a very important appeal this afternoon by asking that we should not place the agricultural industry under our legislation. I think he meant that the agricultural industry should not be placed under the Labour Relations Act. Hon. members will remember that the whole long history is that a few things were said which meant in effect that that would not happen unless the agricultural unions requested it. In addition, however, it has always been said that the circumstances in the agricultural industry are so different. The circumstances regarding remuneration are so different. There are no two adjacent farms that have the same circumstances, there are no two undertakings that are the same and there are no two districts that are the same. It is therefore a completely different situation. With reference to the hon. member’s fears that this might happen, I want to tell him that I share his fears about this matter. This, however, does not mean that the agricultural industry cannot come forward with a plan of its own and legislation of its own, but there is such a great difference that I do not think this can possibly happen. The hon. member also has fears in connection with trade unions. I cannot see how there could be a trade union for cattle herds or, for example, a trade union for irrigation workers in South Africa. I cannot see how this could work. For this reason there has never been any talk along these lines. The only place from which suggestions for trade unions in the agricultural industry have emanated has been Natal. In that area there is talk of trade unions for the sugar industry, but it is not taken any further. I honestly cannot see how something which is acceptable in industry or in mining, can be applicable to a diversified industry such as agriculture. I cannot see that. I want to tell the hon. member that we shall discuss this again next year and until then neither he nor I nor anybody else will change our views on this matter. The fact of the matter is simply that the National Manpower Commission, in collaboration with the South African Agricultural Union, is looking into this matter. I had a discussion with the President of the South African Agricultural Union the other day and as far as this matter is concerned we hold the same view. I do not think anything else can be read into the investigation which is being undertaken in this connection, and which will be undertaken in collaboration with the South African Agricultural Union.

Is there no workers’ representation involved in this investigation?

The National Manpower Commission is looking into it and you will know that there are a number of trade union leaders on this commission. Therefore it is not a case of their having no representation. Agriculture, industry and the trade unions are represented there. There are quite a number of trade union representatives in the commission and therefore the commission will probably bring these people closer, but we do not tell the commission how it should do its work.

†The hon. member for Walmer asked me whether we are going to phase out existing closed-shop agreements and he warned that we should not allow new ones. The National Manpower Commission has not yet finalized its investigation of the closed shop principle and therefore the matter is still receiving attention. However, the National Manpower Commission did bring out a first report after exhaustive consultation with the wide variety of interested parties. This report gives the full reasons for the recommendation that the principle be retained in revised form. This is what the first part of the report has come forward with. In any event, the National Manpower Commission will closely monitor the developments and if it is considered necessary, recommendations in this connection will be made to me.

*Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maraisburg made an important point here this evening in connection with the training of work-seekers. The fact of the matter is that R9 million has been voted for this. This is a very important matter to which attention is being given now. Before saying anything further about it, I just want to say that, under the Department’s legislation, 31 757 apprentices and 316 adult trainees received training in 1981. In public training centres 13 401 persons are being trained, in in-service training schemes 226 244 people are being trained, in private training centres 77 000 people are being trained and in the Industrial Council training schemes more than 10 500 people are being trained. In section 48 schemes nearly 13 000 people are being trained. This represents a total of approximately 372 000 people who are being trained. This is a large number of people who are being trained simultaneously under these schemes. I just want to say that to train nearly 400 000 workers under labour legislation of the Department of Manpower is most certainly not a minor achievement. I hope that in the current year we shall come very near to the half-million mark. Against this background and against the background of what the hon. member for Maraisburg said, I also just want to tell you that there is another category of people for training. On a previous occasion I said we will have to look at work-seekers, in other words, at unemployed persons—people who have to be trained and brought to a state of preparedness, otherwise nobody will want to employ them. I am therefore glad to be able to say that I want to make the following announcement in this regard: Preparatory steps have already been taken with a view to the training of work-seekers. R9 million has already been appropriated for this purpose and the first group of work-seekers will start with their training soon. This is a very important step that we have taken and a very important stage that we have reached. The Department of Manpower is going to use the existing facilities, such as group training centres and in-service training centres in the private and public sectors, for this training. The Department is already making arrangements for the introduction of a pilot scheme for the training of unemployed persons at two group training centres, the one in Port Elizabeth and the one in Bloemfontein. Work-seekers of all population groups are eligible for training, provided they have been registered as unemployed for at least six weeks and have not been able to be placed in employment, have little work experience, are between 15 and 30 years of age and have passed Std. 6 at the most. Training will last for three to eight weeks and will, with a view to semi-skilled labour, be of a general nature. Training will be adapted to the needs of employers in various regions, and the Department will try to place the work-seekers in employment after their training. The intention is that employers should subsequently give the candidates more specific proficiency training in the job situation. It therefore amounts to this, that they should have a foothold from which to start and after that they can be trained further in the various industries. Approved candidates will be trained free of charge and will receive a subsistence allowance for the duration of their training. It appears that considerable numbers of work-seekers remain unemployed because they lack the most basic skills, often due to having left school at an early stage. The scheme is aimed at training these workers to a level from which the employer can go further with his own in-service training.

Unemployment brings social problems with it and it is our duty to bring such unemployed persons to a level where they can be placed on the labour market in a better way. The scheme is being introduced under the Manpower Training Act. It is the intention to take it further on the basis of proposals by the National Training Council and the National Manpower Commission, which also had discussions on this matter with employers in the private sector. I am glad that we have reached the stage where we can now take unemployed people across the spectrum and throughout South Africa and give them a start so that they can get rid of their frustrations. I believe that if we can achieve this and give these people a new life in this way, we shall be able to progress very far.

The hon. member for Overvaal raised certain points here this afternoon with which I agree. He pointed out a whole number of incentive measures for training. He is correct. The important point is that workers only have to do the vocational tests. Training should take place in times of recession. That is also quite correct—training should take place in times of recession. That is when our people should come forward to prepare us for the upswing in the cycle. I think we have proved that we want to lay the foundation for being able to do this.

The hon. member for Greytown put a few questions to me. He asked why Blacks who have been trained under the Black Building Workers’ Act, do not receive recognition for their qualifications and why there was this difference. Recognition is arranged by the industrial councils concerned and categories of work that may be performed are likewise arranged by industrial councils. Blacks who have certificates under the Black Building Worker’s Act, are encouraged to undergo vocational tests with a view to full artisan status. All that therefore has to be done is that they should undergo the tests.

But he has in fact undergone a certain test.

Yes, but if they undergo the tests and do not pass, then surely there is something wrong. If they undergo the tests and pass, then, of course, nothing is wrong. The test centres are there after all. The hon. member also asked about the maintenance of a data bank for the training facilities in relation to advertising. The National Training Council is responsible for the co-ordination of training and is also giving attention to the supplying of information about training matters. This will come forward. I want to add that the Productivity Institute is also working on this and is at present undertaking an extensive investigation to gather together all the particulars about the facilities so that they can be utilized better. What has been asked for is therefore in the pipeline in any case.

The hon. member for Kimberley North spoke about productivity, as he did last year. He spoke about the importance of productivity for higher levels of prosperity. What he said is of course quite correct. He also urged that labourers should be trained better so that they can be better utilized. That is exactly what we are doing. The whole argument put forward by the hon. member was therefore correct and what he said actually fits in with what we are doing. I also want to thank him for his contribution.

†With reference to the suggestions put forward by him, the hon. member for King William’s Town asked me whether the National Manpower Commission will attend to its formal assignment. I am sure that the Commission will attend to his remarks and will take his suggestions into account. The fact is, the hon. member asked me about the Commission and the work of the Commission. All I can say is that all his remarks will naturally be forwarded to the Commission and I am sure that the Commission will attend to his suggestions.

*I want to tell the hon. member for Bryanston that I am warning against trade unions being used for political ends. I made some observations about this earlier on. I again want to say to the hon. member and everybody who speaks about this—and I again come back to the whole question of the Police who also act against people who are labour leaders—that one wants to say to people who are in the labour world: “Listen, we do not want to argue about your rights now; just behave yourselves and occupy yourselves with the things you should be occupied with here.” That is very simple advice. I think it is the very best advice. I think we should send forth such a message from this place and say to them: “Leave it to politicians to practise politics. Occupy yourselves with the things you ought to be occupied with and then nobody will land you in trouble. You only land yourselves in trouble with this type of thing.”

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North suggested the possibility of a test centre for the motor industry. He said he thought that one should have a test centre in Port Elizabeth. I agree with the hon. member. Many people are employed in the motor industry in Port Elizabeth, the facilities are there and I want to tell him now that we have taken cognizance of the point he made and that we shall try to take the matter further. We shall try to follow the good advice he gave here. I may just add that the National Training Council is looking into the vacancy position and the possibility of having decentralized test centres, not only at Port Elizabeth, but at other places as well. Perhaps we shall receive good advice which will also suit the hon. member and Port Elizabeth. Let us see what happens.

The hon. member for Carletonville referred to shortages of artisans in the mining industry. I want to tell the hon. member that the Government has not gone back on its word to the mineworkers during the past four or five years. I want to repeat that in the next four or five years it will not go back on its word either, nor in the next forty, fifty years. We have respect for the position of the mineworkers. This is a situation which is being negotiated; we shall do nothing without consulting them. The hon. member need not be afraid that he or the mineworkers will be left in the lurch on this point. I also thank him for the standpoint he adopted. He has always adopted a strong standpoint. It is a standpoint which has always won.

†The hon. member for Pinelands referred to literacy training and remarked that literacy training should be allowed for tax deductions. I may say that the National Manpower Commission is looking into this matter very carefully. We have already decided that it is a matter worthwhile looking into. Some or other time we will probably find a solution, because there is very positive thinking along these lines. On the other hand, the hon. member suggested that we should look into the Industrial Council system. I have stated before that I do not think that what has been good enough for South Africa in the past, should necessarily be good enough for the future. That is why we have also looked into the Industrial Council system. However, I must say that up to now the Industrial Council system has served South Africa very well and we should not discard a proven system, but in a changing world we should be wise enough to timeously look into the design of the system and see whether it befits us for the future. That is what the National Manpower Commission is there for. We have the full co-operation of everybody in this field and therefore I am not worried about the future. I am sure that if there should be a development, it will be a good one with the recommendations and support of everyone concerned.

*I want to return to the hon. member for Stilfontein, once again and I want to tell him that the question he raised, viz. that of equal pay for equal work, is a very important point. We cannot stress it enough. I thank him for his observations in this regard. I have also referred to political interference. The observations made by the hon. member Dr. Marais are very important. I can understand why he becomes emotional about this matter. The fact of the matter is that we cannot allow people to be taken advantage of in this field. For this reason I agree with the observations he made in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, there are just a few minutes left and the following is all I still want to say. As far as training is concerned, we have now reached the stage that in our great training task we will have to look more and more at training by the private sector. When we look at training in the private sector, it must just be understood that there can be very great misunderstanding. If the private sector is going to help with training, training will have to be done in the following way and will have to comply with the following requirements: Training by the private sector will have to be done as the responsibility of that sector itself. It will have to be done in consultation with all concerned, employers and employees, so that employers will not force people to be trained in a way or at a place or in a direction with which they do not agree. The requests of employees who want to be trained will have to be respected. The standards will have to be of equal value. We cannot allow Blacks to be trained on a lower standard. The very first requirement is that those standards should be the same, because if we want chaos in South Africa, we must have two types of workers in South Africa, the one with a low standard of training and the other with a high standard of training, expecting the same wages. We are therefore going to be very strict about standards in this regard.

They should be trained in the same institutions.

Mr. Chairman, when I speak of training, it immediately brings me to the hon. member for Benoni, who referred to the place Apex. He spoke about “becoming the largest in South Africa”. I think the place is on its way to becoming that and I am glad that we have been able to assist that training centre at Apex to have hostel facilities added to it. I want to thank the hon. member very sincerely for his contribution in this regard.

I just want to make one further observation and to tell you that we have seen a great development in South Africa in recent times. We have seen the country being divided into eight development regions. These eight development regions are going to have many needs, infrastructural and many other needs. One of the central needs is going to be that training facilities in those regions receive immediate attention. On this occasion I immediately want to add that we shall also look at training facilities in a regional context now; we will have to do this meaningfully, together with the regional committees, because we cannot predict the development there now and then not be in a position to follow up the development in such regions because of a lack of trained staff. I therefore want to say now that we should accord the highest priority to the training facilities, in those very regions, in order that they can start to develop meaningfully.

In conclusion I just want to say in passing that there is one section of our workers to which not one of the hon. members referred. I am sorry that the hon. members did not speak about this section. This group, and we should not forget them, is our handicapped people. The handicapped people were referred to in passing, but what I mean is that a complete picture of the handicapped was not obtained. The fact of the matter is that our handicapped people in South Africa deserve more attention from us. The point I want to make on this occasion is that the State makes a great contribution, but that our employers are not sympathetic enough. That rests on the conscience of our people. The employers of South Africa should make a contribution and should also be keener to employ handicapped persons. This is not an accusation against them; it is a very sound request I am making to them. I just want to say this to them: it has been proved that handicapped persons are sometimes much more loyal and conscientious than people who are healthy and able to run about. The fact of the matter is that these people are some of our very best and most loyal workers. I want to recommend them without any reservation and I hope that the handicapped people of South Africa will come to occupy a new place in the hearts of our employers in this country. I hope the Press will take up this matter and urge our employers to show more sympathy than I have observed until now in regard to the employment of handicapped people.

I want to thank the hon. members very sincerely for the debate we have had. I think it was a good debate and we dealt with a number of subjects covering a very wide field. When we meet next year, I hope that in the meantime so much will have happened that the hon. members will be able to make a large number of new speeches on brand new topics. I thank you.

Vote agreed to.