Mr. Speaker, as far as the future business of the House is concerned, I should just like to make the following announcement: The Part Appropriation will come up for discussion on Thursday, 17 February, and the Additional Appropriation on Tuesday, 1 March. The main budget speech will be delivered on Wednesday, 30 March.

The Additional Appropriation of the S.A. Transport Services will come up for discussion on Wednesday, 16 February, and the main budget of the S.A. Transport Services on Wednesday, 2 March. The Post Office budget will come up for discussion on Tuesday, 15 March.

Mr. Speaker, before addressing myself to the Bill now before the House, I should like, with your permission, to observe that we have Dr. Floyd M. Riddick, parliamentarian emeritus of the USA Senate, and adviser to the Speaker and members on procedure, here with us today. He is sitting in the gallery, and I should like to extend to him a most hearty word of welcome to South Africa. We hope he will enjoy his stay in Cape Town, and that he will also enjoy his stay with us here today.

Hear, hear!

There are eight group training centres which have been established on the initiative of and with substantial financial aid from the State. Before the commencement of the Manpower Training Act on 1 November 1981, these centres received financial assistance from the State in terms of the Black Employees In-service Training Act, 1976, for the purchase of equipment and the erection of buildings, and for this purpose parliament voted an amount of nearly R10 million.

However, the Manpower Training Act does not provide for the continuation of financial aid of a similar nature to these centres, and consequently they have to rely on their own resources to meet their financial obligations, by such means as tuition fees, levies on employers and loans from the Manpower Development Fund. In general the centres are finding it difficult, under the new dispensation, to play their full part in the field of training within the framework of the financial resources they depend on. Of course the situation is aggravated further by the current levelling out of the economy. Therefore, I have requested the National Training Council, which functions in terms of the Manpower Training Act, to conduct an in-depth investigation into the financing system of the eight group training centres with a view to their fulfilling their training role properly. Such an investigation was carried out on the recommendation of the National Training Council and, with my permission, by the Postgraduate Management School of the University of Pretoria, and the investigation indicated that special financial assistance by the State to the centres would be necessary. The proposed statutory amendment would empower me, with the consent of the hon. the Minister of Finance, to make financial aid available to the centres on certain conditions in order to ensure their continued existence.

In terms of the secrecy provision of section 49 of the Manpower Training Act, 1981, no information relating to the financial or business affairs of any person, undertaking or business undertaking shall be revealed except in certain specific cases. Owing to these stipulations no information concerning courses offered by registered training centres and training schemes, and approved by the Department of Manpower, may be revealed. The proposed amendment to the Act will empower the Department of Manpower to reveal details about the names and addresses of registered centres and schemes and the title and duration of their approved courses.

This, Mr. Speaker, in broad terms, is what the proposed amendments involve, and I trust that they will meet with the approval of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the amending legislation before the House now refers to the Act which we debated at great length in this House in 1981, legislation in terms of which a Manpower Training Act was brought into being, which has made a considerable difference and which has also caused great progress to take place in the training of workers in South Africa.

It is very interesting to read the annual report of the Department of Manpower for the year ended December 1981, in which reference is made to the actual execution of that Act in respect of the establishment of a National Training Board and its personnel. So, it is significant, interesting and encouraging to notice just how wide the extent of the training programmes has gone in a very short space of time. If hon. members were to refer to page 21, for example, of that report in order to look at the list of national manpower training committees, I am sure they will also be as impressed as I certainly was. On page 22 of that report reference is made to training centres, and the hon. the Minister, in his introductory speech, has also made reference to that, as well as to the history behind it. It is therefore not necessary for me to repeat all that.

By way of introduction I should like to point out that any legislation which deals with the advance of training in South Africa must surely be welcomed by all hon. members of this House, and by the public outside as well. As the official Opposition we will therefore be supporting this Bill during aH its stages.

Training is always important, and is particularly important in South Africa, where we have such an incredible backlog. If I could refer very briefly—we will obviously have other opportunities later of discussing this matter—to technical training, and if we assume a 4,5% growth rate, South Africa should be training 2 300 engineers, 9 500 technicians and 23 000 skilled workers a year. The fact of the matter is—and that is the point I am trying to make—that there is no room for complacency because at the moment South Africa is training only 1 000 engineers, 2 000 technicians and approximately 10 000 skilled workers a year.

When one looks at the position of apprentices and in-service training in particular, one finds that although the number of apprentices rose from in excess of 10 000 in 1980 to in excess of 11 000 in 1981, it is interesting to note that there are still only 495 Black apprentices. Let me say immediately, however, that this represents a huge increase from 82 in 1980. The number of people trained in terms of the training schemes rose from 150 174 to 226 244 in 1981, which is a significant increase. The number of people attending centres rose from 25 538 to 77 275, once again an increase. However, there is no doubt that if we continue to train at the rate we are training today or, let us say, as we trained up to end of last year, there will be considerable shortage not only of engineers and technicians but also of approximately 234 000 skilled workers by the end of the century. One can imagine the consequences that will flow from such a shortage. Obviously, therefore, training is of the utmost importance and wherever people are serious about it, it is up to this House to encourage such endeavour.

The amending legislation specifically enables the hon. the Minister not only to impose a levy, which is already a provision of the existing Act, but also to make available certain funds from the budget of the Department of Manpower. I think that makes good sense. I want to stress the fact that it obviously makes good sense particularly today. Without adequate training, productivity must suffer. The unfortunate truth is that whenever there is a recession in South Africa, one of the first things to suffer is training. Time and time again—and this has been said before in this House—when employers are experiencing a boom period they have no time for training while during a time of recession they cannot afford to train. Therefore I want to join in calling upon the employers of South Africa not to stop their training programmes but rather to use the opportunity, even in a time of recession, to provide the maximum training possible. Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the amendment of section 31 of the Manpower Training Act.

As I see it, the provisions of section 39, which we passed in 1981, are adequate. The only query I have is in regard to the proposed subsection (5)(b) to be inserted by clause 1, in terms of which on such conditions as he may deem fit and on such basis as he may determine with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, the Minister may out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose provide financial assistance to a training centre. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us what he has in mind as far as these conditions are concerned. Obviously these schemes must be registered and obviously there must be a controlling body. If the hon. the Minister will spell out these conditions for us I shall be grateful.

Clause 2 which now enables certain information to be divulged makes good common sense. Obviously section 49 as it stands has been too restrictive in the past and now the opportunity will be given to give details regarding the names and the centres, the employing bodies, the place, the title, the duration and so forth which I think can only help in order to avoid duplication and also to stimulate general interest.

We believe that this measure is a considerable improvement and we reiterate that any measure to assist in the improvement of the training position in South Africa will receive the support of this side of the House. We support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker we are grateful to learn from the chief spokesman of the PFP that they are adopting a positive approach in support of this legislation. The hon. member dwelled briefly on the shortage of trained manpower, and we associate ourselves with his appeal that in these times of recession in particular we should call upon industrailists not to fall behind in the training of their employees, because now is the right time to ensure by means of training that once the upswing in the economy comes there will be sufficient trained workers.

The principal Act was introduced in 1981 as a Bill which combined four existing Acts, viz. the Apprenticeship Act, 1944, the Training of Artisans Act, 1951, the In-Service Training Act, 1979, and the Black Employees In-Service Training Act, 1976. In order to structure and streamline the training of our workers, it has become necesary to effect certain adjustments to the 1981 legislation.

For this reason section 31 of the principal Act is now being amended by clause 1 so that finance and manpower can be utilized better and more profitably. There are eight training centres at present, and it is clearly important for these eight training centres to be fully utilized. Levies imposed in the past which the principal Act provided for with a view to financing these training centres were unfortunately inadequate, as a result of the recession and the downturn in the economy, and consequently these centres have not been receiving sufficient funds. For that reason an adjustment must now be effected.

The National Training Board recognized this problem and consequently instructed the School of Management at the University of Pretoria to investigate the training centres. The school of management found, inter alia, that the levies and fees were inadequate to keep the centres going. In terms of the 1981 legislation loans could be negotiated with the Department of Manpower, but this does not always work out in practice. For that reason the principal Act is now being amended to enable the Minister of Manpower to utilize money appropriated by Parliament to finance the training centres.

I reiterate that these training centres are an asset to the country and for that reason they may not fail.

Clause 2 authorizes the Registrar to obtain access to courses offered by the group training centres, private training centres or schemes so as to identify the types of course and ensure that they are coordinated. This has become necessary because a great deal of duplication of courses has occurred up to now. For example, the number of courses has increased from 640 to more than 1 500. If these courses are coordinated, money and manpower could be saved.

Such a training course could, for example, be bought by a firm for a certain amount overseas. The counterpart of that firm could buy a similar course for the same amount overseas. Through the intercession of the Registrar it will be possible from now on to negotiate and for the two firms to share the course bought overseas, because it will be made known who has the course available and what it involves. It is important that there be uniform standards and control in order to bring about effective training.

Training has to be meaningful and effective. Therefore, it has to be aimed at the specific needs and working conditions of the employer and the workers. It must be possible to justify the costs involved. Training also has to take place in consultation with the employees’ and employers’ organizations, and their cooperation and support for this has to be obtained, because training should not be forced upon employees. I believe that it has to be reiterated that manpower is the most important resource of a country, and that applies to South Africa as well. Therefore the key to success is the fact that workers be as well-trained as possible. Without trained manpower our mineral resources—our gold, coal, iron ore, etc.— could not be exploited, and without this trained manpower we would not be able to bring about the infrastructure and administration necessary to keep our industries going. In other words, the survival or the future of South Africa depends on the training and re-training of its manpower, and each cent spent on meaningful training, is an investment in the future of this country. That is the reason why the South African Government is according such a high priority to the development of manpower and why it has indicated time and again that the skills of all South Africa’s workers should be developed to the highest possible level. This has to be done by means of training and re-training.

We on this side of the House support this legislation wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this Bill before us. It is a sound addition to the existing legislation, and we are glad that the hon. the Minister introduced it here today. We are all aware that manpower training must be stimulated, and the fact that the Government is now able to contribute to it, is a very sound addition. It will also stand our country as a whole in very good stead, particularly because we know that we have a great deal of unskilled labour in certain sectors and we also know that certain projects are suffering from a shortage of labour. The provision regarding assistance and financial support for group training will therefore be of great use and, on the whole, should serve South Africa extremely well, particularly in these times. We now have the opportunity to do so, and once better days come and the recession is over, inflation perhaps decreases and the economy gets into full swing again, then we shall have the required labour force. Therefore, now is really the time to do it. We also know that the courses offered are there for those who need them, including the industrialists, who actually need them most of all. It would also be as well if consideration could perhaps be given to carrying out training in such a way—even if the process has to be extended by a week, say—that some degree of business sense, too, is instilled in people who might later set up on their own in the business world. Here I have in mind, for example, future homeland development, etc. Those people will then have to be able to enter into contracts and see to it that those contracts are carried out in full. For that reason attention has to be paid to the question of saving. This is a very important part of our lives today, because one has to provide for tomorrow as well. As far as we know, the work that has already been done, has been excellent. We therefore hope and trust that if we can add this concept, it will contribute a great deal towards serving South Africa all the better.

Consequently we on this side of the House are very happy to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are very grateful that that side of the House is supporting this legislation. We on the Government side obviously realize the absolute necessity of this kind of legislation as well as the absolute necessity of adjustments where adjustments have to be effected. In the past we had a problem— the hon. the Minister indicated as much—in the sense that the financial aspects of this particular piece of legislation posed problems. Consequently, this amendment seeks to make it easier for us to make payments. As a result there can be a more rapid flow of funds and, in cooperation with the Department of Finance, a speedier allocation as well. I believe we all realize the importance of training for our country as well as the importance of training for all population groups in this country. Consequently this legislation seeks to streamline this training as far as possible. We all realize that we have no shortage of labourers in our country. However, we do have a shortage of trained or skilled manpower at present. The more people we can train and the faster we can train them, the better it will be for our country, particularly if we consider that we shall probably see an upswing in our economy in the near future.

There may be one question which the private sector may ask us, as the Government, about this particular piece of legislation. It relates to the fact that we are now able to publicize certain information. We should very much like to assure private initiative and others making use of these schemes that we are not going to divulge information left, right and centre. I believe that some people consider it dangerous that the technical and other skills which they convey to their people in confidence may be “stolen”, if I may use that word, to be passed on to other people. We want to give the assurance that all we want to do is ensure that we do not try to invent the wheel all over again. This is a waste of time and money.

We want to try as far as possible to make available to others the knowledge and skills of certain training centres without prejudicing those who established them and got them going. We realize that in our country training facilities have to be created as fast as possible. For that reason we on this side of the House consider it imperative that we pass this legislation. We support the amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the attitude of this party, the NRP, towards manpower training and development is on record in the House and has also been stated on other occasions. That attitude has always been that this country cannot flourish, cannot be peaceful or prosperous, without a sound foundation of industrial and commercial wealth. That wealth is vested in the skills of the people who work at the factory and mining interface. Therefore it goes without saying that anything which deals with the promotion of this objective to enhance and maximize the labour and skills potential of the members of all population groups in South Africa will receive our support.

I should, however, like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us his opinion on a certain matter with reference to clause 1 of this Bill. I should like to refer briefly to the original section and the amending clause and then ask the hon. the Minister for an explanation. Clause 1 of the Bill states—

Unfortunately, I have to go into detail to illustrate the principle. The new insertion reads—

It goes on, and further on we find the words “the governing body in question may request the Minister to” deleted. Then the new subsection refers to the provisions of section 39, and then it deletes the words “and the Minister may upon receipt of such a request impose a levy in accordance with those provisions”. Then a paragraph (b) is added.

As we understand section 31 of the Manpower Training Act, which must then be read in conjunction with section 39, the present position is that the National Training Board in fact gives the final approval for the imposition of levies. Also, at present the governing body has to make the request to the Minister. My question to the hon. the Minister is the following: Can the wording of the amending Clause 1 not be interpreted to mean that the National Training Board need no longer give its stamp of approval for a levy to be imposed? The reason why I ask this is because if one looks at the Act one sees that in section 39 it is stated—

The board is defined earlier on in section 1 as being the National Training Board—

Now, words are inserted that the Minister may, at the request of the governing body of a group training centre do certain things. Does this mean that the liaison between the governing board of a training centre and the Minister is the direct line of communication and that therefore the National Training Board no longer need give its approval, or is the status quo maintained? Only the cycle will now be slightly different. We have a feeling that the proposed amending legislation will reduce the status of the National Training Board slightly and that the Minister at the request of the governing board of the training centre only will be able to impose a levy. That is my question to the hon. the Minister. The principle we support entirely.

As far as the secrecy clause is concerned we have absolutely no fight with this particular amendment. We believe the more information that can be made available the more helpful it will be for other group training centres and industry as such. We will certainly be lending our full support to this amending legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is essential that legislation dealing with the workers of South Africa is introduced from time to time. Clause 1 of the Bill provides that the Minister may, at the request of a controlling body of a group training centre, provide such a centre with financial assistance. In this respect the State has a role to play. The role which the State should play in this respect is that there must be a legal framework within which the parties in the private sector can carry out their training task. Inducements must be introduced for training in the private sector. In the interests of the national economy there should be augmentation of training efforts. When the State is itself a large employer, training should also meet the needs of the State.

I want to emphasize the importance of the training for workers. In the 1981-’82 budget the Department of Manpower spent 25% of its funds on training. This shows what importance this department attaches to training in South Africa. A further example is the shortage of trained people, if one has regard for the fact that exemption from military service is now being granted to apprentices, and that it will be introduced gradually.

The most important principles of the Government’s manpower training policy are the involvement of the employers, the employees and the State, as well as the maintenance of higher standards of training courses. This must be borne in mind. There must be proper instructors who know their trade and who will be able to conduct examinations. Certificates and diplomas must be awarded after completion of the training. There should be co-operation with all interested parties. However, a worker should not be compelled to receive training if it is not of his own free will. Where training does take place, proper discipline should be maintained.

The hon. the Minister referred to the levelling off of the economy and the resulting consequences for training. During such a levelling off period employers are not inclined to have people trained. There are existing training centres which, as a result, will in turn have to dismiss their workers if training does not continue to take place there. This is where our task in this House comes in, namely to maintain these training centres. These training centres should be looked after so that they would not have to close their doors.

Clause 2 deals only with the disclosure of certain information. Much has already been said about this and I will therefore not elaborate on it. All I want to say, is that it brings about uniformity so that the standard of the courses offered can be raised considerably.

I therefore feel that I can say here in all frankness and without fear of contradiction that the workers and employers in South Africa will welcome this amending Bill. I support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank all hon. members who supported this Bill today. However, I think it could have been foreseen that there would be general support for legislation of this kind because we are all very deeply concerned about the shortage of manpower in South Africa and therefore everything we can do to implement a policy of training of our people, should have the support of all of us.

The hon. member for Pinelands put a question to me and also referred to the conditions that will pertain in connection with the assistance to be granted. The hon. member asked me what those conditions would be. The conditions will naturally relate to the fact that the assistance will only be provided in respect of approved courses. We cannot assist any scheme without knowing exactly what the course will be. Therefore it will mainly pertain to the substance of the courses themselves. Furthermore, in connection with the formula according to which assistance will be granted—naturally there will have to be a formula—we intend to work on a formula which will be based on the assistance and the advice we shall be getting from the Management School of the University of Pretoria and, of course, of the National Training Board. So it will mainly refer to the formula and furthermore to the substance of the courses themselves.

*The hon. member for Stilfontein made a remark here to which I just want to refer briefly, i.e. in respect of the disclosure of particulars I should just like to point out that at present more than 16 000 courses have already been approved. One can therefore understand the tremendous duplication that can now take place. People can, for example, live very close to each other and without knowing about each other be busy performing the same task and spending a lot of money and going to a lot of trouble to compile courses. I think it would be of tremendous help is we can inform the public of the courses which are available on the market, and this is what it boils down to. The aim is not to disclose all the details; the aim is, in the first place, to give an indication of what the courses are, who offers the courses and more or less what they consist of so that people can decide for themselves. In this way we can try to establish a measure of rationalization. One can understand that where we have 16 000 courses today, and over the next few years it can be 30 000, and we refrain from doing it, there can be duplication to a very large degree. It is therefore a good thing that the hon. member made that remark and I want to agree with him. Nobody should be afraid that particulars which do not have to be disclosed, will in fact be disclosed.

†The hon. member for Durban North wanted to know whether there could not be a misunderstanding in the communication line between the centre and the department. I do not think there could be any misunderstanding. As a matter of fact, we foresee that there will be a live communication between the training centre and the department. In any event we have the training board and any sensible Minister would ask the advice of that board. So I do not think there is any possibility of any misunderstanding in this field. On the contrary, I think it will work very well. I do not foresee any problems.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill before this House to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1956, seeks inter alia to make provision for control over the activities of labour brokers and the registration of labour brokers’ offices with the Department of Manpower. A labour broker is precisely defined—I think to the satisfaction of us all—while the definition of employer is being changed to include a labour broker as well. A labour broker is deemed to be an employer in that category of undertaking, industry, trade or occupation into which the contracted person ordinarily or naturally falls according to the nature of the activities performed by the contracted person and the provisions of relevant wage regulatory measures are applicable in respect of such labour broker as if he were the employer in respect of the contracted person as if he were the employee of the broker. If a dispute should arise concerning the category of industry into which a labour broker falls, it shall be decided by the Industrial Court.

The object of the amendment is to establish more stable conditions of service and greater protection for workers who work for labour brokers. The experience has been that brokers farm out their workers to any employer in any industry, sometimes for limited periods of a few weeks for example, and that those workers are in fact the parties who suffer because they are not employed for long enough in any industry to build up any pension, sick, or provident fund benefits. Ultimately they could become a burden to the State.

The second amendment relates to the establishment of conciliation boards and is aimed at creating an official forum for the settlement of disputes in industries and areas in which no industrial council has jurisdiction and when one of the parties is either a registered trade union or workers’ organization with members in specific industries and areas, but which has no registration for such industries and areas or is a representative unregistered trade union or unregistered employers’ organization. I wish to emphasize that this amendment is in no way intended to minimize the important role which industrial councils play. The intention of the amendment is simply intended to supply a deficiency where no dispute-settling machinery exists, with the intention of promoting labour peace.

At present the members of a trade union or employers’ organization which is not registered may apply in their own right for the establishment of a conciliation board, but by law such trade union or employers’ organization cannot do so. Consequently the proposed amendment provides that such trade unions or employers’ organizations may apply in their own name for the establishment of a conciliation board and may represent their members in their own name on a conciliation board. This concession, however, is not an unqualified one. In the case of an unregistered organization, just as in the case of a registered organization, it must represent more than 50% of the employees or employers involved, and also comply with the provisions of the Act, which require that a copy of its constitution is submitted to the Industrial Registrar and that it should provide him with the head office address and the names of its office-bearers and officials. It must keep a register of members and proper account books, and its head office shall be situated in the Republic. At present unregistered organizations have access to the machinery of industrial councils for the settlement of disputes in industries and in areas for which industrial councils are registered.

Another important amendment which is being envisaged is to make the machinery of the Labour Relations Act more easily available to disputing parties, and to accelerate the putting into operation of that machinery. In this connection the Minister is firstly being empowered to establish conciliation boards of his own accord when he is of the opinion that the dispute should be settled without delay in the public or national interest. Secondly, the Minister is also being empowered, after consultation with the parties to a dispute, to appoint any person as mediator in respect of that dispute if he is of the opinion that the appointment of a mediator will promote the settlement of the dispute. At present the dispute first has to be considered by either an industrial council or a conciliation board.

Thirdly, provision is being made for direct arbitration in respect of every dispute in connection with every matter concerning the relationship between employer and employee. Such provision already exists in the case of alleged unfair labour practices, and in the case of essential services. This procedure applies where there is no industrial council, and in cases where the parties are convinced that a conciliation board will not be able to settle the dispute.

The object with the amendment of section 51 of the principal Act is to transfer to the Industrial Court the right of appeal to the Minister against the decision of an industrial council on an application for exemption. This amendment gives further effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation. For the rest it is being proposed that the secrecy provision of the Act should be brought into line with those of the other laws of the department, to the extent that secrecy has to be preserved only in respect of the financial or business affairs of every individual, undertaking or business. The provisions in question are also being amended in such a way that the president of the Industrial Court is now being granted the discretion to decide which judgments, decisions, determinations and awards of that court may in his opinion be published for general information. The written consent of the parties is requested, but if they do not give such consent, the final decision lies with the president of the Industrial Court to have them published in such a way that the identity of the parties is not disclosed. This amendment is considered necessary so that wider notice can be taken of the judgments of the Industrial Court.

That, Mr. Speaker, comprises the envisaged amendments in broad outline, and I trust that they will meet with the approval of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the amending legislation now before the House has quite a long history. In the first instance it refers back to the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation, and touches on a number of the more important aspects of the changes now before us. In the second instance it refers to the Government White Paper in response to the legislation, and thirdly, of course, to the publication of a draft Bill. I want to say at the outset that it always makes for better legislation when that legislation is based on a wise and long inquiry dealing with difficult and intricate matters, where the Government makes its response known and where it actually publishes a draft Bill in respect of which there can be a response and dialogue. I believe that because of this procedure the legislation before us is wise and is to be welcomed. We shall be supporting this legislation.

In the first instance, the control of labour brokers and the registration of the offices of labour brokers have become necessary after a very long investigation, in the main because of the need for protection not only for the future of the workers concerned but also because in some instances—these may be exceptions but nevertheless they do occur— there has been exploitation. I believe that this amending legislation will help in preventing that exploitation from taking place.

The changes in regard to the Industrial Court are also welcomed. The hon. the Minister will recall that on many occasions we have asked that the Industrial Court be given the highest possible status. The deletion of the word “Minister” and the fact that judicial or quasi-judicial decisions should rather be referred to the Industrial Court is, we believe, a significant improvement.

The same thing holds good in respect of the exceptions to the prohibition of the disclosure of certain information. I believe that just as in regard to all matters affecting courts, case history is very important and that in the development of industrial legislation and expertise in this country it is of enormous assistance to many people both inside and outside of this House to know what is taking place and to know on what basis decisions have been reached. Quite obviously, the people concerned have the necessary protection.

I want to go back now to what I believe is the most important aspect of this legislation and that is the assistance to be given in regard to resolving labour disputes. The Bill provides for unregistered unions and employers’ organizations to have access to conciliation boards where there is no industrial council. I believe that the inclusion of unregistered unions in this process is a sensible and major step forward. The attitude of the Government up to the present has been to exclude and very often penalize unions which do not register. In previous debates I have appealed to the hon. the Minister and his department to encourage unregistered unions to make use of all the available machinery particularly in the pursuit of and the resolution of problems relating to industrial peace. It is therefore gratifying to note this change in the attitude of the Government in this connection. I believe that the emphasis should be placed far more upon representativeness rather than registration. In other words, it is of the utmost importance for employers to be given the opportunity to negotiate with a union which is genuinely, and has been proven to be, representative of the workers rather than only with a union that is registered. Obviously the ideal situation is for all unions to be registered. However, in the practical day to day working in industry throughout South Africa it is vital that those unions that command majority support on the part of the workers should be in discussion and negotiation with management rather than be involved in strikes. Against a background of widespread work stoppages and strikes it is particularly important that all unions have access to dispute-settling machinery. In this instance the statutory recognition of these unions which are playing an active part in the factories throughout our country makes very good sense. In the report of the Department of Manpower for the year ended 31 December 1981, which has just become available, details are given of work stoppages and strikes which took place during that year. There were 49 work stop-pages and 283 strikes, which made a total of 342 during 1981. This is a very significant increase over the previous five years. According to the report there were only 90 in 1970; in the next year, 106; in 1979, 101; in 1980, 207; and in 1981, 342. It is important to note that the number of shifts lost in strikes involving Black workers increased from 14 987 in 1977 to 206 225 in 1981—an enormous jump! The number of employees involved in strikes also shows a marked increase, and once again the increase in Black workers is particularly striking, if I am forgiven the pun: 14 950 in 1977 and 84 706 in 1981.

Although there are no official figures available for 1982, it is estimated that although there were probably fewer strikes, many more workers were involved and more working days lost than even in 1981. The strikes, though fewer, were longer and over more clearly defined areas. It would appear that there was better co-ordination between trade unions in 1982, and industrial action was directed at more specific targets than in previous years.

The fact that the major reason for work stoppages and strikes centred around wages and monetary fringe benefits, suggests that labour disputes will continue and may even increase during 1983. The decline in the buying-power of money, the deeply felt recession and resulting entrenchments will all play their part.

There is obviously a difference of opinion between trade unions on the one hand and management on the other regarding retrenchment. There are those who suggest that it is not always the case that management moves towards retrenchment of workers only to avoid bankruptcy. One of the largest unions in South Africa, the Metal and Allied Workers Union for example, is on record as saying—

The unions also make the point that companies in previous years enjoyed record profits due to the efforts of themselves and their employees, but nothing was set aside to keep workers employed during a time of recession.

We must not underestimate the feelings of workers who sometimes with very short notice are retrenched. This cuts right across the board; whether the workers are Black or White makes no difference. Sometimes indeed it does not matter whether they are in the higher brackets of employment or in the unskilled area. In some instances employers simply do not give the attention that workers deserve. All this points to the possibility, particularly in the present time of recession, for even more labour disputes to take place. Seen against this background—and bearing in mind the figures I have already quoted to the House of those work-stoppages and strikes officially reported to the department—this amending legislation takes on far greater significance. I stress that because, in discussion with a number of industrialists, I have been told that on many occasions work-stoppages take place for only an hour or a few hours, and they do not even bother to report that. In fact, all they try to do is to get the workers back to work, which is understandable. So we are only dealing with official figures, and those figures are serious enough. It is obviously to the advantage of both employer and employee to resolve labour disputes as speedily as possible. Not only is there a serious loss in production. There is another side to it. Striking employees often lose wages that they can ill afford to lose. In 1977, for example, less than R50 000 in wages was lost, whilst in 1981 well over R2 million in wages was lost to workers.

This Bill also enables the hon. the Minister to establish conciliation boards on his own initiative. I think we must pause here for a moment. I can appreciate that this is important, and sometimes even necessary, but I want to urge the hon. the Minister not to use this unless it becomes absolutely necessary in the public or national interest. I am sure that he will be the first to agree that it is far better for employers and employees—the two most important bodies—to take the initiative in this regard. If a conciliation boards is used unnecessarily, no genuine settlement can be reached. There may well be settlement, but if it does not meet the needs and demands of both bodies, management on the one side and labour on the other, obviously this will only institutionalize and intensify the conflict.

Provision is also made, in certain circumstances, for directing arbitration without reference to either a conciliation board or an industrial council. I believe that this is a very worthwhile step to take. It is a major improvement which I have no doubt will further assist in resolving disputes. The sooner the disputes can be resolved through negotiation, the better it will be. The appointment of mediators, always acceptable to both parties, will also assist in promoting sound labour relations.

All in all this amending legislation is a further improvement in South Africa’s labour legislation. I want to sound one warning, however. Whilst it is of the utmost importance that every attempt be made to streamline legislation and to give the greatest possible encouragement to all parties concerned to use every possible process in order to resolve labour disputes, we would be foolhardy in the extreme if we did not take cognizance of other factors which prevail in South Africa and which directly affect labour relations every day. I want to remind the hon. the Minister and the House that as long as the majority of workers in South Africa are denied meaningful and just political rights, there will never be industrial peace in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Now you are spoiling a good speech.

That hon. member has, in an interjection, said that I must desist from referring to this.

No, he says you are spoiling a good speech.

Oh, spoiling a good speech!

You are actually ruining it.

It may well be his opinion that I should avoid spoiling what he calls a good speech. [Interjections.] I concede immediately that it is a good speech. [Interjections.] I do not want to argue about that. That is something I concede at once, but I will never concede that simply by avoiding an issue, we can deal with it, and that is the difference between this side of the House and that side. [Interjections.]

It is not the right place to deal with it here.

This is absolutely the right place to deal with it, if the problems are there. [Interjections.] This ostrich mentality of that hon. member astounds me. I thought that after the hiding they took last week, they would be more ready to take advice this week. I want to say quite seriously, and stress, that neither management nor the leaders of unions, unregistered as well as registered, can hope to meet the aspirations and expectations of countless workers throughout South Africa. The reason for this is that many of the grievances expressed passively and sometimes forcibly by workers are community based. Black workers, for example, in many instances use the same inadequate transport services, live in the same community which often bears the hallmark of deprivation and poverty, and will continue to reflect those grievances on the factory floor. It is no good our saying that that is not the place where they should be resolved. Unfortunately, that is one of the few places they have where they can be resolved. This is one of the major reasons why many unions, particularly newly emerging unions, prefer plant-level negotiation rather than using the option of the industrial council. Therefore I would say that it is imperative that, in attempting to resolve labour disputes in South Africa, the Government should not confine itself to the narrow area of labour reform, but should move as swiftly as possible to a new dispensation in the social and political spheres so that matters which rightly belong there can be handled there rather than in industry and commerce.

With those words we shall be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the PFP spokesman for supporting this Bill in principle on behalf of his party. Contrary to all expectations and contrary to the track record of the official Opposition, their spokesman has been very consistent over the last four years in supporting amendments to labour legislation in this country.

If you do the right thing, we will support you.

I agree with the hon. member for Pinelands that, as far as conciliation boards are concerned, the hon. the Minister should be very careful in appointing conciliation boards where we do not have organized labour in the form of trade unions and employers’ organizations. We have always believed in household government and I think this is also the basis of labour legislation in our country. I am referring to household government by means of industrial councils where one has participation by the employees on the one side and employers or employers’ organizations on the other side.

*However, the hon. member simply had to rush in foolishly and make some politics out of proper legislation. This strongly reminds me of certain people whom one is never able to satisfy. One finds them in various parties. We probably have some of them in our party, but one finds them more particularly in the other parties.

Watch out!

The measure before this House today is one arising from the fifth report of the Wiehahn Commission. I think one may say that with the introduction of this measure the hon. the Minister of Manpower—or of Labour, which is the designation we know—has probably arrived at the end of a trilogy of labour legislation and the labour dispensation in our country in the early ’eighties. This is the third phase of what we can regard as the backbone of labour legislation in South Africa. What we are dealing with here is the old Industrial Conciliation Act which is known today as the Labour Relations Act.

In dealing with the Labour Relations Act, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. You may rule me out of order if you wish, Sir, because I want to refer to the fourth measure on the Order Paper. Its title is “Machinery and Occupational Safety Bill”. It replaces an Act we are all acquainted with, the old Factories Act. Is it not possible for us to retain the title “Factories Act”? The whole country knows what we are talking about when we talk about the “Factories Act”. If we were now to talk about the “Machinery and Occupational Safety Act”, I think most of us will experience difficulties. This is true of the Labour Relations Act as well. This title might be an improvement on the old Industrial Conciliation Act. The latter, however, is the term with which we have grown up. The hon. member for Brakpan will concede that I am correct in saying that we are all verkramp when it comes to amending terminology known to all of us. Even the hon. member for Pinelands will concede this. We would have preferred to have still been using the old title that we all know.

At what point have we arrived today? In 1977 it was the task of the Wiehahn Commission to investigate the labour situation in our country. We thereupon started amending various labour measures in South Africa. There were amendments in 1979, 1980, 1981 and last year, and now we are introducing further amendments. We have now probably reached the end of that process. We commenced with 13 Acts—12 in the field of labour and one Act affecting mines and industries—and a few measures which applied in the former Department of Bantu Affairs in respect of training. After effecting these amendments we have today arrived at a situation where we have 8 Acts. In other words, we have succeeded in turning the modernization and rationalization of labour and industrial legislation in South Africa into a fait accompli. I believe that this meets with the approval of both the labour corps of South Africa and organized employers’ organizations.

Reference was made by the hon. the Minister to the possibility of looking at this measure in its four constituent components. I do not want to make any further reference to that aspect. Instead I want to return to the matter of the labour brokers. What are we dealing with and why has it become a malpractice? It has become a malpractice since it may readily happen in South Africa that one finds an enterprising person who obtains the services of, say, a trained artisan and a few technicians and who advertises in newspapers that he provides an instant or emergency service on a 24-hour basis. Let us take the example of an electrician. The hon. the Minister of Education and Training is a man who knows about plots. On the agricultural smallholdings on which we live, we are dependent on a borehole and an electric pump. When that pump develops defects or breaks down, there is no water on the smallholding. In that case one looks for the first advertisement in the yellow pages offering instant electrical services. A strange phenomenon is that if one happens to live to the east of Pretoria, for example, one always calls an electrician who, according to the kilometres indicated on his account, lives to the west of Pretoria. It simply happens this way. The same thing happens if one’s deepfreeze breaks down in Goodwood West and one calls an electrician urgently. His place of residence will be Muizenberg, for example. One always receives an account consisting of three components. The first component is the distance travelled, in other words, the total distance in kilometres at a certain rate per kilometre. The second component is labour and spare parts. There are always spare parts, that is for sure. The third component is the costs involved in the after-hours call. These things always happen after hours. It is too strange. One may call him at three o’clock in the afternoon, but he will only arrive at a quarter past five. This is how these things work.

This does not apply in respect of electricity only. Those men who are such experts in the field of sewerage do the same thing. When a drain decides to become blocked, one cap be sure that one will obtain the services of those people that evening. However, this means work after dark and once again one pays extra.

That is what is known in Afrikaans as “die wet van Transvaal”.

That is not what I am dealing with at the moment; I am only dealing with the accounts we receive from time to time.

When do the problems arise? The problems arise when the broker’s contractors who provide the service along with him suddenly discover that they have no medical aid scheme or pension fund and that they do not belong to a group life insurance scheme, a workmen’s compensation fund or the unemployment insurance fund. It is at this stage that problems start arising, and do hon. members know who is blamed? Not the man who is the entrepeneur. Oh no, the Government. Consequently I am of the opinion that it is essential that the hon. the Minister should have come to this House with legislation of this nature. We know, for example, of people who have been making use of the services of overseas artisans and technicians who immigrated to South Africa. For a matter of two years or so, things go well, but when there is a downturn in the economy and these people become unemployed or semi-unemployed, the Government, the country, gets a bad name. Consequently it is necessary for us to create the necessary machinery so that such people will be obliged to register. We know it is a problem. Surely it is a problem if one has the services of an electrician, a lorry driver and a cabinetmaker, and there are different industrial council agreements in the specific area. Where does one register whom? This can cause a problem. For this reason I am pleased to have learned from the Director-General of Manpower, Dr. van der Merwe, that the mere publication of this Bill has already given rise to inquiries from these brokers with regard to registration. We believe that if we get voluntary cooperation from that quarter as well, it will not be necessary for the hon. the Minister or his department to address these people in unnecessarily severe terms.

Sir, I have inherited a small part of his old constituency from the hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

The best part.

We have, inter alia, the Rooiwal power station there. After all, we believe in private initiative today. We believe that if problems do arise we should avail ourselves as far as possible of the services of contractors from outside. The voters of Rooiwal then tell me: Yes, but these men come from outside in the night and they fix a thing in record time. However, it is still patchwork. In Johannesburg, I have heard, they call this “patchwork done by vultures”. These fellows try to keep the thing going, and nothing is permanent. This causes problems amongst the ordinary workers as well. For this reason we on this side of the House believe that it is essential for us to bring these people under the umbrella of legislation.

The hon. the Minister has now come forward with a new dispensation in terms of which one has an unorganized group of employees. In this regard I agree with the hon. member for Pinelands that one must exercise great care, since wisdom will have to be brought to bear on the question of where the hon. the Minister can appoint conciliation boards in this case. This probably sounds strange to a person who is not au fait with labour legislation. Consequently I should like to illustrate something to hon. members by way of example. Supposing the hon. member for Kimberley North, who is a person who knows diamonds or ought to know them, learns of an old mine in the Warrenton area and says, for example, to the hon. member for Walmer: Listen, you have many bulldozers, tractors and lorries. Let us start working that mine again. So the two of them start working the mine. They appoint 50 workmen, one of whom is a bookkeeper, for example, who pays the wages, and then there are the workers who drive the tractors and work with shovels. The hon. member for Walmer has knowledge of the equipment used and the hon. member for Kimberley North has knowledge of the stones. Somewhere along the line they obtain a market for them. At some later stage the hon. member for Walmer may think: Why do we need a bookkeeper? After all, I can do the bookkeeping myself. So they “fire” the bookkeeper. And what do we find then? Immediately we have a strike at the mine, a strike in sympathy. Say for argument’s sake the bookkeeper was the wife of the hon. member for Kimberley North and she was dismissed, perhaps unnecessarily, simply because the hon. member for Walmer wanted to keep the books himself. So there is a strike in sympathy, but there is no trade union. There are only 50 unorganized people. The hon. member for Kimberley North and the hon. member for Walmer do not belong to an employers’ organization either. But diamonds are so important that it is in the national interest for diamonds to be sold in order to earn foreign exchange, etc, and it is not in the general interest for those people to be unemployed. In a case such as this, the Minister now acquires this new power of appointing a conciliation board.

The Minister has four options: He can send an inspector to the mine to investigate the problems, or he can appoint a mediator. Somebody said he could appoint a clergyman. Let us assume that the hon. the Minister fancied a clergyman of the Dutch Reformed Church, but that the majority of the workers were members of the Reformed Church. They do not want a DR clergyman as mediator.

Is the hon. member reflecting on members of the Reformed Church?

No, Sir. I know about that song which was banned because the words were “My vader is ’n dopper …” Let us rather say, Mr. Speaker, that they are reformers. The third option the Minister has is to appoint a conciliation board. However, the people say they do not want to talk; they want to go to court. Then the hon. the Minister can tell them that they can do so, but that he has a court for them with all the expertise in the world, i.e. the industrial court. In that way he wants to make matters cheaper and easier for them. Now it is possible for them to litigate in the industrial court.

Mr. Speaker, we have now arrived at a point in our labour legislation when we may regard the legislation we are dealing with at the moment as futuristic legislation. I say this not because it is something new in our labour legislation in South Africa. As a matter of fact, the first Industrial Conciliation Act appeared on the Statute Book in 1924 and was first amended 13 years later, i.e. in 1937. The 1937 Act was first amended 19 years later, i.e. in 1956, and the latter Act was first amended in 1979. This proves, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to industrial legislation, labour legislation, in this country we build stability into it. I want to go so far as to say that the legislation we are dealing with here today and with which we shall be dealing for another day or two, is legislation which will see industry and labour in this country through to the end of the century. All this we owe to only one thing: A farsighted Government, a far-sighted Minister and a party that puts the interests of the worker of South Africa first.

Mr. Speaker, before I come to the speech made by the hon. member for Roodeplaat, I just wish to convey the gratitude of this side of the House to the hon. the Minister for the fact that he made explanatory memoranda in respect of all three these Bills available to hon. members, something which greatly assisted us in understanding the provisions of the various Bills. Furthermore, we are also grateful to the officials whose doors were always open to us so that we could discuss with them the matters which were causing us problems.

Sir, the hon. member for Roodeplaat mentioned the fact that there was less legislation now and that we were in the process of laying the foundations till the end of the century. I hope that his prediction comes true. You see, Sir, the hon. the Minister stated on the occasion of the annual general meeting of the Transvaal Chamber of Industries in Johannesburg on 3 November 1982 that it was important—and I agree with him on this score—that there should be training in the art of labour relations as such. He said—

The point I wish to make is that although it is true that from 1956 until the ’seventies there were no appreciable changes in the Labour Relations Act, amendments have been made annually from 1978-’79, after the report of the Wiehahn Commission. A student of labour problems in South Africa, confronted by 300-400 sets of regulations drawn up in complicated language and dealing with complicated matters, finds himself in a maze and cannot make head or tail of them.

The hon. member for Pinelands provided figures with regard to strikes and financial losses sustained in this regard. I just wish to add the following statistics I have obtained. Despite all this legislation, despite the work of the Wiehahn Commission and despite all the intervention on the part of the Government, there has been an increase in the number of strikes. In 1978, for example, 10 000 man-days were lost through strikes; in 1979, 67 000 man-days; in 1980, 175 000 man-days, and in 1981, 250 000 man-days. It is no use arguing that these stoppages lasted for perhaps an hour or two per day. These days the tendency is for strikes to last longer, and I ask the hon. the Minister to practise what he preaches, viz. minimum intervention by the State. The river must be allowed to find its course.

Mr. Speaker, the CP is prepared to support the second reading of this legislation, but it has certain very serious reservations, particularly with regard to the question of unregistered trade unions. We realize that it is essential that a conflict be defused as soon as possible after it arises. That is why it is our policy, the CP’s policy, that liaison committees and work committees should be encouraged and honed to a fine edge, since these committees can identify problems within the work sphere and they can defuse a conflict before it becomes necessary for the trade unions, the conciliation boards, arbitration and all the other things which follow, to appear on the scene. The more we encourage the work committees and the liaison committees, the more opportunities are created for the employer and employee to find one another, to get to know one another and to negotiate with one another, the better our chances to eliminate strikes.

I have said that it is essential that a mechanism be created to defuse conflict or a problem, as soon as possible after it arises. That is why the CP welcomes the following aspects of this legislation. Firstly, we welcome the fact that the Minister is now able to intervene and, after consultation with the industrial council or the conciliation board, will be able to appoint a mediator himself, or, in certain cases of national interest, he himself may intervene. However, we should like to know what the criteria are in terms of which the Minister will intervene under certain circumstances, what the criteria will be when it is in the national interest. I wish to add that the CP has no objection—in fact, we welcome it—to labour brokers having to be registered. We welcome this. We think it is a good thing. We request that they should not only be registered with the Department of Manpower, but that they should also be registered with the industrial council which has jurisdiction in their area. That is what I wanted to say on the question of labour brokers.

As far as the matter of industrial conciliation is concerned, I believe this House is aware that we have heard from the hon. the Minister over a period of many years that the reason for his wishing to implement registration, was in fact that he wished to have more control, as well as a say in the activities of the various trade unions. This, of course, also applies to the employers’ organizations. However, one must have an incentive for trade unions to register, and one of the methods used to compel trade unions to register has in fact been this mechanism, which has not been at their disposal. Now there has been a relaxation in this respect. However, I hasten to add that we understand the problems the hon. the Minister is experiencing in this regard. We also appreciate that in this regard he also requires an unregistered trade union to fulfil certain requirements, for example, that its head office should be situated in South Africa, that it should keep a wage register, that its office-bearers and officials should be known, etc. Of course, it also has to complete certain forms in order to satisfy the department that it represents a sufficient number of workers before applying to such a conciliation board. Our request to the hon. the Minister, as well as our reservations with regard to this matter, amount to the fact that this does not encourage those who operate in the labour sphere to register. The more relaxations there are with regard to permitting unregistered trade unions to negotiate and to respect conciliation boards, as well as to request other methods for the resolving of labour disputes, the less incentives there are for trade unions to register.

Nor have we any problem with the other aspects of this legislation, viz. that the appeals have to be referred to the Industrial Court. Nor have we any problems with regard to the question of keeping secret the names, etc., of those who are involved in industrial disputes. In fact, we think that this is a sound provision. I agree with the hon. member for Pinelands that it is essential that judgements be made known in a study of matters relating to labour.

However, by way of summary, I wish to mention that if no incentives exist for trade unions and employers’ organizations to register, a situation such as the one which is already developing will arise more frequently in South Africa, in which parties enter recognition agreements outside the law, and make no use whatsoever of the machinery which is made available by the Labour Relations Act. Mr. Speaker, despite these reservations, the CP is prepared to support the Second Reading of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member who has just resumed his seat for this reasonably moderate approach to this subject and for the support he has given this legislation. The hon. member was mainly opposed to the question of unregistered trade unions. Before I go into this further, I wish to say that the hon. member for Pinelands spoke about the Government’s ostrich mentality. At the same time it was crystal clear to me that he found himself in the ostrich camp as far as manpower legislation is concerned and he does not know what to do with the ostrich. This matter has been dealt with so effectively and so perfectly, that there is virtually nothing to say about it.

As far as the hon. member for Brakpan is concerned, I think it has perhaps escaped his notice that unregistered trade unions may only settle a dispute or bargain if they comply with certain requirements.

I did, in fact, say that.

The important point is that those requirements are precisely what is expected of a registered trade union; in other words, it must satisfy all the provisions and requirements expected of a registered trade union before it may bargain or become involved in the settlement of disputes. This is a point we should not overlook and I think that if the CP were to think about this carefully and take into account the problems of the South African labour situation in particular, they would give this legislation their unqualified support without the reservations they expressed in respect of their particular approach to unregistered trade unions. As the hon. member is well aware, we were all concerned about this at the outset, since this is a particular problem with real and dangerous political overtones, which we also have to take into account. The only way to solve this problem, which the hon. the Minister and his department, in co-operation with the group, eventually decided on, was that we demand the same requirements of these trade unions as we do of the registered trade unions. After all, if they satisfy all these requirements they are, in fact semi-registered trade unions.

From 1979 this hon. Minister and his department began adapting manpower legislation realistically to the demands of our times. I think it is generally accepted that our legislation has changed dramatically, as has been conceded by other hon. members. The success achieved has been so dramatic that even the hon. member for Pinelands no longer knows what to do with this legislation, for it is improving all the time. This is particularly the case as far as the underlying philosophy of labour legislation in South Africa is concerned. And it was vitally necessary that this should be so, since the enemies of South Africa had already decided a long time ago that the labour sphere is one of the most vulnerable in South African society, and rightly so. They endeavoured to involve the International Labour Organization in their vendetta and in their campaign against South Africa. The International Labour Organization is an extremely formidable organization which, if it is unanimous, can make its power felt in any country in the world, and I think it would be foolish of any government to knowingly become involved in a confrontation with this body if it could possibly avoid it. The International Labour Organization is a specialist organization which concerns itself with the technical details of labour wherever work and bargaining are in progress. That is why it was necessary and sensible at that stage to bring South Africa’s manpower legislation in line with the international requirements as far as possible. Even more important, it had to be brought in line with the requirements of the internal situation and the legitimate needs of our labour force, and this is an extremely important factor. A government which does not do this in a country like South Africa, with its particular composition and problems, is not merely trifling with the future of South Africa, but is, in fact, gambling with it. We in South Africa had no textbook guidance with regard to this kind of legislation, since nowhere in the world is there a comparable situation. Our circumstances here are different from those in any other part of the world. Accordingly we had to adapt our legislation in the light of our own circumstances, needs and experience. All reasonable people, the entire House as well, agree today that this legislation is right on target, that it is effective and that it is frustrating the spearhead of our enemies’ onslaught on South Africa. However, as we all know no legislation is perfect from the outset. If it had indeed been perfect from the outset, we would all be unemployed at this stage. Therefore, there must be continual consolidation and amendments have to be made, and as has already been indicated by the hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Roodeplaat and some of the other speakers, this is precisely what this Bill envisages. It is consolidating the legislation which has already been placed in the Statute Book.

Reference has been made to the labour brokers. Alarming phenomena have resulted from the shortage of skilled manpower, which has completely distorted the supply and demand situation in South Africa. However, one of my hon. colleagues will go into more detail in that respect.

What South Africa needs above all, is peaceful labour relations, since the large number of job seekers entering the labour market annually, is so great, that we cannot possibly allow labour unrest to either delay or considerably increase the cost of the development of South Africa. That is why it is essential that the machinery for settling disputes in South Africa should be absolutely streamlined, for apart from the fact that labour is and remains the most important determinant of a person’s socio-economic quality of life, with the result that he turns to bargaining in all its facets, from moderate to violent, it is also true that in South Africa, as I have already mentioned, there are extremely strong political overtones which make the settling of disputes even more important, and far more sensitive, than in any other place in the world.

I have already dealt with the unregistered trade unions which the hon. member for Brakpan objected to, and I pointed out that it was, in fact, the case that these people were, as it were, semi-registered. Clause 3 of the Bill is now amending section 35 of the principal Act in respect of conciliation boards. The hon. the Minister went into considerable detail concerning the fact that conciliation boards could now be established in areas where an industrial council did not have jurisdiction, and that an unregistered trade union, too, would apply for an industrial conciliation board on behalf of its members if—this is an extremely important factor—all the requirements were met, unless it were also representative, and it may represent its people there.

The hon. the Minister also dealt with the question of a mediator, and I am not going to take this any further now. A greater amount of flexibility has been built into the entire system of settling disputes in South Africa by means of direct arbitration. There is also the matter of secrecy which the hon. the Minister also dealt with effectively.

One of the extremely important and meaningful provisions of the amending Bill is that an appeal will now be referred to the industrial court and no longer to the Minister. The court is, after all, the place for an appeal. Of course, this is also going to alleviate the Minister’s work load and rulings to a large extent.

The real objective of all these measures is simply—I am summing this up briefly—to ensure the maximum labour peace in South Africa and avoid unrest. I have already pointed out that our enemies decided some time ago that the labour front is one of the most sensitive sectors, if not the most vulnerable, in South Africa. It would, in fact, be so if one group in South Africa were to govern in an egocentric and thoughtless way, since as a result of the specific composition of our labour force and deep-rooted differences in culture and race, the explosive potential of South Africa’s situation is much greater than that of any other country in the world. That is why it is essential that South Africa’s machinery for the settling of disputes should be particularly practical and adaptable, and it should be as flexible as possible so that every situation may be summed up and dealt with and every problem solved. South Africa is indeed the workshop of Southern Africa, but to an increasing extent—as a result of the implementation of this legislation—South Africa will become an example in Africa of highly meaningful labour relations.

I, too, take great pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I should just like to express my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and his department for the explanatory memorandum on this Bill. It is a tremendous help to receive such a document from the department in good time, and we really appreciate it.

Before reacting directly to the Bill itself I just want to react briefly to the speeches of the various hon. members in the House this afternoon. In the first instance I should just like to follow on what the hon. member for Sasolburg said when he emphasized that labour relations were much more difficult to deal with in our political atmosphere in South Africa than in that of any of the other developed industrial countries in the Western World. We have great appreciation for the fact that the Government—and particularly the hon. the Minister—has summoned up the courage to change its attitudes and relations in regard to labour legislation since 1979.

I want to point out that this change in attitude would not have amounted to very much were it not for the fact that the hon. the Minister and the Government as a whole at that stage recognized the fact that leadership was the most important factor in the process of change. Therein, of course, lies a message on the political level as well. If only the Government were prepared to take the lead when it came to the problem areas in South African politics—the dispensation in regard to Black co-operation—we would eventually be able to achieve the same peaceful result in the political sphere. It would be possible, if one were only to take the lead in the situation in South Africa.

†I think that is largely what the hon. member for Sasolburg was telling us here today. Perhaps he was not aware of the fact that what he was saying was that good leadership can, in fact, achieve what yesterday may have been impossible, but is absolutely essential for tomorrow. [Interjections.] At a political level this could also be done. The hon. member for Pinelands mentioned this, and this party is also on record as having said that as long as there is no legitimate political forum for Black aspirations, they will use and misuse industrial and labour relations institutions to express their political frustrations. We cannot get away from that. That is an argument that has been repeated many times and will still be repeated on many occasions in this House.

Then I come to the hon. member for Roodeberg, I mean Roodeplaat. [Interjections.] That was just a Freudian slip of the tongue.

Does that make him a rich or full-blooded red?

I think that the hon. member’s problem is not so much that he is finding difficulty with his electricians or sewerage-cleaning workers stemming from bad labour relations or bad training. The problem is that his Government cannot contain inflation. That is the problem and that is what he is complaining about. [Interjections.] If he had listened carefully to my colleagues in the no-confidence debate, he would have discovered why it is possible for such people to overcharge him. It is because of inflation and the shortage of manpower. We have been telling the Government for years that it should put its house in order.

The hon. member of the CP who spoke just prior to the hon. member for Sasolburg, the hon. member for Brakpan, had a lot of problems with the unregistered unions. He said that he would come back to that problem, but I detect from his speech here today that what he wants to do is to clamp down on everybody. Then if one is not a registered union, one would not be allowed to operate in the industrial relations field. I think that that is what the hon. member for Brakpan was trying to tell us.

Surely not!

I do not think we should spend too much time arguing about that kind of objection, because, if one is really going to go back to the archaic times of trying to coerce people in a capitalist, free enterprise system to deal with certain people only and not others, then what the hon. member for Brakpan is saying is that in fact he is against the free enterprise system as a whole. I should like to hear from that hon. member and his colleagues whether, in terms of the philosophy of the CP, they really stand for private enterprise and a capitalist system.

I shall let you have a copy of our constitution.

I thank the hon. member. I would appreciate it if he would tell us at a later date what their attitude is towards these things.

Coming back to the Bill itself, let me say to the hon. the Minister that in general terms we are very happy with it. Our objections are not of such a nature that we shall vote against it at Second Reading. We do not have that kind of objection to it at all. In fact, we welcome many of the provisions, specifically those in respect of the registration of labour brokers. We all know the history of labour brokers in South Africa. In a situation of a shortage of skilled manpower they have to a large extent aggravated inflation by bringing in skilled workers, getting skilled workers onto their books, sending them out to entrepreneurs who find it difficult to find artisans and then charging an exorbitant rate for that labour. The reason for that is, of course, very simple. It is that they want to make a profit out of the selling of skilled labour services to organizations in South Africa. The essence of the problem, of course, has always been that the worker himself, the man who works for the labour broker and is then sold to another organization, has suffered in the long run because of the lack of security and of employment benefits. In that sense we welcome the fact that there is going to be a registration of labour brokers.

I should, however, like to issue a warning to the hon. the Minister not to contemplate the possibility of registering these people in order to hamper labour brokers in their legitimate business and enterprise. I say that for the same reason I advanced in response to the hon. member for Brakpan earlier, viz. that we are a private enterprise country subscribing to the principle of capitalism. The labour brokers should therefore be in a position to continue to fill an existing need. If there is the demand on the part of industry and, in particular, if industry is prepared to pay for their services, we should leave it at that. Our concern must rest entirely with the minimal protection provided to the workers involved in that kind of business.

Then let me come to the question of the hon. the Minister transferring certain of his discretionary powers to the Industrial Court. We give this our total and unqualified support. We have always been against the principle of a Minister exercising discretion when it comes to matters of settling disputes and appeals and we welcome the transfer of these powers, or these functions and responsibilities really, to the Industrial Court, which is where they belong.

Then there is the question of the Minister being able to call for a conciliation board, in terms of the limitations prescribed in this amending Bill, in areas where there is no industrial council and where in the opinion of the Minister an industrial council in necessary or industrial conciliation is necessary. The minister then, without consultation, can put that process into operation. Let me speak about that aspect, or principle, in amending legislation. On the one hand we find it very encouraging that the hon. the Minister has created greater opportunities for unregistered unions to participate in the conciliation process in South Africa. This amending legislation now allows conciliation actually to be called for in areas where there is no industrial council. It is however, a question of the Minister giving with the one hand and taking back with the other, because what we see in this amending legislation is a relaxation for unregistered unions but at the same time a warning by the Minister that, if the does not like the collective bargaining process in operation, he will force a conciliation board onto that collective bargaining process. I want to warn the Minister that, if he uses those powers of his indiscreetly or injudiciously, he can in fact aggravate the situation rather than improve it. This legislation allows unregistered unions privileges in certain areas which were denied to them earlier. They can now actively yet involved in the conciliation process, provided of course they submit their accounts on an annual basis, they are registered members, they can prove their 50% bona fides, and they subscribe towards providing the addresses, etc.

I should like to point out to hon. members that this idea of registering unions is not alien to the Western World. Recently I visited the United Kingdom and Germany to see how their industrial relations legislation works and I was intrigued to discover that in England all trade unions had to register with the Registrar of Trade Unions. They have to submit their accounts as well. I was even more intrigued to discover that the smallest trade union, the Guild of Jewish Bakers, had exactly 13 members. That, I thought, was quite interesting. However, the interesting thing is that the British have taken a very relaxed attitude towards shop floor negotiation between the entrepreneur and the trade union itself. This should be a guideline for us in South Africa. We should not do what the hon. member for Brakpan wants to do, viz. to force companies and trade unions in a straitjacket in a formula and to say that one may only deal with the other and not with another provided their numbers are X, Y and Z.

The principle involved here is whether you believe in shop floor negotiation, trade union to management, or whether you believe in an industry negotiation with a representative body on behalf of many trade unions. That of course is the German system. We detect with this amending legislation that the hon. the Minister and his department are leaning more and more towards the reality of trade union life, namely that you should allow shop floor negotiation between the trade unions and the private entrepreneur or factory owner. This gives one a far more flexible system. We see the possibility of this orientation in this legislation. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether that is too liberal an interpretation of what is intended with this amending legislation.

In the final analysis let me say that on many of the other clauses we would have liked to make some comment but obviously we can do that during the Committee Stage when we go into more detail. We are just talking about broad principles at the moment.

I should also like to comment very briefly on the idea of appointing a mediator or an arbitrator and to ask the hon. the Minister whether the strikes which occurred in East London during 1982 motivated his department to bring in this idea of the appointment of voluntary and direct arbitrators. This of course will give rise to a completely new growth industry in South Africa, the idea of people acting as mediators in disputes between two parties. The S.A. Transport Services suffered considerably from recent strikes in the East London harbour area and we note from reports that an external or objective arbiter or consultant was brought in. No doubt his services were effective because shortly after that there was an end to the dispute and work went on as usual in the East London harbour. My question to the hon. the Minister is actually twofold: Did the S.A. Transport Services act illegally in the appointment of an external arbiter or were they within the framework of the law on conditions regulating matters of dispute in the S.A. Transport Services? It is well known that there is no industrial council in the S.A. Transport Services. It is also well known that the attitude of the Transport Services is that they will only deal with in-house unions and not with outside unions at all. The point I am really trying to make is that the appointment of the outside arbiter is a good innovation. It brings to bear a new perspective on the dispute and this sort of idea should be well received in the House.

Mr. Speaker, that is all we have to say on the Bill at the moment. We welcome it and will be giving it our full support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister, as well as a number of other hon. members have referred to the fact that these amendments are, to a large extent, the result of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation, recommendations which have already been approved by the Government. This legislation makes provision, inter alia, for the control of labour brokers and the registration of labour brokers’ offices. In clause 1 of the Bill we find the following definition of “labour broker”—

“Labour brokers’ office” is defined as being—

In terms of the above, a labour broker is deemed to be a business which hires out to other parties the services of persons in its employ, and the lessees are clients of that business. The client is not deemed to be the employer of such contracted person. The question now arises as to who is the true or actual employer of such employees. The result of this uncertainty is that the implementation of this labour legislation with regard to determinations, agreements or orders, is totally impossible. Moreover, little if any, responsibility is displayed by the labour broker in respect of further important aspects of the manpower situation, for example, manpower training or any socio-economic benefits for the employee. Labour brokerage is usually at its height during an upswing in the economy; in other words, when there is the heaviest demand on the labour market. Businesses make use of this kind of labour at a price, of course, when a heavy workload is being experienced temporarily, or in the case of construction projects of relatively short duration.

This practice therefore amounts to the exploitation of the shortage of skilled labour in our country and it certainly contributes substantially to wage inflation. It offers no security in respect of the employee. Conditions of employment are of a temporary and variable nature. As has already been mentioned, often there are no benefits such as pensions, assistance in respect of illness, or medical aid funds. When all is well things go very well, and in difficult times, things are very bad.

Labour brokerage in South Africa is a relatively new development, and to date it would seem that it offers no stability, nor has it contributed to the stability of our manpower situation, particularly our skilled manpower situation, in this country. As is probably the case with any new development, it gives rise to problem areas and areas friction. In part 5 of its report, the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation once again emphasized the principle of supply and demand, a principle inherent in the free market and the free enterprise economy. Therefore the Commission holds the view that labour brokerage should not be entirely or even partly prohibited in the Republic of South Africa. However, this does not mean that the practice should not be brought under control. Their finding was that like any other economic activity, this kind of industry should also contribute to the national economic objectives of the country and it should not seek to break the laws of the country or evade responsibilities. Basically, the Commission faced the choice of solving the problems resulting from labour brokerage by including the mentioned activities in the definition in the Act of “private registration offices” or by extending the description of “employer” to include the clients of brokers, thereby causing them to be covered by the appropriate labour legislation; or, as a further alternative, to allow the industrial court to declare as unfair labour practice any brokerage activity deemed not to be in the interests of law and order and the economic wellbeing of the country. The Commission found that the Labour Relations Act, as well as other appropriate labour legislation, should be appropriately amended to ensure that all workers are protected regardless of where they are employed. In paragraph 4.42 of the White Paper which was accepted by the Government in this regard, it is recommended that—

On the one hand, the Government’s standpoint confirms that the practice of labour brokerage, taking into account the freedom of workers to offer their services to anyone of their choice, is in line with the free market principle, but on the other hand, that control should be introduced. Although the opinion could be expressed that existing legislation does, in fact, cover the practice of labour brokerage, this statutory amendment is being moved to remove any doubt concerning the matter. The basic principle involved with regard to labour brokerage, is that all workers must be protected, regardless of where they are employed. The optimum development, utilization and preservation of the entire labour force of our country is one of our highest priorities. Every practice which amounts to the exploitation of our shortage of labour, skilled labour in particular, should immediately be brought under control.

This view is in accordance with the Government’s general objectives with regard to manpower, which could briefly be summarized as follows: Firstly, the optimum protection and preservation of the marketing abilities of every worker; secondly, the optimum development of every worker’s knowledge, skills and abilities according to his particular aptitude; thirdly, the optimum utilization of the skills of each worker in order to increase productivity to the highest possible level. This amendment will make a positive contribution to the objectives with regard to the labour force, and therefore I am privileged to support the hon. the Minister in regard to these positive measures.

Mr. Speaker, after one has listened to the speeches of various hon. members, one comes to realize that one always has to judge the philosophy of a political party according to its speakers before giving one’s support to a piece of legislation or withholding it. The hon. member for Newcastle, for example, outlined the three optimum objectives required in South Africa. From his approach it is evident, however, that he regards all workers, be they Black workers from Zambia, Kangwane or elsewhere, or be they White workers from White South Africa, as one large, joint labour force.

Merely a lot of numbers.

Yes, merely a lot of numbers. They are merely a lot of numbers, almost as if they have been produced by a computer. That is his view of the labour situation in South Africa. It is, of course, the philosophy of the NP with regard to the future of the Whites, the future of the workers, and this is what disturbs me when we deal with labour legislation.

There was a time when the White man in South Africa occupied a certain place, when he still had his own citizenship rights. However, he no longer has them. [Interjections.] He does not have those rights in terms of the labour legislation. He is one of thousands of people. What is more, in that pool into which he has been thrown, he does not receive the necessary just protection which he should receive. I should like to see a White worker who is not going to become a registered member of a trade union but who will receive full recognition. Because people are Black and because it was feared that they would not co-operate at a certain stage, certain concessions are being made. We find this in the amending Bill. In the Bill we read: “Words in bold type in square brackets indicate omissions from existing enactments.” Previously this hon. Minister convinced us that a registered trade union was going to be the answer. He told us that if they were not registered, it would not be possible for them to be recognized as a trade union. They must be registered. All hon. members agreed to that. Because unregistered trade unions are now going to be recognized, however, and because all information concerning the trade union is going to be available and its members, etc., will then have to be registered, we now have a conflict with the previous attitude. We have been told that now we shall know with whom that trade union is concerned, as well as from where it obtains its money, because its books will be made accessible. It is true that it is stated in the explanatory memorandum that they will not be in a position to enjoy certain privileges unless A or B happens. However, special attention is given to making exceptions because they are not registered. The Government has strayed from the path step by step in its attempts to accommodate people who do not want to be accommodated and who do not agree as far as certain matters are concerned. On the one hand we tell the Whites: Walk with us into this dispensation because it is our only salvation. The moment the Whites do so, however, people of colour withdraw and the Government accepts the position which, as they told us yesterday and the day before yesterday, would cause the biggest problem in South Africa if trade unions did not register. The problem in South Africa today is not that we want to be petty. The problem in South Africa today is that a trade union has certain paid-up members as well as other members who are not paid-up members. As soon as one has this set of circumstances, one has room for non-members who can be organized overnight. What prevents them from doing so, apart from their subscription fees? In this way the number of non-members or people who seek to be associated with the trade union can be augmented to 300 000 or 400 000 within a week’s time. We shall have to look at these circumstances. Time limits will have to be determined in respect of those people who are not registered. Non-members will have to be granted a certain period in which to apply for membership of a trade union. For what reason does one have a registered trade union when those who are not registered receive a better deal? The hon. the Minister told us how important it was for all trade unions to be registered, and we who served on that working committee accepted it. I accept today that it is better to have a registered trade union. However, when we have to learn after the expiry of a year of other methods having to be employed and of the department having to be circumvented in order to achieve agreement so that labour relations may be promoted, then I query this registration procedure which is being followed and in terms of which people are exempted from registration. I query it.

In this country labour relations is one of the most important factors for ensuring peace and quiet in the country. There is one thing one really should not do. A man who walks through muddy water with one stiff leg and one bent knee will get stuck in the mud. That is what the Government wants to do today. It wants to give the White man a straight leg and a complete Act, but for the people of colour it kneels and then rises again. This is the reason for these people emerging as a limping legislative body. I think the officials face a formidable task in translating this wishful thinking on the part of the Government into legislation. One may well take cognizance of the black brackets in the legislation. The words between those brackets had to be omitted so as to legalize an illegal union in a manner which still does not provide absolute certainty that those people want to accept it.

Mr. Speaker, before I reply to an otherwise very meaningful discussion, there is just one thing I want to tell the last speaker: If his party thinks that it can allow that kind of speech on labour matters to be made here, I do not know how far we are going to progress in this House. I do not think there is anyone here who knows what the hon. member wanted to say. [Interjections.] Indeed, he discussed matters which we are not trying to include in the Statute Book at all. In fact, he stumbled over his own feet; he does not even know the concepts that are involved. Not a single reference he made was correct. He did not make a single observation which was related to what we have before us. To tell the truth—I shall try to remain parliamentary—in the 25 years I have been in this House I have never heard a person talking so much nonsense while trying to discuss a technical matter. [Interjections.] It is truly perturbing to think that the hon. member for Langlaagte—the hon. member for Brakpan did his best—is his party’s second speaker on this matter, for then there is no depth on that side as far as these matters are concerned, and we can expect absolutely nothing from them in future. There was nothing to reply to in his speech; it was nothing but a load of rubbish. [Interjections.]

I shall not reply immediately to the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands; I shall come to him later. I think we had a good discussion and I want to thank the hon. members who discussed a great many things here.

It seems to me that a misunderstanding exists in regard to one or two aspects, and perhaps I should first eliminate them. The first is in connection with a matter which, inter alia, was also broached by the hon. member for Brakpan. It is concerned with the role which trade unions have to play and what place shop floor level negotiations is going to occupy in future. The hon. member for East London North also discussed this. On this matter I should like to say the following: It will be recalled that when we began, years ago, to create an instrument for consultation on a very simple level on the shop floors by means of the legislation we introduced at the time, we had something in mind. What did we have in mind?

Our object was to begin something in South Africa, a country which is rapidly becoming an industrial country. During the past 35 years South Africa has in fact begun to become an industrial country. Today we have 36 000 factories. It happened so rapidly that a large number of people who entered the field were simply unable to find their feet or maintain themselves. I am referring of course to the Black people. At the time we said that we did not want to allow them to participate in trade unions because the concept was too new. We then said that we should offer them another form of consultation in order to train them, and we then proposed that workers’ committees and liaison committees should be established. These served a very good purpose. At least they taught us that it was possible to make a start at that level with a process of consultation, hoping that one day, when the next level in the process would be reached, there would already be a measure of skill, because at first there was absolutely no skill. All this served a very good purpose, and is still doing so today. We decided merely to change the designations in existing legislation. We said: Let us abandon the workers’ committees and liaison committees and call them simply workers’ councils. At the time I made a few calculations—I do not think there is much difference today—and estimated that approximately 37% to 40% of the Black people working in factories for example were members of the committees. To tell the truth, there were subsequently more than 3 000 of them, and those meaningful institutions are still there at present. Only the name has changed. That hon. member is saying that we should not remove that instrument, but it has not been removed. I agree with him that it should not be removed. We are now dealing with something else. In the labour sphere we are now dealing with trade unions which are far more substantial, which can go much further in the negotiation process. These are trade unions that are being established, and if we do not make provision for them, what do they do? They then try to form pressure groups on the outskirts, and then go underground and achieve their object in any case. However, they then try to achieve their objects in ways which are completely beyond the limits of the law. We must prevent that. That is why we say that there is room for both.

This, consequently, brings me to the registration process, the subject of the hon. member’s second argument and also the arguments of other hon. members. It was said that there has now been a relaxation. It seems to me as though we would just have to argue about this matter among ourselves once again and ask: “What is really involved when it comes to the registration of a trade union?” We said that of course they would have to be offered an incentive in the sense that one would have to persuade all the trade unions to join, and in order to persuade them to join, one had to hold out to them the prospect of something which will make it attractive enough for them to want to join. However, we must understand very clearly that the question of registration involves two aspects. Together with the question of registration there is also the question of participation in the industrial council system. These are the two aspects. I think there are certain hon. members who do not understand this. I have already explained this many times, but it is very clear that they were not listening at the time, and will not listen now either. However, I think the hon. member for Brakpan will understand this. On the one hand there must be the incentive to join, and no change whatsoever is being made to this. An unregistered trade union cannot participate in this manner, and what does this involve? It cannot therefore enjoy the benefit of the industrial council system. If it is not registered, it cannot participate meaningfully in the system. In the second place, if it is not involved in the industrial council system, it forfeits a few very important attractions in the trade union world, the whole question of the enforceable agreement, as well as pensions. These are very important aspects. There is also the question of the agreement on provident funds. In other words, it forfeits that entire spectrum of benefits which keep a trade union occupied, the things for which its people negotiate every day. This is part of the packet in which it plays no part at all.

However, there is another aspect which we should also consider. Apart from the benefits which an unregistered trade union does not receive—and we are not proposing that it should receive them either—there is the other aspect that a dispute may arise in the bargaining process. The settlement of disputes is another aspect; the fighting another. We are trying to take the sting out of it. That is the whole point. We have said in this House and elsewhere, and this is known to all hon. members, that we instructed the National Manpower Commission—not now, but quite some time ago—to look into the entire question of the registration procedure. We cannot introduce legislation on the registration procedure before we have received meaningful inputs from the National Manpower Commission. The National Manpower Commission is working on the matter and when its inputs have been made, we shall look into them. I can tell the hon. member at this early stage already that I think we can streamline that procedure as well as we go along.

The important matter is that it is not as though a person who is not a member of a registered trade union cannot participate in the machinery for the settlement of disputes. He can. An ordinary member of an unregistered trade union can institute proceedings and he can appear alone, or the chairman can appear. The difference is only that if such a person is speaking on behalf of others, it involves a long procedure, a procedure which sometimes develops to the detriment of the economy. If he is speaking on behalf of a large number of people, he must produce a sworn statement from each one of them. Suppose one wishes to deal with a situation on behalf of 5 000 people. One then needs 5 000 sworn statements. This may take a very long time. By the time one has those statements, the situation might have become aggravated to such an extent that we are sitting with a serious problem as far as strikes are concerned, a situation which could lead to very serious difficulties.

You mean proxies, not a sworn statement.

Yes, that is correct. I beg your pardon. One needs a proxy to be able to act. It is then a sworn proxy, not so?

No.

Very well then, then I have learnt something from the hon. member.

You will learn a great deal more from me.

It makes no difference. That is not the point. The point is that the person concerned must obtain documentary proof that he is acting on behalf of a large number of people. This can take weeks. It is not meaningful to adopt such a procedure. That is why I say that the entire dispute in this regard is irrelevant. What is being proposed here is that one should be able to intervene in one of the ways if there is an impending strike.

Now it is being suggested that the Minister should be sensible. The hon. member for Pinelands and other hon. members as well said that they wanted to warn the Minister. They need not do so. The department, in carrying out its duties, is in fact intent on handling matters in such a way that the maximum benefit will be derived and labour peace promoted. I know of no single case over the years in which an official or the department acted in such a way that the matter was aggravated instead of being ameliorated. The intention is to be able to do this in the right way. As far as these two matters are concerned, I think it is therefore a good thing that there should be clarity on them. The hon. members will understand that as far as their remarks on similar matters are concerned, they are most certainly not in line with what we are trying to do.

In addition I just want to reply to certain suggestions, inter alia, those made by the member for Roodeplaat. I want to thank him for his speech and for the background which he sketched. He asked whether we could not simply call this legislation the Factories Act again. I do not think that it would be meaningful to do so. The fact of the matter is that we are not dealing only with the factories now. It goes far wider than that. If we were to call it the Factories Act, it would in fact, in the second place, create great confusion. The fact of the matter is that this legislation was published and that there was a very wide reaction to it on the part of the trade unions and various organizations. To tell the truth, not one of them asked for this. Which is an indication that the legislation and the name given to it is correct. Nevertheless I thank the hon. member for his suggestion.

The hon. member also said that we were reaching the end of a period. Yes, we are very close to that. However, hon. members will also remember that when a start was made for the first time with this legislation a few years ago, it was said that it was a process which would take from four to five years. The fact of the matter is that the report on this matter has appeared piece by piece and that many of the matters raised were referred to the National Manpower Commission. Of course this also applies to the matter to which I have just referred. In this way other matters were also raised and to investigate them could also take two to three years. We will probably receive replies to those matters which have not yet been disposed of—there are not many—during the course of the year in order to bring the necessary legislation before this House and complete the legislative process.

As regards the two points raised by the hon. member for Brakpan, I think that I have replied satisfactorily to them. I do not think there is anything else I have to say to the hon. member for Brakpan. If something has been left undiscussed, I hope that we shall find the time to discuss it under my Vote.

I also want to refer to what the hon. member for Sasolburg said. He referred to the machinery for the settlement of disputes and its inherent suppleness. I appreciate what he said. The fact of the matter is that in a rapidly developing labour situation, such as the one in South Africa, it is essential for us to keep the machinery for the settlement of disputes supple, because there are constant developments in this sphere. If it is not kept supple enough we shall not be able to intercept the problems whenever they arise. I think that what the hon. member said about what has been achieved recently to be able to preserve an exceptional degree of labour peace, is true. I am referring to a single remark which was made in connection with the number of strikes which occurred, etc. We must just remember that if one has one strike today and two strikes tomorrow, it is still very little, although it means a 100% increase. The fact of the matter is that as far as regards work stoppages and strikes in South Africa, our record is streets better than that of any other comparable country, in spite of the fact that we find ourselves in very difficult circumstances. The average time lost per worker per annum in South Africa, calculated over the entire spectrum, is six minutes per calendar month for a full 24 hour day. If this is converted into strike time per worker per work period, in other words, a work week of 40 hours, it means that South Africa had a strike time per worker of 20 minutes per year. Earlier in the debate the figure was mentioned that the work of 2 million workers out of a total of 5,5 million workers was lost in this way. The fact of the matter is, however, that the total cost per worker per annum in South Africa amounts to less than 40c per annum. There is no country anywhere near that figure. Consequently we must be very careful that we do not talk about tremendous increases. The fact of the matter is that we must compare these with years during the past 10 or 20 years when we were also experiencing problems with the economy, and not the past 2 or 3 years, because during that period we experienced exceptional labour immobility. According to all norms, this achievement is many times better than the next Western country for which data is available. Actually we must say that as far as this matter is concerned, we in South Africa are experiencing exceptionally favourable conditions and labour peace in the country, particularly when seen against the problematical composition of our work force of 5,5 million people.

The hon. member for Newcastle spoke exclusively about labour brokers today, and I want to thank him sincerely for his speech. I have nothing to add to his speech. He prepared himself very thoroughly and what he said was precisely correct. The hon. member did it so well that I will have nothing further to say on it.

The hon. member for North Rand issued a warning about pollution. I do not want to say that I do not think that we need be afraid that we will not be able to manage it. He asked me whether the problems in East London were the cause of our appointing mediators.

No, that is not the problem in East London. There were strikes in East London, as there were strikes throughout the whole of South Africa. The whole idea of mediators, arbitration and conciliation is in fact a package. Very well, it may have contributed towards setting us thinking in order to see how we could prevent this.

The hon. member also asked a question in connection with the transport situation, the problems which have arisen on the transport service during the past year. The department does not interfere in that. As the hon. member knows, all matters in correction with labour in the transport industry are dealt with by the Department of Transport by means of its own legislation and arrangements. Therefore the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs deals with these matters and the hon. member should therefore put the question to him. However, I want to give him the assurance that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, in the view of these things which happened recently, handled the situation very sensibly.

I now wish to react further to the argument of the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member kicked off very well today by promising his support for the first piece of legislation which we dealt with, as well as the second. Then, however, the hon. member for Pinelands proceeded to say and to do a very dangerous thing, something which I cannot allow to go unanswered. [Interjections.] Yes, he did do so. The hon. member knows that we in this House have been trying all these years—our policy and everything we do is geared to this—to keep labour affairs out of politics. I myself said it in this House and elsewhere that if we wish to have an adverse situation in South Africa, we should try to bring politics into the labour situation. Trade unions are there to regulate matters affecting the members of the various trade unions, their benefits and everything that goes with it. We also know that there are forces in this country which are trying to use the instruments which we create to decide labour matters to do the following, as someone put it to me in my office: “We are going to use this as a vehicle in our liberation struggle.”

That goes without saying.

We in South Africa try to prevent this. It is tradition and our legislation is opposed to it. I take it amiss of the hon. member for trying to do this today. The hon. member went further and with reference to grievances said: “This Chamber is one of the few places where the political situation can be resolved in this field.” Well, let me tell the hon. member that this is a very dangerous position to take up.

It is in your hands to change the position.

No. The hon. members know very well that we are all trying to keep labour matters out of politics. After all, we know how dangerous it is.

Your whole history says “no” to this.

We on the other part cannot allow, the department cannot allow, politics to be dragged in in this way. I therefore want to make an appeal to the hon. member not to come up for these people in order to use this area in the way he did.

You are talking nonsense.

Why did he do that? Why did he use this debate for that purpose? Surely he knows how dangerous it is. I want to tell the hon. member that he must not do this. If that is the attitude which he is going to display in future, I am afraid that we will not have very many easy debates with one another. This is a very dangerous area. I cannot go along with or allow it to be dealt with across the floor of this House in this way.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill before this House is, in accordance with the Government’s declared policy of rationalization, and arising from the Government’s White Paper on part 4 of the report of the Commission of Enquiry into Labour Legislation, to combine those provisions of the Shops and Offices Act, 1964, and those provisions of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, 1941, that have a bearing on conditions of service, in a new Act.

To start with, I should like to explain that the provisions of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act at present not only ensure the occupational hygiene and safety of factory workers, but also afford those workers protection with regard to their conditions of service. Although the Government accepted the recommendations of the Commission of Enquiry into Labour Legislation to the effect that the Act be extended to make provision for the protection of the occupational hygiene and safety of everyone in employment, the Government decided that those provisions of the Act having a bearing on conditions of service should for practical and administrative reasons rather be embodied in a separate Act, and that the provisions of the Shops and Offices Act should be included in this new Act.

In accordance with the Government’s policy of maximum consultation, the draft Bill was published on 31 July 1981 for general information and comment. The Bill was altered in various respects, where this was deemed necessary, in consequence of comments received. In drafting the Bill an effort was made, as far as possible, to leave the existing conditions of service prescribed in the aforementioned two Acts unchanged, in the interests of both employers and employees. In the light of the Government’s labour force goal, namely, that the country’s workers must be utilized to the optimum, and because by current standards certain existing provisions are too restrictive, it was deemed necessary to alter the Bill in certain respects.

The Bill at present before this House contains the basic conditions of service of employees, which will also serve as the basis for the negotiation of agreements at industrial council level and for making wage determinations in terms of the Wage Act.

I have already tabled an explanatory memorandum on the Bill, and I should now like to explain the most important aspects of the proposed Act. The first is that the ambit of the proposed Act will not be confined to factory workers and workers in shops and offices—as is at present the case. The shortcoming in the present legislation, namely that workers in areas outside the scope of industrial council agreements and wage determinations to whom the existing two Acts are not applicable have no protection as regards their conditions of service, is now to a great extent being rectified.

The exclusion of persons and bodies from the scope of application of the proposed Act, is based principally on the corresponding provisions of the existing legislation. For the most part these are people in the service of bodies authorized in terms of other legislation to determine the conditions of service of their workers themselves, and people subject to measures of wage regulation in terms of the Labour Relations Act and the Wage Act. Farm workers and domestic servants are also, as is the case in the existing legislation, excluded from the scope of application of the proposed Act. However, the National Manpower Commission is undertaking an investigation into the circumstances in which regulated conditions of service may be introduced in these two sectors. In the light of the NMC’s findings and recommendations, and bearing in mind the particular circumstances in these two sectors, further consideration will be given to this matter. Employees whose regular annual rates of remuneration exceed certain fixed amounts, are currently excluded from the scope of the Shops and Offices Act. In terms of the new Act, however, such employees will only be excluded from the provisions applying to working hours and the payment of overtime, public holidays and work on Sundays and public holidays. I see no reason why those workers should not be entitled to the other benefits in terms of the new Act, such as paid leave and sick leave.

Clauses 2 to 11 deal with ordinary working hours, limitations on overtime, payment for overtime and for public holidays and for work on Sundays and public holidays. An effort has been made to alter the existing provisions in this connection as little as possible, but as a result of changing circumstances in the labour field, certain alterations have had to be made, of which the following are deserving of mention.

Whereas the existing Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act does not apply to guards, and this class of employee is excluded from those provisions of the Shops and Offices Act dealing with working hours and work on Sundays and public holidays, the new Act will, except in a few instances, apply to guards. As a result of the nature of their work, however, their working hours will be restricted to 60 hours a week as against 46 hours in the case of other workers.

Because of the shortage of manpower, female labour is playing an increasingly important role in the economy of the country. The present Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act places a considerable number of restrictions on the use of female labour, particularly in respect of working hours and overtime. For example, women may not work at night without official approval. These restrictions have not kept pace with what is happening in practice or with technological developments. The prohibition on women working at night is therefore being lifted in terms of the Bill. The restrictions on overtime by women in factories, namely two hours a day on only three consecutive days a week and 60 hours per annum, are also being lifted. Similarly the restrictions of 30 hours per annum in shops, 100 hours per annum in offices and six hours a week and three hours a day for both offices and shops, will disappear. In future a restriction of 10 hours a week and three hours a day will apply to all employees. Whereas at present an employee can be required to work the prescribed number of hours of overtime, in future all overtime will have to be on a voluntary basis.

Employees at present subject to the provisions of the Shops and Offices Act are entitled to all public holidays with full pay, whereas employees subject to the provisions of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act are only entitled to six prescribed public holidays with full pay. This position is retained and employees who have thus far not enjoyed any protection in terms of either of the two Acts will in future also be entitled to the same six holidays as factory workers. As you can imagine, it would cause economic disruption to introduce the same number of holidays for all employees. I consider it to be in the interests of both employers and employees that the status quo be maintained.

The existing prohibition on working on Sundays is abolished but work on such days and on the prescribed public holidays can only be done with the consent of the employees.

Clauses 12 and 13 deal with paid annual leave and sick leave. The provisions of these clauses are basically the same as the relevant provisions of the existing two Acts. As far as sick leave is concerned, at present factory workers are entitled to 10 or 12 working days—depending on whether a five or a six-day week is worked—of sick leave with full payment during every cycle of 12 months. In future, however, they can claim 30 or 36 working days paid sick leave in a cycle of 36 consecutive months. During long periods of ill-health this change will be to the advantage of those concerned.

Clause 14 contains provisions relating to the giving of notice of termination of an employee’s contract of service, which are basically the same as the provisions contained in the Shops and Factories Act. The Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act contains no prescriptions relating to notice of termination of employment and in future factory workers will also enjoy protection in this regard.

Clauses 15 and 16 deal only with the issuing of certificates of service and the calculation of an employee’s wages for purposes of the implementation of the legislation.

Clause 17 which, amongst others, imposes a prohibition on the employment of pregnant women during specific periods prior to and after the confinement, does not—as do the existing two Acts—make provision for the payment of a maternity allowance. The reason for this is that maternity allowances are already payable in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act.

The remaining clauses contain standard provisions, as embodied in existing legislation, and are aimed at facilitating the implementation of the proposed new Act. I trust that this Bill will receive the support of this hon. House and I therefore move—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister will probably not be very surprised when I tell him that we do not find this bill unacceptable and therefore that as far as this side of the House is concerned we should also like to support the legislation.

In the first place I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his department for the course they adopted with regard to this Bill by publishing the draft legislation, awaiting representations and then altering the legislation in the light of those representations. I am sure he will not hold it against me if I say that this is in glaring contrast to some other behaviour we have become accustomed to in the past where legislation has been piloted through without taking the wishes and desires of other people into consideration. I think a very sound course of action was followed here, and this is not the first time that the hon. the Minister has acted in this way. I believe there is general appreciation, both inside and outside this House, for his mode of action in this connection.

I am also grateful that the hon. the Minister gave us a detailed explanatory memorandum in which the particulars of the Bill are set out.

There is no doubt that we have experienced trememdous changes since the Acts now being repealed were passed. I am now referring to the Factories, Machinery and Building Works Act, 1941, and the Shops and Offices Act, 1964. The latter Act is almost 20 years old. The tremendous changes which have taken place in South Africa in the interim are of such a nature that the legislation had of necessity to be adapted to keep pace with the changing circumstances. As the hon. the Minister indicated in his reply to the Second Reading of the previous piece of legislation, South Africa has become a great industrial country, but tremendous changes have of course also taken place in the tertiary sector. That is why this measure which keeps pace with the changes which have taken place in our economy is to be welcomed.

In the first place this measure, as the explanatory memorandum indicates, is a consolidating measure in which the provisions of the two Acts I have referred to, are amalgamated. In addition certain recommendations of the commission in this connection are also being implemented. I shall come back to this later, and the hon. the Minister also referred to it.

I consider this measure to be a strong, progressive measure which in many respects brings certainty and which tries to regulate the conditions of service of a large number of people in South Africa in a constructive way. Without becoming overenthusiastic about the Bill, I must honestly confess that when I read through the Bill, together with the recommendations of the commission and the explanatory memorandum, I felt that in future this Bill would be seen as the Magna Carta of the people to whom it will apply. I am very grateful that we have come so far that we can support the Bill in this sense.

Naturally I assume that the hon. the Minister and the department will be mindful of the fact that we are living in a time of rapid technological change and that the necessary changes will be made as regards working times and circumstances. Here one thinks particularly of the tremendous possibilities regarding the introduction of robots and the other technological changes awaiting us. This can in all probability result in our having to keep a constant watch on conditions of service. I assume that the Government is fully aware of this and is making adequate allowance for these possibilities.

I have said that the Bill is closely linked to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation. That commission recommended that the two Acts, the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act and the Shops and Offices Act, be consolidated into one measure. It seems to me to be a sound development that this recommendation was not in fact implemented, but that we shall in actual fact have two Bills, because it seems to me that the two Bills deal basically with subjects which can be logically separated from each other. In that sense I can only say that in spite of the recommendation of the commission I welcome the fact that these Bills have been separated, the one before us today and the next one on the Order Paper.

I am also grateful to see—the explanatory memorandum gives an indication of this— that the recommendation in connection with the authority to promulgate regulations contained in the existing legislation in section 31(1)(g) and particularly the provision in clause 37(3) of this legislation, is being implemented. I do not want to make too much of this. The hon. the Minister knows where our party stands in connection with the principle of colour and race discrimination. We are therefore grateful that the recommendations of the commission of inquiry in connection with the abolition of these enforced provisions in the work sphere have been accepted.

Yes, they are improving.

It is a step in the right direction, and we welcome it most strongly that the hon. the Minister implemented that recommendation.

We also welcome—there was an idication of this in the hon. the Minister’s speech, and in the explanatory memorandum—the disappearance of the remuneration ceiling, as determined in section 2(1)(n) of the Act of 1964, with the qualifications stated by the hon. the Minister. Once again I think that there has been a definite improvement in this sphere.

We took cognizance of the exclusion of certain employers, as was in fact recommended in paragraph 3.16 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation. I think that the exclusions contained in this Bill are much more logical and also far better than the exclusions contained in the existing legislation, as the commission in fact found. However, we have one minor problem in this connection. I shall return to this later, but I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to it now. I am referring to the problems we foresee because people employed by private medical services are not excluded from the provisions of this legislation. We foresee major problems if the provisions of the Bill in this connection are proceeded with. I shall return to this matter later.

We also took cognizance of the reformulation of the exclusion of certain classes of employees and employers from the scope of the legislation, as was indeed proposed in paragraph 3.18.4 of the report of the commission. In this connection we took cognizance of the fact that people in domestic service and farm workers remain excluded from the protective provisions of this legislation. In his speech and in the explanatory memorandum the hon. the Minister indicated that the Manpower Commission was investigating ways in which the interests of this group of people could best be protected. Naturally the hon. the Minister will understand that this matter is of urgent importance to us that the protection of the interests of these two groups of workers should indeed be considered, bearing in mind the large number of people involved. During the course of this discussion we should like to know from the hon. the Minister what progress the Manpower Commission has made in its investigation into this specific matter, and whether it is the intention that separate legislation will eventually be introduced to deal with the interests of these two groups of people.

This brings me to a few aspects of the details of the Bill. In particular we welcome the provisions of the Bill in respect of, for example, the inclusion of shift workers and guards or security guards. You will remember, Sir, that this side of the House has consistently requested that both shift workers and guards or security guards should be included in the protective provisions of the legislation because we were aware that in the past there had been far too much exploitation in this field. In that sense, therefore, and in spite of the different working hours, we are grateful that this category of worker has also been included in the provisions of the Bill. We also welcome the inclusion of employees on premises used as boarding houses or hotels or on which liquor licences are applicable. In this connection also it seems to me that there has been a tremendous improvement, in view of the lack of protection enjoyed by workers in this category in the past. The same also applies to the new provisions in respect of travelling salesmen and delivery employees and in the degree of protection the legislation also affords them, and also in respect of other employees in mines and works not covered by the measures prescribed in terms of the relevant legislation on mines and work.

We took cognizance of the hon. the Minister’s remarks—and also of the commission’s recommendations—in connection with the lifting of the prohibition on night work and the removal of the restrictions on overtime work by women. As the hon. the Minister and also the commission indicated, circumstances have indeed changed considerably and our views on the role of the woman in this connection have also changed. As every one knows, there was a time when it was the general philosophy that a woman’s place was in the home and that her primary task was that of housewife and mother.

Is that not her task then?

I am sure it is her task, but the circumstances in which we live, have changed completely.

Is she no longer a …

The hon. member for Rissik knows very well what I mean. Certainly no one here wants to underestimate her role as wife and mother, but the present economic requirements have simply resulted in an increasing number of women being compelled to work. In the present economic circumstances she has to work, not only for herself and, if she is unmarried, for her children, but also for her husband and children so that her family can live decently. In that sense we therefore welcome the change in this Bill because it simply reflects the changes which have taken place in the actual social pattern of our existence in South Africa, as has been the case in other countries in the world.

We welcome the provisions in connection with meal intervals, the new arrangement in connection with the payment for work on public holidays and also the new requirements in connection with annual leave. We welcome all these provisions. I really think that in respect of these points this Bill represents considerable improvements on the present situation and for this reason we welcome it.

In conclusion I just want to say that there are two points we should like to hear the hon. the Minister discuss. The first is the matter to which I have already referred, namely the matter of the position of farm workers and people in domestic service in private households. In this connection I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, particularly as regards the English terminology, to the effect that we should rather not refer to “domestic servants” and perhaps not even to “domestic service”, because, as the hon. the Minister and his department know, serious objections have been raised by many bodies to the use of the term “domestic servant”. We should rather speak of “domestic employees” or “domestic workers”. The word “servant” in this context has a specific connotation, as the hon. the Minister will concede, in fact …

What about “public servant”?

As far as I am concerned we can also refer to “public workers”. It is not necessary for us to speak of “servants”. Seen against the background in which it is used in this specific case, the word “servant” has a specific connotation. I merely want to ask the hon. the Minister to be careful in using this term in future.

The point I wanted to make is that we foresee practical problems if the provisions of this Bill are made applicable to private hospitals. In practice this could mean that all manner of problems could arise. Both my hon. colleagues and I will elaborate on this during the Committee Stage. In the meantime I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether he thinks that provision could possibly be made in terms of clause 34 of the Bill for the exclusion of workers in private hospital services from the provisions of the Bill.

In conclusion I want to reaffirm our basic acceptance of the Bill and give our support to the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member Prof. Olivier on an especially constructive contribution. One agrees with his speech. He asked questions to which one would like to receive answers oneself. I believe that the hon. the Minister will give him a proper reply to his speech.

Unfortunately, I cannot agree with the misgivings which the hon. member expressed about clause 34 of the Bill. I believe that when we come to the Committee Stage we shall be able to debate the various provisions of the Bill in detail, with special reference to certain recommendations relating to definitions which I certainly cannot endorse at this stage. When it comes to the constructive part of his speech, however, we on this side of the House agree that workers’ capacity for work should be utilized to the full. This is a duty which rests on all of us in South Africa. Workers should also be given every opportunity to realize their full potential in their jobs. However, the interests and rights of the workers must also be protected. The Bill which is before the House at the moment gives effect to the considerations I have just mentioned. The protection of the worker’s right to fair conditions of employment and wages is regarded as one of the Government’s most important manpower objectives.

How does one achieve this objective? The principles observed in implementing the policy should always be aimed at achieving sound labour relations. Every worker should feel secure about his conditions of employment and should receive an adequate wage to maintain a decent standard of living. The department ensures that the workers of South Africa are properly remunerated for their labour.

One would also like to congratulate the Department of Manpower on its annual report for the year ended 31 December 1981. I am referring in particular to page 50, which contains particulars of conditions of service. The statutory framework which we are debating today, i.e. the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, 1941, and the Shops and Offices Act, 1964, is also explained there.

When we examine these Acts and incorporate them into one piece of legislation— the Bill which is before the House at the moment—we must not lose sight of the Labour Relations Act, 1956, and the Wage Act, 1957. One also wishes to congratulate the department on its future objectives, as set out on page 55 of the report which was tabled last week.

I am also grateful to the Official Opposition for indirectly dissociating themselves to some extent—judging by the speeches made so far—from a report which appeared in The Sunday Express yesterday, on 6 February 1983, under the title “Discrimination against women is banned but it is here to stay”. I believe that it is certainly not the intention of this House to do away with discrimination against women and then to add in an undertone that “it is here to stay”.

There are two clauses of this Bill which merit particular attention, perhaps, especially the definition of “employee”. This definition is identical to the one which appears in the Labour Relations Act, 1956. An important change which is being introduced with regard to the scope of the Bill is the fact that the proposed legislation will not be limited to factory workers and employees in shops and offices, as the existing two Acts are at the moment. Except for specific exceptions, where the implementation of the Act would be impracticable, for example, or where conditions of employment are laid down in terms of a wage-regulating measure contained in another Act, the proposed legislation can afford protection to employees in the great majority of economic sectors, as far as basic conditions of employment are concerned. One of the serious shortcomings which give rise to dissatisfaction at the moment is that in terms of the existing two Acts, the awards and wage determinations of workers outside the scope of industrial council or conciliation council agreements are not valid. There is no protection with regard to their basic conditions of employment. This was a serious defect in the past, which I believe can now be removed.

Then one should also examine clause 8—it has already been referred to—which deals with overtime. This clause lays down the maximum amount of overtime that is to be allowed. Because of the labour shortage, the female labour is playing an increasingly important role in the national economy. The Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act of 1941 imposes several restrictions on the use of female labour especially in respect of overtime. Under present-day conditions these restrictions are quite inappropriate. In the Bill the limitations on overtime by women in factories, namely two hours a day on three consecutive days a week only, and 60 hours a year, are being removed. The limits of 30 hours a year in shops, 100 hours a year in offices and the 6 hours a week applicable to both offices and shops, are being eliminated. A limit of only 10 hours a week and 3 hours a day will henceforth be applicable to all employees. The working of overtime must be arranged by mutual agreement. These limits can only be exceeded with the approval of an inspector.

South Africa needs productivity, and I believe that with this Bill we are achieving our objective and the objective laid down by the Government. I gladly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to endorse the views of those who have agreed in this House today that the workers should be protected. It is particularly gratifying to see that in the definition, certain workers are now being defined. I think the hon. member Prof. Olivier has already referred to the fact that for a very long period, workers such as shift workers and others did not receive the necessary attention. Night-watchmen and other people did not receive the attention they merited for the work they were doing. Therefore I think that this legislation is a very great improvement. For many years this legislation has been one of the foundations of labour relations in South Africa. The Act itself is the one to which serious attention has been given because people working in offices, women, for example, to whom not much attention was paid, have been the people largely responsible for drawing attention to the case of the worker. We can remember how over the years, several of these ladies have risen to prominent positions in terms of labour legislation, which has greatly contributed to the fact that such legislation exists today.

Looking at this legislation, I must congratulate the legal draftsmen on a very good piece of work. Coming back to the philosophy behind this legislation, however, the situation is completely different. This is another piece of legislation in which apartheid is being dismantled. For that reason I am totally opposed to it. The hon. the Minister says that all references to race and colour have now been removed from this legislation. However, I do not believe that it was necessary to word it in this way. If the reference had only been to workers, and the reference to race or colour had been excluded from the legislation, it would have presented us with far fewer problems. Why, however, should race and colour still be mentioned?

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member for Langlaagte just make it clear to us whether he is objecting to the fact that racial discrimination is being eliminated in this legislation, or whether he is perhaps objecting to the fact that the Bill contains a reference to it?

Mr. Speaker, I do believe the hon. member Prof. Olivier ought to understand what I am saying. [Interjections.] In the first place, I mean that if we want to produce legislation which will be acceptable to the outside world, we must omit any references to race and colour. If we want to make our legislation acceptable to the outside world, we must ensure that it refers only to workers, and we must avoid any references to sex, race and colour, because a negative connotation is given to these. Legislation which is so wrongly worded will also be completely misinterpreted.

Why was this Bill not differently worded? I know why it was done in this way. It was done for a purpose. [Interjections.] It was done for a particular purpose, and I shall come to that presently.

However, let us give some attention to the ladies first. I believe that in this case, the ladies are being unnecessarily prejudiced. Clause 2 simply provides that the former ban on night duty by women will not apply. Women in South Africa are needed more in their homes than in the factories. There is no doubt about the fact that women perform an extremely important task in their homes and with their families, much more important than in the factories. [Interjections.] Is there anyone who disagrees with me on this? [Interjections.] Is there anyone who objects to this standpoint of mine? [Interjections.] We live in a country where even men doing night duty are not safe in their places of work at night. Surely this is true. Now, however—at least, so it seems—women in factories are also being expected to do night duty. We must not forget that in very many cases, those women have to travel along lonely roads in order to return home, sometimes even walking through large parks. This is not only an undesirable situation, but an extremely dangerous one as well.

That is outside the factory; not inside the factory.

Yes, very well. My friend, it is not necessary to be frivolous about it. [Interjections.] My argument is actually that this has never been a political issue in the past. Whether women should be allowed to do night duty or not has never been a political issue. There were other good reasons why it was not done. I believe that those reasons still apply. For that reason I do not believe that it was necessary to tamper with this provision in the legislation which is before us. As far as I am concerned, there was absolutely no need to do so.

This matter is specifically dealt with in clause 8 of the Bill. Another hon. member of my party will elaborate on this at a later stage, and will also move certain amendments. As far as I am concerned, working women in urban areas will be particularly affected by this. They are dependent on bus services, they are dependent on transport over long distances. An extra half-hour in the afternoon may mean such a woman is unable to find any transport for two hours or longer. For that reason, too, I say that it is not necessary for us to include her in this legislation. It is not necessary for us to include her in the overtime situation. I do not think it is necessary. There is a lot of talk these days about destabilization.

The destabilization of women.

I am talking now about the destabilization of families which gives rise to social problems among our White population, not to mention the other population groups. That is why we should reconsider our priorities so that women may be returned to their families. Women’s duties have increased over the years.

The difficulty we are having today is a result of the fact that over a period of many years, this Government has made a great many mistakes in the labour sphere. Now, once again, the Government comes along just like someone with a guilty conscience or sore hands and does the wrong thing. They say that the first thing we must do is to remove all references to race and discrimination from our legislation. When we go to labour congresses at Geneva or elsewhere, I wonder whether it is going to impress them that we have removed references to race and colour from our legislation. We are going to turn our labour relations and labour conduct into a focal point again, and that is why I think we should not have these provisions in the legislation.

Concessions have also been made in connection with the question of public holidays. Important protection has been provided in this connection. For a very long time these concessions to the workers did not exist and factory workers and others were excluded from the payment of remuneration for public holidays. There were problems under the old dispensation as well, and the fact that a man may have worked more overtime on a Saturday than on a Sunday also caused trouble with regard to his rate of payment. On the whole, however, I believe that the department has drawn up a good piece of legislation. We are thinking, for example, of a compulsory certificate of service, by means of which some control is now being introduced into an area where there used to be some shady practices in the past.

I come now to clause 34. In the explanatory memorandum on this Bill the following is said about this clause—

It is very fortunate for the hon. member that he does not know what it says in the legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, that is, of course, a very clever way of trying to get away from the facts.

Then tell us what it says.

I have known that hon. member for many years. As soon as he wants to get away from something that is hurting him, he changes the subject. The fact remains that those hon. members are afraid to say that there will be no discrimination in this regard. Now they talk about differentiation—differentiation on the basis of race and colour when it comes to rights. Why does the NP not say “discrimination”? The NP must come to the point and say: Look, we used to discriminate; we are going to remove that and all the Whites, including women, are on an equal footing. However, the hon. the Minister does not do that. He has run away from apartheid and now he talks about differentiation. No, a good piece of legislation has been spoilt by this extremely clumsy insertion of clichés and so on which are not necessary.

Had you been intelligent enough you would have been an agitator.

We have observed in this House that when someone is seeking promotion, there are times when certain derogatory remarks are made. When someone wants to attract the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister, he must try to be more abusive than someone else or he must try to make a more derogatory remark. I admit that the hon. member qualifies for promotion if snide remarks are the criterion.

One aspect is very clear as far as our labour legislation is concerned. In recent times we have been moving away from discrimination. I believe the hon. members agree with this. We have been moving away from the fact that the White South African citizen used to have a certain right in this country, and today that White South African is being thrown into the labour pool. The NP may as well admit that the White man has no more rights than any other worker in the country. That is all I want from hon. members opposite, but now they are quiet. Why does the NP not say that the White worker has no more rights than any other worker in this country?

Why should the White worker have any more rights?

I am not asking the PFP; I am asking the governing party. [Interjections.]

The NP tells us that nothing has changed; they have not moved away from separate development. While they say that nothing has changed, the Bill provides that exemption cannot be granted on the basis of race, colour or sex. The crucial problem lies in the fact that it is not being spelt out clearly where the Government is heading in any of the directions, because the hon. the Minister’s labour policy has not been explained. He has spoken about the Wiehahn White Papers and he has taken refuge behind other reports brought out by various intellectuals, but he has never dealt with the true facts and told the White worker in South Africa that he has finished with him; that his privileged position in the country has been taken away from him.

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

Thank you, Sir. [Interjections.]

It is very clear from clause 8 that sex is creating a problem. It is provided that a woman is not allowed to work overtime. [Interjections.] The hon. members are laughing, but do they know what I am talking about? I am talking about this because there is great concern about this. At the opening of Parliament last week, Coloured sergeants made young White girls in the S.A. Police march up and down the streets. Do those hon. members opposite regard this as a joke? [Interjections.] And all this to the amusement of the Coloured people! Black sergeant and White girls!

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

It falls under the legislation. All this has a bearing on labour legislation, because they form part of the labour set-up in this country. [Interjections.] And those hon. members sit there laughing about this! If this is part of their policy of integration, they had better get on with it, but they are not affording White women any protection in a situation where they need protection. [Interjections.] For that reason, one of my colleagues will move that clause 8 be amended. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Langlaagte, one realizes the great responsibility resting on the shoulders of a responsible Government when it comes to the adjustment of existing legislation and the addition of new legislation to the Statute Book. In this House we have two Opposition parties. [Interjections.] The official Opposition has one problem, because it is always concerned with the Black man. On the right-wing Oppostion side, there is a political party in this House which wants to give priority to the White man on every occasion that arises.

Who will look after the White man if we do not? [Interjections.]

When one examines the legislation which has been passed in this House, one sees that one can very safely leave the White worker in South Africa in the hands of the NP. [Interjections.] What Government of this country has ever done more than the NP to protect the White worker in the Republic of South Africa? [Interjections.] However, there are parties in this House that are petrified every time they hear about race and colour. [Interjections.] The NP, and this applies to any party which may come into power in this country in the future …

Which will come into power.

The NP can never get away from the situation we are faced with in the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] We must not run away from our problems. This legislation ensures that any person will be able to sell his labour in the Republic of South Africa at any price, irrespective of sex, colour or race. [Interjections.] I think the NP—and I am referring in particular to the hon. the Minister of Manpower—deserves the highest praise and appreciation for the laws regulating labour relations which have been placed on the Statute Book. I want to give the hon. the Minister credit for this today. I believe I am speaking on behalf of the vast majority of the group of 5 million workers in this country when I say that one can only speak with appreciation of the work done by the hon. the Minister of Manpower. In the no-confidence debate last week we also heard the remark that the Government was allegedly hiding behind commissions. However, the commission which undertook this inquiry into labour legislation in this country performed a great task. Experts were used, and this enormous task performed by this commission will be referred to for years to come, especially when we look at the third and fourth parts of the report, those parts which have a bearing on this particular legislation.

What is the purpose of the Bill which is before the House this afternoon? In the first place it is concerned with rationalization. The Government has committed itself to this, and one must regard it as a process by means of which we are rationalizing laws. However, it is not such a simple matter to rationalize laws. An investigation has been conducted, a report has been brought out, recommendations have been made and a White Paper has been published by the Government. What is more, particulars of the legislation concerned were published for general information as far back as 1981. This enabled people to make representations in this connection. This was done, and as a result of that, we have this legislation before us this afternoon.

I should just like to make a few remarks about some of the clauses in the Bill. Clause 8 concerns the removal of limitations on overtime worked by women. I appreciate the fact that these limitations are being removed. It means that there is no further discrimination in respect of women. With regard to this legislation I want to appeal to the employers in our country, and especially to the employers in industry as well as those in shops and offices, to make the necessary provision for the care of the child of the woman who is forced to work because of circumstances. Many fine examples have been set in this connection by employers in this country. This ensures that the wife and mother who has to work will have the assurance that her child is safe and well cared for. Where this is the case, we can expect the highest productivity of that woman. In the light of the Bill which is before us, I want to make a very serious appeal to employers to comply with this request of mine.

Clause 18 deals with victimization. We may consider it in conjunction with the clause providing for a fine which is to be paid by people convicted of a contravention of the provisions concerned. Those fines have been increased considerably, and I believe that they may serve as a deterrent, helping to ensure that people will observe the provisions of the legislation.

Clause 23 contains the new provision of a right of appeal to the Director-General when a dispute has arisen between the employer or employee and the inspector concerned. I think this is another very important provision which is being inserted here.

Clause 25 deals with the increased fines. I have already expressed my opinion on that.

Then I wish to refer to clause 34, about which the hon. member for Langlaagte expressed some misgivings. It concerns differentiation on the basis of sex, race and colour. I repeat: It gives every person the right to sell his labour, and to me that is very important.

Clause 36 deals with the delegation of powers. In terms of the existing legislation, the Minister may only delegate certain powers. This imposed an unnecessary burden on the Minister, as I see it. Now it is being provided in this clause that the Minister may delegate any power. By way of precaution, the right of appeal to the Minister by an aggrieved person has been included in the clause concerned.

Finally, I want to say something about the making of regulations, which will henceforth be done by the Minister and no longer by the State President. I think this is an improvement. I welcome the legislation which is before the House and I gladly support it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Witbank will forgive me if I do not react to what he said. However, we want to comment quite extensively on the basic principle embodied in this legislation.

†The amalgamation of the Shops and Offices Act and those aspects of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act which have been combined into this single piece of legislation raises a number of very interesting principles which once again should be aired. The last time these principles were aired was in fact in 1941 and 1964 when the Bills were actually debated in the House. When one looks at the total economic structure of South Africa one cannot help but ask the question whether in a free enterprise economy there should be legislation which prescribes basic conditions of employment or whether liassez faire supply and demand principles should be allowed to determine what really acceptable conditions of service are. After all, there is no demand for a particular category of worker. Take for example nightwatchmen: If they are not going to be paid, there will be no supply. On the other hand, if a particular type of job is unpleasant in which the wages are low and the working hours long and where there are no public holidays—a real Dickensian type of situation—then there will be no supply of labour for that type of job either.

We also have to do in South Africa not only with the classic free enterprise system but also with the interplay and interaction of First World high technology value systems with Third World high population and high density factors. This has created a sort of hybrid environment in which to apply classic democratic philosophy. If human right protagonists were to examine South Africa’s legislation in terms of conditions of service and labour in general and if they were to give us as a fair and objective rating we would probably rank among the most highly valued in all Western democracies in respect of our attention to the welfare of the worker. Certainly the critics who have lauded Nigeria as an advocate of human rights would do well to note what happened recently in Nigeria when 2 million people were summarily thrown out of their jobs and under most ghastly circumstances forced to repatriate themselves to the neighbouring territories. One cannot help but say to the critics of human rights in South Africa: Where are the basic conditions of employment Bills to be found in a country such as Nigeria?

There are also other principles involved. There is the principle of the over-supply of unskilled workers. There is also the principle of the woman’s vested interest at home. That was mentioned by the hon. member for Langlaagte and I may say only his mentioning of it made it worthwhile listening to him. There is also the principle of the over-supply of young adults in our economy. This gives a different aspect to the classic free enterprise laissez faire system. In terms of the conditions of service in this Bill one should also bear in mind that these basic conditions of employment are catered for for the majority of people in industry by industrial agreements and wage determinations. One should take note of the fact that here we are referring to minimum or basic conditions of employment. That automatically shifts the emphasis onto the unskilled worker where there is an over-supply of aspirant candidates for the job. I believe that the fear that the CP has is that if one has this sort of legislation then one is going to force people out of work. This may be true to some extent. If one looks at the whole question of minimum wages and if one prescribes a minimum wage for a certain industry, where one tries to equalize wages between male and female workers, then the end result could well be, as certain case histories will prove, that the females will end up without employment and the males will end up with higher paid jobs. I mention, for instance, the textile industry which has often been criticized because their wages are too low, especially those of the female workers as compared with males. Many attempts have been made to try to force the industry to equalize male and female wages. However, I am sure the hon. the Minister is aware that if one forces the situation to create equal wages between male and female— and obviously that equalization will have to be up—the majority of those female workers will then become unemployed. The simple economics of the situation are that the employer would rather employ a male whom he can use in a large variety of jobs, in a greater variety of jobs than he can use the females, a man who is physically more capable of doing unskilled work and a man who will not suffer from the problems relating to working overtime which the female species may well encounter. Therefore the preference, if one is going to pay higher wages, will certainly be for the males. But let nobody point a finger at the NRP and say that we are not concerned about the conditions of service for female workers. What we are concerned about is to find a just set of conditions of service that will not discriminate against the women in the sense that they end up unemployed. It comes back to the hue and cry of the PFP because what they want is discrimination against Whites. That is what they want. That is the kind of discrimination that they prefer. The hon. member Prof. Olivier demonstrated it very clearly here today again when he got up and made a hue and cry to the hon. the Minister and said that he must not refer to these people as domestic servants.

That is what they ask for themselves. Why do you not listen to them for a change?

What has that got to do with race anyway?

A man must use his discretion. If one accedes to everything that everybody asks for one will end up a beggar in terms of constructive thinking. I want to ask the hon. members what they are implying in the argument of the hon. member Prof. Olivier.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is aware that the SA Transport Services have changed their nomenclature from “servants” to “employees”?

I am aware of that.

No, you are not.

I say that people do what they feel is in their best interests. Let them do what is in their best interests, but do not try to create a political argument out of the fact that the words “domestic servant” have a derogatory connotation in relation to the word “servant”, because if the hon. member wants to be consistent he must answer the question I asked the hon. member earlier on. What about the use of the words “public servants”? Why is it correct to use it in the connotation “public servant” and morally incorrect to use it for the words “domestic servant”? [Interjections.] This reminds me of the story of a Black man who was often asked what he would like to be called. Unfortunately it would be unparliamentary for me to tell hon. members the story as it actually occurred, but it was not the word “Black” or the word “native” or even the word of many years ago “Kaffir” which was objectionable. It was the adjective attached to it to which they objected. The same applies to the word “servant”. One can write something into it and talk about it in such a way that one makes the word derogatory. But it is the obsession that the PFP have …

You are getting in deeper and deeper.

But we are going into a deep intellectual argument here. It is the obsession with colour that drives the engine-room of the PFP. Regrettably in their obsession they have lost track of what it is they really want to achieve. Perhaps at a later stage there will be another PFP member who can justify the use of the term “servant” in “public servant” while excluding it in the use of the term “domestic servant”.

Why should we justify something that the Government does? You are welcome to change it.

The hon. member’s colleague raised the argument.

I think it would be a good idea if you changed the term to “public workers”.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we come to another inherent problem, namely where it becomes necessary for a Government to prescribe basic conditions of employment.

If it is proposed that it should be “public workers” would that satisfy you? [Interjections.]

I would be satisfied with it if the reason for it was that … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, there is a further factor to be taken into consideration when it comes to basic conditions of employment, and that relates to the question of minimum wages.

The hon. the Minister will recognize the dangers in wanting to set minimum wages. I say this particularly in the light of the forthcoming report of the commission investigating the conditions of service of agricultural and domestic Workers. To prescribe a minimum wage could have inherent dangers for the number of people employed. Where we have the interaction between overpopulation in the Third World with First World high technology one could easily be led into the trap of believing that if we subscribed to high minimum wages you would actually be improving the quality of life of the unskilled workers of South Africa. That has been proved to be a fallacy in the African context. The question that must be asked is whether it would be better to employ two workers at R6 per hour each than one worker at R10 per hour, because, obviously, you are not going to pay him double what the other two earn. The danger in actually detracting from the quality of life of the unskilled worker generally lies in the fact that two breadwinners can take money home. On the other hand, if one falls for a high basic minimum wage and prescribe it by legislation and one of the men becomes unemployed, then there are actually seven people who are going to lose an income to give them food, shelter and clothing. In the South African context we have consequently to be particularly careful when it comes to laying down basic conditions of employment.

One of the attributes, positive attributes, of this Bill is that it has avoided the pitfalls of trying to prescribe minimum conditions of service in such a way that it actually creates a negative factor rather than an improved factor.

When we come to details such as the inclusion of night watchmen, security workers, the limitation of overtime for female workers, etc., these are not new things that are being introduced. In fact night security workers have been prescribed by wage determination for years already. Now they are included under this Bill, the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill. Similarly, the conditions of service for female workers, e.g. the amount of time they can work overtime and when they can work it, have also been catered for under wage determinations in respect of different industries for many years. So, essentially there is nothing new in this Bill. The newness of it lies in the fact that we are now consolidating them all into one Basic Conditions of Employment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this party has no difficulty with the principles of the Bill. We believe that labour legislation in South Africa is coping well, certainly since 1979, with the unique situation that South Africa presents: a unique economy and a unique population in a plural society. Therefore we will be supporting the Bill through all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North made a very important contribution, a sturdy contribution in support of the Bill. It was a pleasure for me to listen to it, particularly because of his interesting points of view on this measure.

What the Minister is seeking to achieve with this Bill is to consolidate into one Bill, modernise and adapt to present day standards the provisions on conditions of service in the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act and the Shops and Offices Act. In that the hon. the Minister had succeeded very well indeed. Just to illustrate how the legislation has been adapted to the present requirements of our time there is the fact that in the Shops and Offices Act there was a provision protecting women from working later than six o’clock at night. The hon. member for Langlaagte made a strong plea for the mothers of the nation who have to be home to take care of their children’s upbringing. In this connection I do not want to differ with the hon. member. However, there are thousands of women in our country who do not have such duties and to prohibit people who can make a contribution in the labour set-up from working will in my opinion be unfair.

This afternoon a great deal was said about the conditions of service of these particular people. However, if we read the provisions of clause 1(2), we find that there are certain classes of people who are in fact being excluded from this legislation. One also notes, as the hon. member for Durban Point indicated, that all the workers who fall under the Mines and Works Act, all the employees who fall under the Labour Relations Act and whose conditions of service are determined in accordance with that legislation, and all workers whose conditions of service are determined by the Wage Act, are not deemed to be employees in the application of this legislation. Consequently the employees who fall under this legislation and whose conditions of service are determined by this legislation are relatively few in number in comparison with the total work force in the country. Consequently we are speaking here about relatively few workers whose conditions of service are determined by this legislation.

In my opinion it is an excellent piece of legislation which complies with all the requirements expected of it. Various speakers referred to various clauses of this legislation. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments. I just wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to clause 38. I want to ask whether it would not bring our labour legislation into line if the jurisdiction over this law is referred to the Industrial Court particularly if we note the precious piece of legislation in terms of which officials are referred to the Industrial Court instead of to the Minister. This will bring all labour and industrial matters to the Industrial Court and enhance the status of this court. It will to that extent bring relief to the magistrate’s courts. We support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon hon. members discussed this piece of legislation as well as everything associated with it in a thorough way. I just wish to express a few thoughts on clause 8 as far as the explanatory memorandum of the hon. the Minister is concerned. In this memorandum mention is made of overtime for women and in this connection I just wish to raise a few matters which are of deep concern to me. I am speaking here on behalf of the women of our country.

This clause now opens doors for women to work longer hours away from their homes. We feel concerned about this, not concern for the single women who are perhaps able to do this and do not have a family or children at home, and therefore do not have those responsibilities, but I am speaking on behalf of the mothers of my people and country. I am speaking on their behalf, because their husbands and families have a great need for them. Married women should preferably be given the opportunity of having a far wider choice of half-day work than that provision should be made for them to be able to work overtime. In fact, this is something we would appreciate very much indeed, and it is in fact something which I wanted to ask for at some stage or another: Cannot we make more provision for women to work halfdays so that they can in fact be home with their children in the afternoon?

In these disturbed times it is essential for a married woman to spend far more time at home and to be with her family. Cheaper labour for longer hours—and that at the expense of the woman—is simply not desirable. The woman is already sacrificing a great deal. She is sacrificing her free time. She is sacrificing her recreation—those enjoyable times for reflection which she could perhaps have which would enable her to plan, is one of the many things she has sacrificed. In our modern-day life, far greater demands are being made on the woman in every sphere, and the labour market in particular depends very heavily on the woman, because the sense of responsibility and the effective service as well as the diligence of a woman make her extremely well-equipped for any working conditions with which she will have to cope. The woman also has the quality that she can be relied on to give unstintingly of her services. Is the price which the woman and family have to pay for economic welfare in this country not in fact too high? Children are suffering as a result, and children are in fact the leaders of the future.

It is true that the woman can refuse to work overtime but in this connection we should like to have the assurance that she will not be intimidated and that the possibility of discriminating against such a woman could be regarded as an offence. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he will support such an amendment if we do subsequently move one. I should like to receive such an assurance from him.

It is and remains very important that the family, which is a nation in miniature, (the church in miniature), should be protected and developed, because the quality of a nation depends on the quality of the family, and this, too, is linked indissolubly to the quality of the woman.

I also find it necessary to ask the hon. the Minister, as far as conditions of service are concerned, to take care in future that employers make créches available at work places even for the woman who works only during the day—we are not very pleased at women being able to work overtime— créches in which she can place her children, for then a woman can leave her children there with an easy conscience in the knowledge that they are being cared for not far away from her.

For White or Black women?

For all women.

If this were to be done, women will be able to do their work without concern. I should like to ascertain whether it would perhaps be possible for the hon. the Minister, at some stage or another, to insert such a provision as far as conditions of service are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with the two hon. members who pointed out that the legislation had been referred to trade unions and had been so well circulated that it was possible for everyone to be well informed. I think is is for this very reason that we are now able to proceed with this legislation with the full co-operation and support of the trade unions.

I want to say something to the hon. member for Langlaagte. I do not know whether he knew what he wanted to say, and I do not know how many trade unions support him in his view. However, I want to tell him that this legislation is supported by all the trade unions in the country … [Interjections.] …. and all important organizations had the opportunity of studying it for years. It was freely published. There is not a single church organization, nor is there any cultural organization which does not agree with it.

Can you put it in writing for us?

Nor is there any trade union which does not agree. [Interjections.] What the hon. member had to say here was so irrelevant that I need not take any further notice of him in that respect.

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. the Minister have the written agreement of the various organizations which he has just mentioned?

Yes, of course! [Interjections.] Can the hon. member tell the House which important organizations support him? Can he mention just one?

The CP. [Interjections.]

But that is not an important organization [Interjections.] Let us accept that the CP supports him. But what other organization is there in South Africa, out of the tens of thousands which exist? Can the hon. member give me just one other example?

The Mineworkers’ Union.

Mr. Paulus’s union? He has no objection to it. [Interjections.] It is not true that the Mineworkers’ Union had any objections to this legislation. [Interjections.] The Confederation of Labour, to which Mr. Paulus belongs, not only supported it, but did so in writing. Therefore that hon. member was not speaking on behalf of anyone. As I have said, there was general agreement, and I believe it was because we had published the legislation beforehand so that everyone who was involved had an opportunity to react to it, and this is the reaction that we are getting today. That is why there is general agreement in this country.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier asked whether we could not exclude certain institutions—and he was referring, inter alia, to private hospitals. I can understand that very well because such a hospital is an important institution and because the circumstances of that institution are such that it could be one of the institutions which could in fact be excluded. However, there are literally hundreds of institutions and organizations that phone us and ask: What about us? I do not think it is good law to exclude one or two institutions out of a large number, because then we would have to amend the legislation again tomorrow because another sympathetic case has come to our notice. In the case of enabling legislation, therefore, I think it is much better to authorize the Minister concerned to do something like that. There is in fact justification for considering the other institutions. I can say even now that I believe that this is one of the institutions which we could accommodate if they were to apply.

The hon. member referred to some other groups as well. I think the hon. member and some other hon. members referred to the category of agricultural workers and domestic workers. Reference was also made to the National Manpower Commission which has been asked to investigate their circumstances. There is one thing I want to make quite clear. There are three words which do not appear anywhere in the terms of reference of the National Manpower Commission. There is no mention of the words “trade union”, nor of the words “wage” or “minimum wage”. The commission was instructed to investigate circumstances of employment, and the terms of reference were not only supported by the S.A. Agricultural Union at the time; they are still supported. In fact, there are members of the S.A. Agricultural Union serving on the subcommittee which is investigating the matter. I may mention, too, that the president of the S.A. Agricultural Union is also involved. Arising from the further remark made by the hon. member for Langlaagte in this connection, I must tell him that there has never been any question of minimum wages. The circumstances of employment are being investigated, and as soon as the commission has brought out a report, we shall come back to this House and tell the House what the commission has found.

As far as the position of female labour is concerned, I just want to mention—quite a number of members spoke about this—that I am not aware of a single organization which does not agree that this legislation which is before us is the correct and best legislation for the times in which we live. The fact is that we tried years ago to write into legislation the number of hours that women would be allowed to work. So we were trying to lay down in legislation something which should actually be determined by negotiation. No one supported it and the legislation itself is quite obsolete. All organizations that have an interest in the matter agree that we should lay down as a general rule that this should be done by way of negotiation. The fact is that the intention at the time was to protect women. Today we know that there are many forms of protection built into our legislation and that it is not necessary to do it in this way. Therefore this legislation is universally welcomed, by women as well. I am not aware of a single organization in the country which does not support it and which feels that the present position should continue.

The hon. member for Germiston District also made some remarks in this connection. She asked whether we could devise a plan, introduce legislation, make arrangements, or whatever, to provide for women to work half-days. It is not the function of legislation to lay down how long women should work or whether they should work half-days. This is done by negotiation. We should not try, therefore, to regulate by legislation matters which should be regulated by negotiation in a free economy. That would be impossible. On the other hand, it is also true that there is a very strong demand on the part of women for a better dispensation, to be able to obtain and work under exactly the same conditions of employment as men. Therefore the strong support in this connection would actually militate against the provision which the hon. member asked for.

The hon. member said that women with small children might find it difficult to handle the work situation when they were working mothers. That one can understand. Indeed, we have every sympathy with them. However, this legislation cannot provide for that. Those are matters which must be arranged between employer and employee. Many large firms make arrangements in this connection. Trade unions, too, are making such arrangements these days. There are other bodies as well which are taking steps in this connection. However, it is not the function of this department to make arrangements in this connection. Therefore, the hon. member is actually addressing the wrong authority as far as this matter is concerned. We have every sympathy with the hon. member’s sentiments in this connection, but she must remember that in modern South Africa, we would like women to play a meaningful role in an evergrowing sphere, compared with the past. This is also the wish of the women themselves.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Langlaagte and to ask him a question. Do he and the other hon. members on that side know what is going on in this House? Do they know what it says in the legislation which is lying on our desks?

Yes, except what you are hiding, except what you are doing behind closed doors.

Wait a minute! Did the hon. member know what legislation he was voting for in this House over the last few years?

Did you know that I was fighting you about labour legislation?

I am only asking the hon. member whether he knew what he was voting for. A few years ago, that hon. member and all the other hon. members, including his hon. leader, voted in this House to change the definition of “worker” in South Africa. The legislation provided for all workers in South Africa, irrespective of race or colour, to be placed on an equal footing, except when it came to the use of the industrial council system. Only there was the worker defined as being a White man.

Have you always supported power-sharing?

This House decided with open eyes—and the hon. members opposite voted for it—that “worker” should be defined in such a way as to include all workers of South Africa, irrespective of race or colour. The hon. members voted for this over a period of a few years. Now they have changed their minds and they are opposing it.

You were not advocating a mixed Parliament.

They did not know what they were voting for.