laid upon the Table:

Report of the Examiners upon the PaarlMountain Amendment Bill (Hybrid) [B. 26—’83], reporting that the Rules relating to Hybrid Bills had been complied with.

Mr. Speaker, when this Bill was discussed yesterday the matter in question was debated at some length in this House. However I just wish to repeat briefly what the Bill in fact involves. What it entails is that an effort is now being made by way of this legislation to specify, to give an indication, as to how conditions of service in South Africa will be regulated for the millions of people working in our industries and in our services. As the situation stands in terms of the existing legislation—the legislation that we now envisage amending—it comprised an effort to make prescriptions providing for a great number of contingencies. What we are proposing now is that as far as wages and income are concerned, a variety of minimum conditions be set. As regards the time of employment, however, an effort is being made to set maximum conditions. What this amounts to, therefore, is legislation that will provide that certain arrangements can now be made between specific minima and maxima. What we are therefore seeking to achieve by way of this legislation is to determine the limits within which conditions of service may be negotiated for in South Africa.

However, we are also going further than that, in that we are saying that in case of need, an exemption may be granted. The legislation now provides that exemption from these provisions is now available to White people. Therefore Whites will be able to enjoy the privilege of exemption in case of need.

If the House is still divided with regard to this matter then it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that this will be a serious matter for the millions of people working in this country. Accordingly I shall now be obliged to ask the hon. the Leader of the CP whether I may take it that he is in favour of this privilege also being extended to Black, Brown and Yellow people.

[Inaudible.]

No, it is a very simple matter.

You are not dealing with your kindergarten class now. [Interjections.]

No, but we are discussing legislation. We have to agree to a Bill. I repeat once again that this Bill provides that certain minimum and maximum provisions will apply to Whites. Moreover the Bill provides that Whites will be granted a privilege. I now ask the hon. the Leader of the CP whether I must withhold that privilege from Brown and Black people because they are Brown and Black, thereby discriminating against them.

Stop your childish questions now and get on with your speech. [Interjections.]

No, I want to know from the hon. the leader of the CP whether he agrees. He need only say yes or no.

I do not reply to your questions if you speak like a schoolmaster talking to his Sub A class. [Interjections.]

No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the leader of the CP is not going to get off that easily. [Interjections.] The fact is that we are now discussing a Bill. If the hon. the leader of the CP contends that there is a certain privilege to which Whites are entitled, I ask him whether I should grant that privilege to Brown and Black people too, or not.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, I am speaking to the hon. the leader of the CP now. The hon. member for Brakpan can keep his question for later. [Interjections.]

Order!

I ask the hon. the leader of the CP …

I am not answering your questions. I am not in your Sub A class.

I want to know from the hon. the leader of the CP whether he agrees that we should proceed with the legislation under discussion. Do we have his support when we want the legislation to apply to Black and Brown people too.

Make your speech; we know how we will vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. the leader of the CP whether I should discriminate or not.

Go on with your speech.

No, I want to know whether we must discriminate or not.

Make your speech. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I inform the hon. the leader of the CP that the motion which is to be supported by this side of the House is a motion in terms of which the same privileges will also be granted to Brown, Yellow and Black people? We are going to vote in favour of that. Are his and his party also going to vote in favour of that?

Go on with your speech. [Interjections.]

You see, Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the CP are full of gossip outside the House with regard to these matters, but when I ask their hon. leader here, in the presence of the Press—and we must bear in mind that the Press has to inform 4 million people as to what he says … [Interjections.] There are 4 million workers in this country, Mr. Speaker, there are 3 million Black workers and approximately 1 million Brown people who now want to know whether or not they will have that privilege when the hon. the leader of the CP comes to power. [Interjections.] The hon. the leader of the CP cannot get away …

[Inaudible.]

He is a coward.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “coward”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. The hon. member is afraid. He is afraid to reply …

Order! The hon. the Minister may not say the hon. member is afraid either. He must withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it unconditionally. [Interjections.] The hon. the leader of the CP has so much to say about this matter we are discussing here today when he is outside this House. I now ask the hon. the leader of the CP whether he is going to support this aspect of the legislation under discussion or not.

Wait and see how we vote. [Interjections.]

You see, Mr. Speaker, what is happening now. It is very interesting. The hon. the leader of the CP would like to govern South Africa. However, he lacks the courage to reply to such a simple question here. The question is whether he would give the privileges which the Whites enjoy in this field to Black and Brown people as well. [Interjections.] I want to take the matter further. I want to put a second question to the hon. leader. The year before last, the hon. the leader of the CP gave his support to the other leg of the legislation, the leg which relates to the issue of the definition of a worker. At the time we decided in this House that the definition of a worker would in future be such that a Black man in South Africa would from then on also be regarded as a worker, and would therefore have the privilege of the machinery of negotiation and consultation; in other words, the privileges of the machinery of the system of industrial councils in South Africa. I call upon him to reply now. He voted for it then. Does he still stand by that? [Interjections.] I repeat my question: Does he still stand by that? [Interjections.] Does he still stand by the decision he helped to take?

Do you still stand by apartheid?

We are discussing the legislation now. [Interjections.] I ask the hon. the leader of the CP: does he still stand by the decision he helped to take in this House?

I shall vote as my party votes.

As his party votes? He is the leader of that party. The hon. member ought to know how his party is going to vote on such a matter. [Interjections.] I want to say that the leader of that party does not have the courage of a gnat (“muggie”). He does not have the courage to tell us in this House where he stands. This House took a decision and he lacks the courage to tell us whether he still stands by it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Has the hon. the Minister the right to say that the hon. member for Waterberg does not have the courage of a gnat? [Interjections.]

Order! It is not unparliamentary but I request the hon. the Minister kindly to moderate his language.

I shall moderate it, Sir. I shall say that the hon. the leader of that party does not have the courage of a mouse. [Interjections.] I want this House, and everyone else, to take cognizance of the fact that the hon. member for Waterberg, the leader of the CP, who always has so much to say about labour matters and who is always saying how this side of the House is selling the country down the river, does not have the courage to state in this House that he still stands by what was decided the year before last.

I shall tackle the hon. the Minister in Soutpansberg. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Waterberg is challenging me now. Without having consulted the hon. the Prime Minister and the leader of the Transvaal, I wish to issue the following challenge to that hon. member: I shall resign in Soutpansberg and stand there again, and I want the hon. member for Waterberg also to resign and stand again for election. [Interjections.] What is more, the hon. member for Waterkloof who, I understand, wants to come and stand against me, must then resign so that he can come and stand against me in Soutpansberg. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: What is the relevance of what the hon. the Minister is saying now to the Bill before us? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. member not liking my reaction. My reaction in regard to his challenge to me is that I shall resign in Soutpansberg tomorrow and then he must also resign, as must the hon. member for Waterkloof, so that he can stand against me. I challenge him to do so, and then we can test this legislation in Soutpansberg. However, he will not do it because he would prefer to remain a member of this House for a little longer. The same goes for the hon. member for Waterkloof. I say again to the hon. member for Waterberg: He lacks the courage of a mouse to tell us in this House whether he still stands by what he helped to decide. He does not have the courage of a mouse to tell this House whether he stands by what the hon. member for Jeppe and the hon. member for Langlaagte have said about this legislation in the course of this debate. He lacks the courage to do so. However, that is how we have come to know him. He is at his best not when the Press can write about his actions, but when he is alone so that he can spread gossip about the actions of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We in the PFP accept the challenge of the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

Order!

The PFP is far more courageous in regard to this point than that party and its leader.

We shall not receive an answer, nor shall the country. I fear that the millions of people, Brown and Black, whom this affects, will not receive a reply either, just as we get no reply from them concerning other important matters. [Interjections.]

To proceed, I have a few remarks to make about the speeches of other hon. members who have taken part in the debate. The hon. member for Hercules asked whether the power to impose penalties could not be shifted from the ordinary courts to the Industrial Court. The answer to that is clearly no, because for very good reasons the Industrial Court does not have the power to perform functions relating to criminal law. I also wish to point out that the Hoexter commission is investigating the entire system at the moment and will probably come forward with a remark or proposal in this regard as well.

I sincerely thank the hon. member for Overvaal for the speech he made. The hon. member for Durban North asked certain questions in the course of his speech.

†The hon. member for Durban North asked whether the National Manpower Commission had conducted an investigation into a national minimum wage. As I have indicated before, the National Manpower Commission will probably before the end of the year come forward with suggestions in this regard.

*That, I believe, brings us to the end of the debate. I am sorry that in the course of the debate we have not been able to get a reply in regard to a very important matter, and accordingly we shall have to see how that hon. member is going to vote.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is the fourth piece of legislation dealing with labour matters thus far this session.

†The object of the Machinery and Occupational Safety Bill is to provide for the safety of persons at their workplaces during their employment, as well as in connection with the use of machinery and also to establish an advisory council for occupational safety.

The term “occupational safety” means the physical safety of employees and those conditions in the workplace which protect their health. The Bill does not provide for occupational health as such, since this is a matter which falls under the Minister of Health and Welfare. It is essential that the Departments of Manpower and of Health and Welfare work closely together in this field, and to this end there will be close liaison between them. Although there are a number of statutes that deal with occupational safety, the one with the broadest application is the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, 1941. The scope of application of this Act is, however, largely limited to factory and building workers, and for this reason the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation recommended that it be repealed and that new legislation be introduced to provide for the safety of all persons in employment.

This Bill is dependent for its implementation on the principle of tripartism, i.e. co-responsibility of employers, employees and the State with the maximum self-governance. Accordingly the Bill provides for the establishment of an Advisory Council, consisting of representatives of the Government, employer interests and employee interests. The functions of the Council will be to advise the Minister on matters relating to occupational safety. The Council can make recommendations and give advice, something which is expected to play a leading role in promoting occupational safety.

To give practical implementation to promoting occupational safety, the Bill provides for the designation of safety representatives and the establishment of safety committees in the workplace. The functions of these representatives will be to identify hazards in the workplace and to bring them to the attention of safety committees and the employer. The committees will be the official forum for the discussion of safety matters in the workplace. The rationale behind the introduction of safety representatives and committees is that each workplace has its own peculiarities regarding hazards and that these hazards can best be identified by the people who work there, something which also brings about self-regulation and self-discipline.

Having dealt with the principal characteristics of the Bill, I shall now deal with the other related matters.

The use of machinery in any environment poses a threat, not only to the safety of workers, but also to the public. Consequently the Bill makes provision for the control and supervision of all machinery and not only that which is used in connection with employment. In this way the general public is also protected against the dangers of machinery such as boilers, electrical installations, portable electric hand tools and so on.

Machinery is not the only item that poses a danger to workers. Faulty or inadequate protective equipment—which may be due to poor design, inferior materials used in manufacture, deficient performance and poor workmanship—also endangers safety. Many of the dangers inherent in such equipment can be eliminated if such articles—including machinery—are made to accepted standards of quality and performance. For this purpose it is deemed necessary to specify minimum safety standards and to provide for inspections by approved inspection authorities, independent of the manufacturer, distributor or user, to ensure that such standards are complied with.

Users of machinery and other such items often unknowingly acquire and use articles which do not comply with the specified standards. Such articles are often cheaper than those that do, and tend to drive safe but more expensive articles off the market at the expense of both worker safety and the user. The discovery and control of the use of such articles, generally after they have been sold, is an impossible task, and the Bill therefore not only prohibits the use of such articles, but also prohibits the importation, sale or hire of specified articles which do not comply with the relevant safety standards.

Accidents and other incidents which cause death, injury or illness owing to a one-time exposure to an occupational hazard must be reported to the authorities for two important reasons. In the first place it is necessary to keep a statistical record of them for research, planning and policy purposes. In the second place, this information is necessary to enable inspectors to make further inquiries whenever necessary. It is the intention to prescribe by regulation that users and employers must record all accidents, and also the steps taken to reduce or avoid the hazards that caused them. These records will be checked by the inspectors during routine inspections.

Since it is the responsibility of the State to ensure that safety legislation is enforced, the Bill vests relatively wide powers in inspectors, which they will exercise in accordance with guidelines laid down by the chief inspector. The Bill provides that regulations may be made on any subject that falls within its scope, and that the existing regulations under the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, 1941, remain in force until such time as new regulations are promulgated. The new regulations will be drafted in close consultation with the advisory council for occupational safety and will be published for general information and comment if considered necessary.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I should like to say that it is essential that South Africa maintains a high standard in the working environment of our workers. We cannot afford a loss of manpower resources through accidents at work or through ill-health as a result of an unsatisfactory working environment, nor the costs that are involved in terms of lost production, medical care, workmen’s compensation, etc. We are faced with a challenge which we must not evade. We must remain realistic and pragmatic and take account of the fact that South Africa is a developing country with a large number of small-scale and informal-sector activities which should not be unduly hampered by unrealistic safety standards, and so we must also take cognizance of cost effectiveness, development and employment creation.

The Bill gives effect to the Government’s earnest resolve to ensure physical safety and good hygiene in the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition will be supporting this legislation. It flows naturally from the old Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act and is its first thorough revision in a period of 41 years. The Machinery and Occupational Safety Bill is the codification of a great deal of practical experience in the workplace. It has been designed to meet a situation by people who are very knowledgeable about that situation. The publishing of two drafts of the Bill in 1981 was a valuable step in the evolution of this legislation. It resulted in the change that has been effected, namely that, while industrial hygiene is still an area covered by this Bill, the aspect of occupational medicine will fall under a separate Bill which will ultimately be introduced by the Department of Health. The Machinery and Occupational Safety Bill accepts the responsibility of the Government to ensure that all the country’s workers, not only those in industry, spend their working lives in reasonably hygienic and safe circumstances.

It is a source of satisfaction, obviously, to this side of the House that the Minister is precluded from making regulations which differentiate on the basis of race or colour. For the first time farm and domestic workers will be given a degree of protection under this Act. The provisions of the Act will also apply to people in the Public Service and in the S.A. Transport Services.

The establishment of an advisory council which will be broadly based and will have representatives on it of the public and private sectors and labour is to be welcomed. It will do a lot to keep the administrators of this Act with their feet firmly on the ground. The advisory council will be able to expand its area of influence through its power to create technical committees to investigate certain problems and projects. The establishment of safety committees on which all safety representatives serve is important. It makes use of the phenomenon that safety in a works depends on the attitude, frequently, of those likely to get hurt. In other words, the whole organization must become safety conscious and must know that this will be taken into account when a person is being evaluated for promotion or an increase. His attitude must be one of the criteria that are considered.

Clause 14(1) dealing with the liability of machinery vendors to ensure that their product meets prescribed specifications recognizes the fact that the user cannot be expected to have the engineering and design knowledge necessary to assess the safety of that equipment. I think this is a very important measure that has been introduced and I am very glad to see it there. The onus must therefore be on the seller to ensure that his product is safe.

However, there are areas where we believe there is room for improvement in this Bill. For example, we would suggest that there would be benefit in having safety representatives elected. I know there are problems in that regard but I believe the advantages of having safety representatives elected and not appointed by management are so considerable that perhaps the hon. the Minister would give some thought to this.

The Bill also ignores the provision of training for these safety representatives and the necessity for them to get time off for this training. Even quite a small amount of training would make them very much better and more effective in the official positions which they now obtain. Safety representatives, if they are not going to get a satisfactory response from their employers, should be able, we believe, to report any matter which concerns them—not just serious cases—to the inspector. At the moment it is really only serious cases that they are able to report.

I am also a little concerned by the fact that a minimum of one safety representative for 50 workers is specified. I can foresee several circumstances where that will not be required. I want to suggest that that ratio should be increased at the discretion of the inspector. When there are many safety committees in one large organization there should be some sort of co-ordinating organization. Take for example an organization such as General Motors with 5 000 employees. In that case there will be a minimum of 50 employees to one safety representative and every safety representative will serve on one of these safety committees. One might end up with something which is a bit cumbersome. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us his views about that.

Clause 17(1) stipulates that only accidents resulting in the employee being off work for 14 days or more need be reported. I think this is something which perhaps requires reconsideration. The importance of the fullest disclosure of any technical findings or cases or reports by the inspector must be emphasized. Frequently one finds a situation where an inspector comes to a plant and gives advice. We believe that advice should be available to the people who possibly are running risks and who work in danger in the plant. The inspector could also require certain scientific tests to be made at the factory. The results of these too, we believe, should automatically be available not just to the employer but also to the employee, or, at least, to the safety committee. The power which the ability to make regulations placed with the Minister, is very considerable. Perhaps some procedure whereby draft regulations could be considered and reviewed would be advisable.

Clause 22 deals with the functions of the inspectors. This clause allows inspectors to require any books or records kept in a specific workplace and to make copies thereof. I do not think this is covered adequately by the secrecy provision under clause 27. I accept that inspectors must have the right to demand all documents but I want to suggest that some protective mechanism could be beneficial. I say this because particulars of industrial processes or production could be involved and could perhaps be things that require the highest degree of confidentiality. These could easily be revealed in the records demanded and copied and yet have completely nothing to do with the matter that is being investigated.

Fines and penalties, which have been specified, would appear in these circumstances to be very light. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would comment on this, but certainly when one compares these with fines that are applicable for other offences which have nothing to do with people’s safety they do seem to be trifling. We shall discuss these things and other matters during the Committee Stage. This is essentially an Act that has evolved to meet a developing situation. It therefore meets the demands of that situation and the official Opposition shall be supporting it.

There is, however, one aspect of this Bill that I should like to raise. I should like to caution—and I was very pleased that the hon. the Minister mentioned this at the end of his speech—against unrealistic standards. Our industry is by no means competitive on a world basis. Ultimately it must withstand competition from other industrialized nations which have many advantages that we do not have. Unrealistic standards in the workplace are of no use to a breadwinner who is out of a job. Our problem is to create more jobs and if standards required are unrealistic and production costs uncompetitive we shall not create them. A good parallel is the welfare State. It is impossible for anybody to argue against the motives behind a welfare State, against the desire to initiate the type of benefit, but nobody can deny that if they are given free rein they can end up killing the goose that lays the golden egg. That is not something we can afford. This is something to which we are going to have to give serious consideration as we push ahead with the strategy for the development of the informal sector. The problems of having a sophisticated First World industrial economy, working cheek by jowl with a rapidly developing informal sector, will not be inconsiderable. They will have to be faced because the development of that informal sector is essential to our social and economic future. The importance of this legislation cannot be over-estimated. We are deciding under what conditions all South Africans will spend their lives. This applies to all employees and establishes their essential standard of living because they spend the bulk of their waking hours at work. What happens there affects their lives and the lives of their families, not only materially, but also psychologically. Consequently it establishes the values and qualities of the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House wish to convey our gratitude to the hon. member for Walmer for promising his party’s support of this Bill. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will give attention to his questions and suggestions. I should also like to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister and the department for the comprehensive memorandum which was laid upon the Table with regard to this legislation. Matters are set out so clearly, that there cannot really be a great deal to discuss with regard to this Bill. We are becoming accustomed to the fact that the Department of Manpower does its work thoroughly under the leadership of the hon. the Minister.

The Bill before us contains no changes in principle. The principles of the original Act remain. However, what one finds striking is a change in style, a change in our labour legislation which we have been noticing since 1979. Co-responsibility has been made an integral part of the Bill before us, conspiciously so. For the first time, the employee is being given the opportunity of having a share in the running of his place of employment. A large number of employees is being involved in this process. This legislation includes a wide spectrum of employees. Only yesterday the hon. member Prof. Olivier was arguing that domestic servants, for example, had been excluded from the legislation we were discussing then. However, they are being included here. That is why I am saying that this legislation covers a wide spectrum of employees.

Sir, the remarkable change which this Bill is bringing about, is not only a change as such; it is an improvement. I am referring to the advisory council and the committees which are going to be established at workplaces. Besides the Department of Manpower, the Department of Health and the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, the employer and the employee will also be able to elect people to those committees now. They will also be able to appoint other committees in workplaces. I think it is only fitting that the employee is now being given a share in taking precautions to ensure his own safety and health.

For a long time the industrial sector has been lagging behind in this respect. I do not know what this could be attributed to, but the employer has for many years been unwilling to co-operate in this respect. The employer has not been prepared to co-operate with the trade unions. On the contrary. In fact they have wanted to keep the trade unions away from their workers. I attribute this to the fact that we in South Africa have from the outset had unfortunate experiences with trade unions. The trade union movement had an unfortunate beginning in South Africa. It even led to bloodshed. In this respect, the farmer is way ahead of employers in industry. The farmer began to give his workers a share in his farming operations many years ago. For example, the worker may be a share-cropper; he may keep animals and his animals are herded with those of the farmer. As a result, the worker is only too keen to look after the farmer’s animals, since he is looking after his own animals at the same time.

Let us examine this by taking a look at karakul farming. Allow me to say that the karakul ewe is not a very good mother. The lamb is usually taken away and slaughtered. When one allows the lambs to remain with the ewes, one soon finds that the ewe has rejected the lamb; that she has run away from it.

So I decided that something would have to be done about it. No one else would take that trouble on my behalf. It is my lamb; no one else would go to the trouble of finding my lamb. However, this lamb has a little milk-stomach. That little milk-stomach is used for some pharmaceutical purpose or another. One dries that little stomach although one only gets 15c for it. I then decided that I would give that little milk-stomach to one of my workers. It would be his as a little bonus. In return, he sees to it that my lambs do not get lost. That worker sees to it that the lamb is saved, for now he has a share in my business.

In the same way, the present legislation affords the employee a share in the business. Therefore, matters can only improve. What are even more important, of course, are the committees which are being envisaged. Those who are going to serve on the committees are being trained and they are being afforded the opportunity of qualifying themselves as future trade union leaders. It could only be to the advantage of the trade unions when there are people who can serve them.

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to have come back to the hon. member for Langlaagte. However, what I wanted to speak to him about concerned the discussion of a previous Bill. That is why I think I shall leave it at that. I hope that I will have the opportunity of speaking to him about this at a later stage. We on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this fine piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Mr. Van Staden praised the Bill under discussion on the basis of the fact that in terms of this Bill the employee now also has a share in the management of the industry. Yesterday the hon. the Minister reprimanded the hon. member for Langlaagte because he was supposed to have commented on legislation he had not read. The hon. the Minister maintained that the hon. member for Langlaagte had not read the legislation. However, I want to put it to the hon. member Mr. Van Staden that the Bill under discussion is concerned with the safety of the employee and of the machinery being used. It has absolutely nothing to do with the management of the industry.

That just proves that he did not read it at all. [Interjections.]

As has been indicated, the legislation under discussion replaces the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, 1941, and is to a great extent of a consolidating nature. On behalf of the CP I should like it placed on record that this party welcomes all legislation that makes provision for the protection of the health and safety of the employees of the Republic of South Africa.

Of all races?

It is interesting to note that we have a motion of the Order Paper in connection with the White worker. I should like to read out the motion to this House because it actually coincides with the Bill we are now discussing. It is Motion No. 12, on page 27 of the Order Paper. It reads as follows—

1. (a) to take positive and effective steps to ensure that he feels secure in his working conditions beyond any doubt;
2. (b) to deal with the improvement of his unemployment insurance, accident compensation and sick benefits as matters of the highest priority; and
3. (c) to keep a watchful eye to ensure that he will not be exploited in any sphere of life.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister and I do not communicate with each other. However, it is interesting to note that this Bill happens to coincide with the proposed motion of the CP pertaining to the worker.

This Bill follows the same pattern as others have recently followed, as is also found in modern legislation, and for this reason it is to be welcomed. I am referring in this case to the recent legislation in connection with environmental conservation. In that case, too, a Committee was appointed, there were also inspectors and the general underlying framework of the legislation was on more or less the same basis as in the present case. I think that it is sound legislation and is to be welcomed as such.

I also want to agree with the hon. member for Walmer and with the hon. the Minister that it is a good thing that in so far as security matters involving the employees are concerned, there is a partnership between the State and the employer and employee. My hon. friend who will speak after me from these benches will elaborate further on the matter of farmers.

As was the case with the legislation on labour relations, there are certain aspects of this legislation we object to. However, because it places the principle of the protection and safety of the worker first, the CP will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

I just want to remind the hon. the Minister of what he said when he made the following announcement on 22 February 1982—

He then said that there were a number of laws falling under the Department of Manpower that did not affect farmers. That is actually the reason why he asked the Manpower Commission to investigate all matters having a bearing on the worker as far as farming activities and domestic activities were concerned. However, he has now introduced this Bill and he has also included agriculture, while we are at the moment awaiting a report from a Manpower Commission. I do not think it is fair to involve the farmers in this way, if it is particularly taken into consideration that organized agriculture, namely the South African Agricultural Union, was not to my knowledge specifically and formally consulted before this Bill was introduced. I should like to know how organized agriculture feels about the provisions contained in this Bill especially, as I have said, since we are still awaiting the report of the Manpower Commission in this connection. I should like to know how farmers feel about clause 17 for example. I do not want to elaborate on this matter. As I have said, one of my hon. friends will deal with it later.

He hates the farmers!

Clause 32 does make provision for the Minister to exempt certain categories of employers and employees from the provisions of this Bill, but I think that in the light of the hon. the Minister’s announcement on 22 February 1982 it is not fair to include or exclude an organization like agriculture at his discretion as far as the effect of this Bill is concerned.

Other matters the CP objects to will be discussed in greater detail during the Committee Stage. At this stage I should merely like to refer to the following aspects.

The first matter I want to refer to is the safety representatives for which clause 10(3) makes provision. It does not make sense for these representatives not to bear any liability. They are in fact appointed to see to the safety of that work place and if one exempts them from any liability that defeats the entire object of the exercise. It is true that the hon. the Minister has given notice of an amendment of this specific provision which to a certain extent conforms to the proposed amendment of the CP in this connection, and we shall accept his amendment. However, I still feel that the hon. the Minister should consider deleting clause 10(3) so that common law can take its course.

The same argument applies to clause 12.

I now come to clause 10(1)(a) which provides that a safety representative must do certain things. Paragraph (a) requires him to bring certain matters to the attention of the inspector; (b) places other obligations on him; and, (c) says he may do certain things. The word “may” refers to cases where an accident has taken place as set out in clause 17. An incident as set out in clause 17 is actually the crux of the Bill, but the provision states that the safety representative “may” report the circumstances surrounding an incident referred to in clause 17, to the inspector. It may be alleged that a security representative is illiterate and it is therefore difficult for him to make written reports on incidents referred to in clause 17. However, I feel that in such cases an interpreter could be used or the method used by the S.A. Police to deal with such matters could be used, but clause 17 is, as I have already said, the crux of the Bill and the safety representative should be required to report the events pertaining to an incident as proposed in clause 17.

With reference to clause 25 I want to put a further question. I cannot really understand why it is necessary in the case of death for a joint inquiry by the magistrate in terms of the legislation in connection with inquests and the inspector in terms of the Bill to take place. It is said that in such a case the magistrate will be the chairman and the inspector must assist him and then report the evidence to the chief inspector. In my opinion this is duplication and unnecessary. I think the position should be that the chief inspector can receive a copy of the record from the magistrate. He can then in this way be informed on the circumstances of an incident referred to in clause 17. It is not clear to me why the inspector must also attend the inquest.

I now want to refer to the clause to do with regulations. Clause 35(5) seemed strange to me. It is the provision that no magistrate may pronounce on the validity of any regulation in terms of the Bill. This is an unnecessary prohibition which is being imposed on both the employer and the employee. It has always been the case that a magistrate may acquit an accused on the grounds of finding that the regulations are ultra vires. Now this will no longer be possible because the Magistrate’s jurisdiction is being eliminated. In future the employer or the employee will have to incur the expense of approaching the Supreme Court if he wants a regulation declared ultra vires. We cannot agree with that reasoning and we shall therefore oppose that provision during the Committee State.

Subject to what I have just said, the CP support the Second Reading of the Bill

Mr. Speaker, for us on this side of the House it is a pleasure to hear that all the Opposition Parties support the Bill. A Bill dealing with occupational safety is the type of legislation which usually elicits a great deal of criticism from the industrialist who frequently say that there are too many regulations and that these make investments difficult or channel them incorrectly. In 1979 the costs of regulations in the USA totalled $500 per person. One can therefore see why great care must be taken with legislation having a bearing on occupational safety, pollution and the like. However, when one comes to occupational safety, one is dealing with a very important and sensitive matter, because it involves the safety of the worker. During the past 60 years the worker’s work environment has become far safer. This is also the case in South Africa. If we had projected the number of accidents in 1950, we would have got an accident figure of 360 000 above the present figure of 335 000. At the present moment we spend approximately R50 million a year on compensation, rehabilitation and medical costs. However, that is only the tip of the iceberg, because we also spend about R150 million on hidden costs, R100 million on losses caused by fire and a further R100 million on damage to property. We are therefore dealing here with a figure of R400 million a year in the field of occupational safety. One finds that we lose 30 million man-days a year in respect of compensatable accidents.

The best way of preventing this kind of problem—one could call it a socio-economic problem—is of course by means of regulations. However, as I pointed out at the outset, there is at present a tendency to over-regulate, and this leads to a great deal of resistance. That is why I want to summarize the 10 major points of criticism against this type of legislation and analyse the Bill against this background. The first point of criticism against this specific type of legislation in particular is that there is insufficient co-ordination between the various bodies involved and also that insufficient consultation takes place. This means that the relevant groups on which these regulations will have an effect, are not consulted. In the proposed legislation we have the establishment of an advisory council. By means of the advisory council we are now trying to bring the Department of Manpower, the Department of Health, the employer and the worker together. With this system we are therefore trying to go further towards getting the employer and employee involved in the entire process. The way in which the system is set out in this Bill means that consultation also takes place at quite a number of points. In addition to having a structure for consultation and co-ordination, one must also have mechanisms to accommodate all conflicting groups, and this Bill definitely meets the requirements set in connection with the accommodation of conflicting interest groups. I did ask myself whether we should not also consider allowing the Bureau of Standards and the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism to serve on the advisory committee. However, one must not have a council which is too large either.

A further problem arising with regulations of this kind is that they quickly become outdated and have to be replaced regularly. The advisory council for which provision is being made in this Bill must ensure that regulations of this kind are revised regularly and replaced when they become outdated. By setting up the technical committees the hon. the Minister and the department have in fact created the structure to institute regular investigations into the various types of regulations and to ensure that they are replaced regularly.

A further point of criticism against this type of legislation is that it frequently becomes politicized. In this regard I must congratulate the hon. the Minister on this Bill because in this Bill an attempt has been made to eliminate the politicization of negotiations to a certain extent. We are dealing here with safety legislation. That is why one finds that social matters in the industrial sector with regard to the establishment of facilities for workers forms part of the normal labour bargaining process and is therefore a matter which is arranged between employers and employees mutually and does not belong here. To have four latrines if you employ only four people, viz. an Indian, a Coloured, a Black man and a White man, has nothing to do with safety. We must also remember that employees frequently do not have the necessary technical knowledge of the kind of machines used or of the kind of dust in the air to be able to protect themselves. This legislation clearly provides for this with its entire system of an advisory council, technical committees, safety officials, safety committees and inspectors to prevent this problem.

The following point of criticism which is often made and was also raised here by the hon. member for Brakpan is that the magistrate does not have a say. The problem one has with this kind of legislation is that it is frequently converted into a series of legal processes that eventually are completely removed from the safety of the worker. That is why I consider clause 35(5) to be very important. It reads—

This is a highly technical matter.

The fifth point of criticism against this kind of Bill is that there is insufficient differentiation with regard to the kind of undertaking and the kind of industry. I think the hon. member for Walmer mentioned that— and I support him in this—that clause 32 makes it possible for the Minister to grant exemptions. In terms of clause 35(3) which I also find interesting, the Minister may also—

Nowadays we have many small businesses, particularly in the informal sector, for example in Soweto. Regularly we hear the complaint that if our labour inspectors visit them they make certain demands of those people which are impossible to comply with. The sixth type of criticism against this kind of regulation is excessive concentration. It is frequently said that everything is done from Pretoria. I find it very interesting that the Minister is trying to force decision-making and implementation down to the lowest level, that of the safety official. However he is also involving the local authorities. They are also able to appoint inspectors now under the guidance of the department to help him to implement the aims of this Bill.

Further criticism against this kind of Bill is the tremendous overlapping which sometimes occurs. All departments want a say in the matter. That is why the department introduced its advisory council on which the Department of Health and the Department of Manpower are represented. I would even prefer to have the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism and perhaps the Bureau of Standards represented on it as well. Throughout the legislation a clear differentiation is also made between the inspectors, the courts and the police with regard to the action taken. A clear differentiation has therefore been made in order to prevent overlapping.

I come now to the most important point of criticism against much of the legislation of this type, namely that the aim of occupational safety is not always clearly defined. That is why we frequently have confusion and unnecessary regulations. People always refer to the “Mickey Mouse” regulations, i.e. regulations on the difference between a hole and an opening and between a roof and a floor and when spittoons must be cleaned. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent accidents. That is one of the most important premises. It is therefore interesting that in the legislation severe penalties are prescribed for offences where the regulations have not been complied with and where accidents have occurred. In terms of clause 28 steps may now also be taken against offences which resulted in injury to workers. The department’s view is quite clear—not necessarily in the Bill, but certainly in its policy— that what is involved here is regulations on light, on air, and machinery, and the protection of women and young people.

The last point of criticism against this kind of legislation—in this regard I agree with the hon. member for Walmer—is that too frequently excessive attention is given to standards and regulations. Frequently we are too negative. In addition the distribution of information to the employee is not always correct. However, we must not consider this Bill in isolation, we must consider it in conjunction with the role played by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. We must also consider it in conjunction with the role played by the Bureau for Standards.

I must also break a lance for the National Occupational Safety Association, the people who deal with the training. Legislation as such is not sufficient, and I want to agree with the hon. member for Walmer yet again that training is the only thing that can make a success of this legislation in practice. There is no legislation which can protect workers against all risks. One must accept this. By means of this legislation the Department of Manpower is trying to prevent confrontation by maintaining a careful balance between and creating a conciliatory approach to rightful and frequently divergent interests, such as polluted air and inflation, safe working conditions and rising productivity.

Now that I have weighed up this Bill against all the points of ctiticism one can make against this type of regulation, I can say that I consider it to be a particularly good Bill, and I therefore take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Dr. Marais made a well-prepared speech. We listened attentively to the points of criticism which he raised, and I want to assure him that there is not a single member in the House who does not fully agree with the points of criticism and the solutions which he suggested. It was particularly interesting to learn from the hon. member what the statistics are in respect of the cost to our country resulting from direct and indirect losses in man-days as well as the other costs incurred when a large number of accidents occur in the workplace. It was interesting to learn that South Africa loses more than 30 million man-days per annum because of industrial accidents.

†One should also remember that when one makes the people of South Africa conscious of safety, there are in fact more accidents in private homes than there are in the working environment. There must therefore be a spill-over effect if one educates the worker in his workplace to be safety conscious, to take safety precautions at home.

We believe that positive attitudes to safety will spill over into the home environment and hopefully the many accidents at home will also decrease as they have decreased in South African industry on a pro rata basis over the past five years.

We welcome this legislation in principle. We believe that the review of the 1941 legislation speaks volumes for the soundness of the original legislation which was passed in this House by a previous government, the predecessor of the NRP, namely the United Party. The fact that it was able to serve its purpose during the past 41 years indicates the worthiness and the reliability of the legislation.

When was that?

The original Bill was passed in this House in 1941, a little bit before that hon. member’s and my time in this House. Things which are worth while and reliable tend to remain for a very long period. I think it is a tribute to the original architects of the 1941 legislation that that legislation was fully reviewed and amended in 1983. Yet if one looks at this amending legislation one finds that although there are significant changes in principle regarding the attitude to safety and participation the fundamental regulatory process has remained the same and has been of value to industry and commerce over all those years.

Turning to the actual legislation itself, I should like to say that it embodies a number of principles which this party in particular welcomes. Firstly, we welcome the fact that there has been a devolution of power, a devolution of responsibility and a devolution of participation to what I could call the shop floor for safety in the working environment. So often, as the hon. member Dr. Marais has pointed out, people on the shop floor look at safety regulations and say: It is those people up there, it is the head office, it is the office in Pretoria who have made these regulations and we are going to do our best to avoid having to comply with them because we were not part of the decision-making process in formulating those regulations. Now this Bill makes provision for the appointment of shop floor representatives as safety representatives and, of course, we note that that excludes the farming community and domestic work environments. It gives them the opportunity to liaise with the officials from the department and other institutions in regard to safety matters. But, more important, it now gives the safety officer employed by a company on the shop floor statutory recognition for the function which he has to fulfil. In the old colloquial expression, it gives his function teeth. I believe that the safety officer will now become a more important individual in the management team of any company. This Bill provides for that and we certainly welcome it.

A number of speakers before me have emphasized the importance of education in safety. Without education there is no understanding. Without understanding there is no co-operation and without co-operation it would be a futile exercise to attempt to improve the safety statistics in our industries. Coupled to that education is the responsibility on the State to see that there is an awareness in industry that educational factors are taken care of. There is a need for management in industry to participate and to make company resources available for safety education.

The third aspect is that there must be a willingness amongst the workers to want to be educated in safety. I believe that organizations such as the National Occupational Safety Association in South Africa and other organizations such as the Chamber of Mines, the Association of Electrical Contractors and the building industry, to name a few, have poured considerable resources into the allocation of workers and management in safety. Now this legislation completes the circumferences within which that educational factor will take place, and we welcome this. Most important also is research and statistics on safety and accidents. Here, once again, the legislation makes adequate provision for statistics to be kept, for reports to be made and, therefore, for research to take place. We cannot claim to approach our problems scientifically unless we have a good foundation of research material and criteria. The scientific process starts with observation, then measurement and then the drawing of conclusions by the comparison with what went before and what is happening today. Only by valid and scientific research will we be able to find the underlying causes of accidents in industry and, therefore, the solutions. This Bill goes a long way towards making provision for the improvement of statistics and research.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there is the monitoring situation. The department will have inspectors who will be able to go round to see whether the companies are fulfilling their obligations. And there is a very significant difference here, Mr. Speaker. Previously, when the management of a company saw an inspector coming down the road, they quickly had a tidy up, a clean-up, because the inspector was coming to inspect them like a policeman. And indeed, if he did find an irregularity he took great pride in going back to take the necessary steps to call the company to book. Here, however, the attitude of the inspector will be not to be a policeman but to be the friendly bobby on the beat. He will be the adviser, the counsellor, of people in industry on questions of safety on the basis of the tripartite relationship between the State, the employer and the employee. Mr. Speaker, this change in attitude is of vital importance if we are to succeed in the safety improvement situation in South Africa. This Bill creates an adequate framework for that.

Then, Sir, I would like to refer very briefly to the attention which is being paid in this Bill to quality standards of equipment and material used in order to improve safety. The S.A. Bureau of Standards will obviously be consulted in this respect because it has done an excellent job of work in this field so far and will continue to do so. Unquestionably the question of economics to which the hon. the Minister referred to in his speech, is vital. For instance, if you have a cheaper product on the market it will push aside the more expensive product. The people in manufacturing are going for profits and if they can buy a saw of a lesser quality material to saw through wood that they use for the manufacturing of for instance furniture, they will do so in order to reduce there input costs. But if they do so at the cost of the safety of their workers, the folly of their ways should be pointed out to them. Here, then, emphasis is being laid on the quality of the material and machinery used. This is going to go a long way towards making manufacturers aware of the fact that the Government is watching the quality of their materials.

Let me say that the ultimate aim of any industry should be to attain the safety record of the airways companies throughout the world. S.A. Airways, for instance, has one of the finest safety records in the world. And if one considers the hostile environment in which aircraft have to fly—I am not talking about the political environment but about thunderstorms, electrical storms, hailstorms, air-currents, birds flying about, etc.—then it is phenomenal that many airlines throughout the world are able to make flights so safe that it is actually safer to fly from Johannesburg to Houston, to Rio de Janeiro, to Washington, to London and back to Johannesburg than it is to cross Plein Street here in Cape Town. Why is that so, Sir?

Why pick on Cape Town?

Because I like Cape Town. I like to show people what a cosmopolitan city it is. However, I am not criticizing the traffic; I am criticizing the people who cross the road. That hon. member does not have the same problem because he does not mix with his constituents. He comes from Stutterheim, and in Stutterheim the accident rate is very low because there are so few people there. But one must ask oneself the question why it is not possible also for an industry such as the mining industry or the iron and steel industry to attain an almost zero accident rate. And why is it possible for airlines to do it? I would say that a very important aspect here is the attitude of people to safety. When we fly we know that, unlike a motorcar journey from Durban to Pinetown for instance—when if you have a breakdown you can get out and push—if there is a breakdown of your aircraft at 10 000 metres it is going to be very difficult indeed to get out and push.

But it ought to be easy to push it down hill.

But the idea is to stay up there and not to come down. What, Sir, is the gravamen of the argument?

Gravity!

Why are people in the airlines so conscious of safety but not people in factories? Simply because they know what the consequences of their actions will be, and the passengers are aware of it; and so is the management, the staff and the manufacturer. Look at the research they undertake everytime an aircraft is involved in an accident. Massive amounts of money and resources are poured into the investigation to find out why the accident occurred. And what is the key to it? The key to it is simply a question of attitude.

Let me say in conclusion that I believe that this Bill does cover the attitutional factor which is so important. And is going to go a long way towards improving and assisting our occupational safety position. Of course we have criticisms of the Bill as well. It would be quite unnatural not to have. One of our major criticisms will be dealt with by the hon. member for Mooi River later in this debate, and that is our attitude towards the inclusion of the agricultural sector. I confidently leave it to him to deal with that aspect.

To the hon. the Minister I would like to say that we, as he could have gathered from what I have to say, are very pleased with this Bill and that for the most part it will receive our wholehearted support. It is only the aspect the hon. member for Mooi River is going to deal with that we have some reservations about.

Mr. Speaker, no doubt the hon. member for Durban North feels a lot better than I do because while he has completed his speech, I as a newcomer to this House am about to begin mine.

Sir, I regard it as a great privilege to a member of this Assembly and am deeply aware of the responsibilities members of Parliament carry. I hope that I will be able to make a positive contribution to the deliberations in this Chamber. I am also aware of the high standards and traditions set by my predecessors as representatives of the many people who comprise the constituency of Johannesburg North. It is my intention to try to follow the example they set. As you are no doubt aware, Sir, my predecessors include people like Jan Hofmeyr, a person who played a prominent part in the history of South Africa and, as my immediate predecessors, Gordon Waddell and Kowie Marais. To them I want to pay tribute.

Sir, the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, 1941, served us well. In its time it was a fine piece of legislation and came to be regarded as such throughout the country. Who has not visited a factory or a workshop and seen those pieces of cardboard covered in grease and dirt setting out the salient sections of the Act? However, as with most things time tend to take its toll, and it is therefore correct that this bill should be introduced at this stage. The hon. member for Roodeplaat yesterday mourned the passing of the title of another piece of legislation. In the same vein one might express regret that the title “Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act” is to disappear. But the Bill under discussion has its own identity and therefore a case can be made out for it to have its own title.

The most pleasing feature of it, Mr. Speaker, is that it does not restrict itself, as the hon. the Minister has mentioned, to factories and to building sites, as previous legislation did. All persons in employment—in such diverse spheres as the public sector, agriculture, commerce and local government—will come under the umbrella of this Bill. This is a feature which is to be welcomed. I say it is to be welcomed because if one studies the table on page 47 of the report of the Director-General of the Department of Manpower one sees that at the end of 1981 almost 2 million people were employed in factories throughout the country and that the overwhelming majority of them were not White. The point I wish to emphasize is that as we move towards the closing years of the 20th century we will be drawing more and more people into our factories and on to our farms, who are not familiar with our highly industrialized society. It is incumbent upon us to provide for their safety and their well-being, and therefore I welcome this Bill, particularly the provision for the establishment of the Advisory Council for Occupational Safety. It is being noted—and I subscribe to this theory—that the subject of occupational and machinery safety is becoming increasingly complex because of the rapid technological advances and the ever increasing number of potentially harmful substances being created.

There is also mounting public concern for the protection of workers’ health and safety. These are sound enough reasons for the establishment of this advisory council, and it is my hope that it will be successful in providing for the safety of all workers.

One small item I should like to refer to in order to make this more topical is the distressing news item yesterday, which reported the case of a 10 year old girl who lost both hands at a Vereeniging smallholding. Both were amputated by a scrapmetal press when she was visiting her grandfather’s farm on Saturday. Fortunately the surgeons at the Johannesburg General Hospital were able to sew them back on, and indications are that the operation will be successful. I have no doubt we all hope this young girl will enjoy a complete recovery. The important point I wish to stress is that I also have no doubt that we all hope that the Bill now before us will go a long way towards ensuring that this type of accident does not occur again.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Johannesburg North on his maiden speech here this afternoon. It is obvious that the hon. member has gone to great trouble to prepare himself and to acquaint himself with the contents of aspects surrounding the legislation now under discussion. I believe he chose the appropriate subject. It is a non-contentious matter that is now being discussed by this House, and in that way too the hon. member was acting in accordance with the traditions of this House. I am sure the hon. member will do likewise in future, and I hope he can look forward to many years of fruitful service to this Parliament.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, earlier on the hon. member for Brakpan remarked to the hon. member Mr. Van Staden that he had apparently not read the legislation then under discussion. However, I think that the hon. member for Brakpan was being a little wilful. He attributed a contention to the hon. member Mr. Van Staden which was not quite correct. The hon. member Mr. Van Staden had mentioned the fact that now, for the first time, the employee was to be involved in safety matters. He did not say that the employee would now for the first time be involved in the management of the industry.

What does the milk-stomach of a karakul lamb have to do with this Bill? [Interjections.]

The hon. member Mr. Van Staden did make certain remarks about the farming industry. Perhaps that could in some way or another have given rise to the inference of the hon. member for Brakpan. It was certainly not the intention or the premise of the hon. member Mr. Van Staden that the employee would for the first time now be involved in the management of the industry. I think the hon. member for Brakpan will surely allow me to point out briefly that the hon. the Minister had given notice of the Bill before us before the hon. member for Brakpan and the CP gave notice of the motion to which the hon. member referred. Where the hon. member pleads that in clause 10 an obligation should be imposed on the safety representatives, I must honestly say that I cannot agree with him. I do not know how the hon. the Minister is going to react to this. However, I cannot agree with the hon. member on this issue. I think the hon. member will concede that it is in fact an employee who has to look after the safety of his fellow-employees. As I infer from this Bill, he does so on a pro amico basis. He is not compensated for it. It does not seem to me as if he necessarily receives compensation for it. The hon. member is shaking his head, but as you know, that employee does not earn his living by holding that position. I think it would be unfair to hold him responsible if, in the ordinary course of events, he should fail to notice something which could possibly imperil the safety of his fellow-employees. I can very well imagine—and provision is also made for this in the Bill—that expert knowledge would often be required to perceive certain dangers and to my mind, to expect such knowledge from an ordinary employee is asking too much perhaps.

This House is now dealing with the last of four pieces of legislation of which the hon. the Minister gave notice at the beginning of the session. I am a relative newcomer to this House, but I do not think it would be inappropriate at this point to express my appreciation towards the hon. the Minister for what he has done in the field of labour matters since he became Minister of Manpower. It has not been as long as the whole period I have been in this House, but if I look at what has been put onto the Statute Book by the Department of Manpower under the leadership of the hon. the Minister, then the field covered by this legislation has indeed changed drastically. If only one would pause for a moment and think of the legislation that applied in the field of labour about 10 years ago—and not even 10 years ago; five or six years ago—and look at what has happened in the meantime, how radically the scene has changed, particularly if one also takes into account the fact that those changes came about on a peaceful basis— that although drastic changes were made, although the positions of people were changed drastically, this took place on a peaceful basis—then one cannot but have admiration for everything that the hon. the Minister and the Department of Manpower have done.

When one reads the Bill before us and compares it with existing legislation, it is clear once again that we are going to put a piece of legislation onto the Statute Book which is a substantial improvement on the existing legislation, in spite of what the hon. member for Durban North said about the existing legislation. I must admit that I also have appreciation for the existing legislation, but I maintain that this legislation is a considerable improvement on that legislation. Incidentally, I want to point out to the hon. member for Durban North that since its original introduction the 1941 legislation had been amended several times, also during the ’fifties and ’sixties when the predecessor of his present party did not constitute the Government in this House.

I want to pause for a few moments at the more drastic changes to existing legislation contained in this legislation. The first is of course, that its scope is so much wider. Whereas the first piece of legislation involved only a small group of workers and made provision for the safety of that group of workers, which created the machinery to look after their safety, this legislation in fact involves all employees.

If one looks at the definition of “employee” and compares it to the definition in the existing Act, one notes the enormous difference. A far greater number of people is being involved in the Bill. Consequently the first merit of the Bill is that it is not being limited to a small group of employees, but involves the majority of the employees in the country, in truth, all employees, even, as has been referred to, the employee on the farm and the domestic servant. Exceptions are made in the Bill so that certain clauses of the Bill do not apply to those categories of employees, but in general even they are being involved.

The point raised by the hon. member Mr. Van Staden was that the employee himself was now being involved in the safety of his colleagues. In the first place we have the Safety Council. I should rather say the advisory council. I apologize for using the words “Safety Council”, but that is of course the general terminology these days. We are dealing here with a lesser body, viz. the advisory council on which, apart from the experts, two representatives of the employees serve. If one looks at what the functions of the advisory council, at its powers, one realizes that the employee as such is as it were being offered a partnership in the sound management of the undertaking where he is employed. He enters into a partnership with his employer to see to it that he is safe and that his health does not suffer while he is rendering service.

While I am on the subject of definitions, I want to focus the attention on a few problems which I have with certain definitions. In clause 1(1)(iv) “article” is defined as any solid, and so on. It strikes one as strange that an article can also be a liquid, and even worse, that it can be a vapour or gas. However, that is all in the course of definitions, but what I do object to are the words “and also any part of an article”. To me it seems senseless to define “article” by saying that it is an article, because that is in fact what is stated here. We must find some other word to take the place of “article”, because one cannot define a word by using the same word.

The same applies in respect of “diens” in paragraph (viii) of the Afrikaans text. The provision reads—

With respect, how can such a definition of “diens” explain the word if one uses the word “diens” again? I must say that in my opinion the existing Act provides a better definition of “diens” where it defines “werk-nemer” and then states that a “werknemer” is a person who is “in diens”. It further provides that “diens” has a corresponding meaning, almost as is provided in the case of “safety”.

In paragraph (xiv) of the Afrikaans text “inspeksie-owerheid” is defined. There I read—

I do not object to the expression “wat objektiewe bevindings heet te wees”, except when I look at its English translation—

To me the English text is clearer and it is good English grammar. In my opinion the Afrikaans text does not reflect good Afrikaans grammatical usage and consequently its meaning is somewhat obscure. The nomination or appointment of two members to represent employees in the advisory council is not where the employee’s involvement in terms of this proposed legislation ends. The employees are involved to an even greater extent by the provision that in respect of any single workplace, an employer shall appoint at least one safety representative for each 50 employees. As I said, I am of the opinion that the employee is being invited here to form a partnership with the employer for the safe management of the workman on the work floor. It seems to me as if we are less safe doing our work here than employees will in future be on the factory floor or in their offices. I want to commend the hon. the Minister on this. As many pieces of legislation have in the past acquired a certain status—I am thinking of the legislation on female labour—I think this legislation will become known as the Magna Carta of legislation on the safety of the worker in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in my contribution to the discussion of this Bill I wish to associate myself with the sentiments which have already been expressed by other hon. members today concerning the necessity for, or the desirability of this kind of legislation. Any legislation aimed at ensuring the safety of the South African worker, is always welcome. Any legislation which introduced preventive measures to safeguard the South African worker, is sound legislation.

However, I also wish to associate myself with the remark made by the hon. member for Brakpan with regard to the implementation of this legislation in the agricultural industry in South Africa. We on this side of the House have reservations concerning the implementation of this legislation in the agricultural industry, and I shall give the reasons for my saying this during my speech. However, I would go further by asking the hon. the Minister to exclude the agricultural industry from the operation of this legislation. The agricultural industry is, in fact, a sui generis industry. It is a distinctive industry. The workplace of the South African farmer is the millions of hectares of farmland and veld in the Republic of South Africa. That is why the agricultural industry is one of the largest employees in the Republic of South Africa, and it is certainly one of the most labour-intensive industries in the Republic. Figures made available in 1980 indicated that at that stage there were already 1,2 million workers in the employ of the South African farmer. That is a large number of employees. Mr. Speaker, you yourself were a farmer and an attorney and you will know that it is historically true that in general, farmers are extremely sensitive about the passing of legislation which affects them and their industry.

Except for subsidies.

As the farmers say, legislation concerning their affairs must not be tampered with. By saying this, however, I do not wish to imply that the farmers of South Africa are an undisciplined community. This is really not the case. There is sufficient evidence in our country that the South African farmer has an excellent record as far as the safety and the ensuring of the safety of his workers is concerned. That is why the conditions of service of the farm worker and of domestic servants have at present been excluded from the scope of the implementation of various statutes administered by the Department of Manpower. I refer, for example, to the Labour Relations Act, the Wage Act and the Conditions of Employment Act. There are many factors which are peculiar to the agricultural sector, its workplace and its employees. Because this is so, we on this side of the House wish to request that the agricultural industry be exempted from the provisions of this Bill.

I do not wish to discuss every provision of the Bill. I wish to focus attention on the important provisions contained in clause 17 of the Bill in particular. If we look at clause 17 which the Bill also makes applicable to the agricultural industry, we see that it states that—

1. (a) the use of machinery;
2. (b) hazardous working conditions or heat stroke or exhaustion suffered in the course of his employment;
3. (c) any accident occurring at a workplace; or
4. (d) exposure at a workplace to any hazardous article, dies, becomes unconscious, suffers the loss of a limb or part of a limb or is otherwise injured or becomes ill to such a degree that he is likely either to die or to suffer a permanent physical defect or to be unable for a period of at least 14 days to work or to continue with the activity with which he was busy at the time of the incident, shall within the prescribed period and in the prescribed manner be reported to an inspector by the person referred to in subsection (2).

I wish to say more about this, viz. the role of the inspector in the farmer’s workplace when it comes to the implementation of this Bill. As I have already said, the workplace of the South African farmer is a comprehensive and extremely large one. Clause 17 includes South African farmers in their entirety in all the provisions of this Bill. This means only one thing for the South African farmers. In future they will be at the mercy of the whims and fancies of an inspector who is appointed in terms of the provisions of clause 21. When I say this, I do not wish to speak disparagingly of the inspector. However, I see him as being someone who is going to cause the farming community in South Africa problems, frustrations and anxieties in the carrying out of his duties.

If we take a closer look at the authority of the inspector and his sphere of operations, we see that this can only bode ill for the South African farmer. This portends delays and stoppages in his work programme. The practical implementation of the inspector’s work is going to cause the farmer many stoppages and a great deal of frustration.

One would do well to look at the provisions of clause 22, in which the functions and the powers of the inspector are set out. The inspector may, without notice, enter upon the farmer’s land where the farmer or his workers, using expensive equipment, are in the process of carrying out tasks such as planting, ploughing, threshing, baling, etc. The inspector may interrogate the farmer’s employees for hours, causing delays and stoppages. Moreover, in terms of the authorization of the legislation the inspector may seize the farmer’s planter, tractor, combine harvester or baling machine. He may direct the employer or his employee to appear before him at a particular time to be questioned away from his workplace, i.e. away from the farm. This is another factor which could cause delay. The inspector may demand that the farmer make improvements to his implements. He may demand that the machine be made safe. At this stage, there is machinery worth millions of rands on the farms of South African farmers which does not comply with all the safety measures. They could be ordered to repair them and make them comply with the provisions of this legislation. The inspector may demand that implements which do not comply with the regulations, be withdrawn. Go and read clause 23(3). As far as the farmer is concerned, the inspector’s powers are altogether too comprehensive and discretionary.

By way of summary, I wish to say that the inspector is empowered to cause the greatest possible amount of disruption of a farm while carrying out his task. The South African farmer cannot afford something like this. To the South African farmer, time is of the essence. At certain times of the year, in particular, the farmer needs more time than he actually has to do what is necessary in the interests of this country. If the inspector insists on carrying out his duty, our country could find itself in even greater distress. I therefore wish to address a serious request to the hon. the Minister to omit the agricultural industry from this legislation altogether. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister that after thorough consultation with organized agriculture in South Africa, he should rather submit separate legislation for this great and unique industry. Submit separate legislation for the farmer, legislation incorporating safety and protection measures in the interests of the workers, legislation which will fit in and which will not impede the carrying on of this industry. We as farmers do not wish to be treated like the industries and the factories. If the hon. the Minister does not see his way clear to exempting the agricultural industry from the operation of this legislation, I request that he undertakes to appoint one farmer representative of the employers to the advisory council which is going to be appointed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Mr. Theunissen has given us a certain point of view with regard to the CP’s attitude to this legislation. I wanted to follow on the same subject as the hon. member, but I want to approach it from a completely different angle because we in these benches realize that it is significant in more ways than one that agriculture has been included in legislation of this nature for the first time. It is unique because I think it pinpoints the fact that the country as a whole is aware that the agricultural sector has embarked on greater mechanization throughout the industry and that this mechanization has now brought with it certain basic requirements with regard to the safety factors. I want to make it quite clear that we in these benches accept the fact that agriculture in its turn has accepted it’s responsibility towards the safety and protection of its employers. Any suggestion that this has not been so would be completely incorrect. However, what we are concerned about here, from an agricultural point of view, is that we feel that there are certain aspects that must be brought to the attention of this House in that this legislation will have far-reaching implications in the agricultural sector. One must ask oneself whether it is desirable to introduce regulations which may be impractical in many ways to implement. I must draw the attention of this House to the fact that there are some 60 000 farmers in this country. I think that, if one looks at the broad basis on which these safety regulations would have to be applied, one realizes the enormous task that lies before the Department of Manpower. It is equally true that agriculture contains within it a vast variety of equipment, of machinery and of implements as a result of the various forms of agriculture that are practised in this country. One is aware immediately of the fact that there is considerable equipment already in existence on all farms. Equipment that has already resulted in considerable expense, and one would like to know what the position will be with regard to equipment already installed. Are the farmers going to be expected now to have to go to considerable expense to implement safety regulations that might be thrust upon them?

I agree with the hon. member for Durban North when he says that as far as the agricultural sector is concerned there has been considerable emphasis placed, on price rather than on quality when equipment has been purchased. The question we ask, therefore, is at what point will regulations be brought into effect as far as the agricultural sector is concerned? Is it the intention to bring in stringent regulations involving excessive expense? Will these be confined to new equipment? One is aware that it is also intended that sellers of both local and imported equipment must be made responsible to ensure that proposed safety regulations will be complied with. Here again, however, we are going to be faced with a factor of increased costs, probably far in excess of the cost involved in meeting the requirements of any proposed regulations.

We in these benches are also concerned about the fact that no direct provision is being made for agricultural representation on the advisory council. One feels that this is a matter of such importance to the agricultural sector that I will be moving an amendment during the Committee Stage recommending that agricultural representation on the advisory council should be entrenched.

I feel it is essential that we in this House realize that, when it comes to the application of regulations for the agricultural sector, we are dealing with a very different animal than what we would have to deal with in industry in all its forms. As such it would be absolutely foolhardy to consider that regulations that appertain to industry factories should equally be applicable to the agricultural sector.

Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting debate. Indeed, I could maintain that in this debate we have had a more thorough discussion of the legislation in question than was the case with regard to the previous three Bills. I wish to thank hon. members who took part in the discussion for their contributions.

I thank the hon. member for Walmer for his party’s support of this legislation. However, the hon. member referred to several matters, and also asked several questions. If he reads the explanatory memorandum carefully he will find that he already has all the answers to his questions. However, he touched on two aspects to which I should like to react at this point. The one relates to the issue of safety representatives and the question of where they can and must be appointed. The appointment in this regard is done by the employer. Accordingly one could imagine certain circumstances in which it might no be so essential, e.g. when it is a really small undertaking for which the employer has to appoint safety representatives. The fact that the employer is obliged to see to the appointment of safety representatives in any event is indeed a very important aspect.

The hon. member for Walmer makes a second statement which also has a bearing on this matter. He expressed his concern with regard to the training of these people. I wish to state clearly that we hope that this will lead to employers seeing to it that the people whom they designate will be trained. The training benefits which may be obtained under the legislation in question are in fact also available for the training of such persons. Accordingly I do not think the hon. member need be concerned. What he has in mind is indeed possible. I thank him for his remarks.

I want to say to the hon. member mr. Van Staden that I am very grateful for the remarks he made concerning the preparation of the documents submitted here. I also wish to say to him that I agree with his remarks relating to the position of employers. He said that we had unfortunately reached a stage at which we had to admit that the employers of South Africa had not really taken an interest in these matters in the past. That is true. However, I also wish to say to the hon. member that in recent times there has been exceptional interest on the part of employers. One has seen in particular how employers have been nominating people recently and even sending them to universities, technicians and other bodies to obtain training in various fields so that they may utilize the services of such persons, particularly in the field of industrial relations. I also think that in future it will be possible to train people better in order to render services in the new and important field of safety on the workshop floor. The hon. member referred to the legislation and remarked that what we were in fact doing was promoting safety management. That is true. This legislation is laying the foundation which will allow everyone to see to safety so that the safety factor may be better managed. The important point is that as far as safety management is concerned it is not merely the employer who is involved but the employee as well. This is the whole intention of the legislation. The employees feel that they have a share in what goes on on the factory floor and we feel that if they are given a share in this, in what is being done now, they will take a far greater interest, and I believe, too, that this fact will give rise to far a greater degree of labour peace in our labour situation. I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution.

The hon. member for Brakpan says that his party will support this legislation. I thank him for that. The hon. member also remarked that it was perhaps coincidental that his party’s proposed amendment was in fact the same as ours. He added that we had come a long way. I want to say to the hon. member that that is true, but he will recall that I also took a great deal of trouble to try and inform the hon. member concerning labour affairs so that today he could take part in the debate as chief spokesman of his party. Accordingly he owes a debt of thanks to this side of the House, too, in this regard. If the hon. member would only ensure that he and the hon. member Mr. Theunissen remain their party’s chief spokesmen concerning this matter, then things will go better. That is a compliment to those two hon. members, in comparison with the others.

I want to refer to the issue of the Manpower Commission and the representations made by that side of the House in particular, to the effect that the whole issue of the involvement of agriculture be reviewed. The hon. member Mr. Theunissen also asked that agriculture be treated differently in future as far as safety legislation is concerned. The hon. member for Brakpan said that the legislation was not really necessary because in the meantime we had directed the Manpower Commission to investigate the position of agriculture, and now we are coming forward with legislation of this nature which is either a duplication or does not fit in with that. I want so say to the hon. member that this legislation at present before this House is safety legislation. The title of the legislation also indicates this. The directive to the Manpower Commission does not deal with safety matters but with conditions of service. That fell under other legislation. I just want to say to him that it is not as if agriculture has not been consulted in this regard. Agriculture is being consulted. Does the hon. member not realize that the president of the S.A. Agriculture Union has a seat on the National Manpower Commission?

Does he also realize that the same National Manpower Commission put forward its own opinion and a memorandum when comment was called for? In this way the South African Agricultural Union made its input at the time. If the hon. member Mr. Theunissen were to persuade the South African Agricultural Union to make representations in accordance with what he wants, I shall listen to them, but the fact of the matter is that the South African Agricultural Union does not agree with him. The fact is that the legislation as we have it at present, the legislation relating to machinery and the new safety legislation, does not exclude agriculture. After all, agriculture is not excluded from the safety situation; safety on farms is included as well. As far as this Bill is concerned we are not simply dealing with new legislation; it is also a consolidating measure. If the hon. member is a farmer, he will know that as a farmer he also has an obligation as regards the safety of his people. Agriculture has never been excluded from these matters.

Agriculture does not fall under the factory legislation. [Interjections.]

It is safety legislation and of course there are aspects which involve agriculture. The hon. member would do well to prepare himself better when he wants to make a speech here.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen who is making representations on behalf of his party asks that the farmers not be subjected to, as he put it here, the tender mercies and the whims of inspectors. On behalf of the very responsible officials who are inspectors I take the strongest exception to his describing them as people who have whims and that other people are subjected to their tender mercies. This is casting a reflection, and on behalf of the officials serving in my department I take the strongest exception to it. What is more, I take exception to the fact that he thinks that the farmers of South Africa are as insensitive, when it is a matter of the death and sickness of a person, as he wants them to be. What his statement here in fact amounts to is that the farmers of South Africa are such insensitive people that they do not give two pins for health and death. That is the point at issue, i.e. an incident, and listen what kind of incident is involved—

However, the hon. member says …

Read further. [Interjections.]

Sir, I request protection: I must complete my speech.

Order!

After all, the hon. member has had a chance to speak. I should be obliged if he would be quiet now so that I can say what I have to.

The hon. member adopts a standpoint here implying that the farmers of South Africa are a lot of insensitive people. I say that the farmers of South Africa rejects with contempt the insinuation which the hon. member has made here. [Interjections.] That is not how we know the farmers of South Africa. There are a great many farmers sitting here; you would do well to ask them whether they will accept that reflection which that hon. member has cast on our farmers.

The farmers will deal with you. [Interjections.]

On behalf of which the farmers are the hon. members of the CP speaking? The CP does not speak on behalf of the farmers of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member really should not think that the CP speaks on behalf of the farmers of South Africa; if he thinks that, he is making a very big mistake. There may be the odd farmer in the Bushveld who sides with the hon. member. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I think I have spent enough time on those hon. members; I do not intend taking any further notice of them.

I thank the hon. member Dr. Marais most sincerely for his contribution. Hon. members who listened to him will know that he made a very skilful speech and covered the subject very thoroughly. He raised the point that we are trying to provide maximum protection. That is true. We cannot provide absolute protection by way of legislation alone. We can only do out best to draft legislation in such a way that it affords maximum protection. I think that in his remarks the hon. member provided a good summary of the situation.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Durban North for his support of the legislation. As far as he is concerned I do not think there is anything that requires a specific reply.

†I should like to associate myself with the remarks made about the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The hon. member for Johannesburg North made a positive contribution today, and I hope that his political career in this House will be a very successful one. [Interjections.] He spoke, today, with confidence, and I wish him every success. [Interjections.]

*This brings me to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North. He also spoke in very friendly terms about the whole series of legislation and I should like to thank him most sincerely for doing so. He spoke about the scope of application of this legislation. It is true that the legislation covers a far wider field than in the past. As development takes place in South Africa we shall of course at all times, when we have to consider legislation of this nature, consider whether the scope of application is as wide as we wish it to be. This legislation is intended to cover a wider field than the previous piece of legislation which is now being partially superseded. The hon. member made the point that the employee himself will now be involved, and he calls this a “partnership”. That is the intention. The hon. member summed the matter up in a nutshell. We must create a partnership and confidence between employer and employee concerning safety on the factory floor. We are coming forward with this piece of legislation in good time before being criticized for being tardy in this respect. I think that this piece of legislation puts us very far ahead. We are anticipating the situation of the future and we think that we are making provision for it in this way. Accordingly I am of the opinion that this remark was an appropriate one and I am very grateful for it.

The hon. member also expressed criticism concerning the definitions of “article”, “employment” and “employed”. After very lengthy discussions with the lawyers—and he, too, is a lawyer—who drafted the legislation, I think that this is the best we can do. Just take, for example, the one word “article”. What the hon. member’s argument amounts to is that one cannot define an article by way of the word “article” or “part of an article”. Apparently this troubles him somewhat. The fact of the matter is that one can often have a very large machine which is not in itself dangerous. By adding something to the machine, in other words, when an apparatus is appended to the machine, one can cause danger to arise. That is only one example. How else is one to say it? However, I am very grateful for his very positive contribution.

I have also dealt with the remarks of the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, and I think that the hon. member for Mooi River has also been provided with answers to his questions in that regard, because in certain respects he made more or less the same remarks as did the hon. member Mr. Theunissen.

†The hon. member for Mooi River remarked about new regulations that should be appliable to existing equipment and machinery. At this stage only existing regulations will be enforced.

*In my opinion this legislation that we are dealing with today is a very important milestone. It is important particularly because South Africa, with its rapid development as an industrial country, cannot move rapidly enough to anticipate what will happen. I want to furnish examples of two developments during the past 10 to 15 years that were not there before, but they give an indication of how our industrial world is changing. In earlier times, before we were using nuclear power, this was not a problem, but in the atomic age that we are living in, this is a development that we have to take into account in legislation such as this. Accordingly this is probably not the last time that we shall be coming to this House with this matter. However, on this occasion we have been able to come forward with this legislation with the unanimous support of virtually all those involved, including the agricultural sector. This points to the fact that this legislation is suitable legislation that is supported by everyone in South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to clause 3(h) on page 8 of the Bill and refer him back to what I said in my Second Reading speech, namely that we feel that the hon. the Minister’s powers in terms of paragraph (h) are far too wide.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the Committee is considering the Manpower Training Amendment Bill and not the Labour Relations Amendment Bill.

My apologies, Sir. [Interjections.]

Clause agreed to.

Mr. Chairman … [Interjections.] Sir, I must apologize to you for being so far in advance as regards the Order Paper, but that is a natural tendency of this party. We are well ahead.

I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to paragraph (i) of clause 3, or rather paragraph (h), and point out to him that we believe that his powers in respect of paragraph (h) are too far-ranging. Paragraph (h) gives him the power to call for arbitration or conciliation without consulting the employer or the employee organizations. We believe those powers are too wide. I told the hon. the Minister at the Second Reading why we believe those powers are too wide but I would like to repeat it for his benefit. The hon. the Minister has made facilities available to the unregistered unions to be able to call for conciliation mechanisms in areas which are not covered by industrial councils. That is a tremendous move forward. Employers in those areas are also afforded that facility. At the same time, in terms of clause 3(h) the Minister gives himself the power arbitrarily and unilaterally to stop the collective bargaining process, which is enabling in terms of another part of this clause. We believe that is unfair and improper interference in the collective bargaining process. It is not that the Minister should not have the power to call for conciliation if it is in the national or strategic interest or if he sees that they are reaching deadlock, but we believe he should do it after consulting the parties as contemplated in paragraph (h). I therefore wish to move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to say that we in this party support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North. We feel it is a sound amendment.

The other matter I want to refer to concerns paragraph (h) in terms of which a proviso has been added which begins as follows—

In the Second Reading debate I asked the hon. the Minister to indicate to us what criteria he is going to apply to determine whether a dispute is in the public interest to such an extent that it should be settled without delay.

As far as the rest of clause 3 is concerned, namely that unregistered trade unions may under certain circumstances apply for conciliation, we shall not vote against this because of the very clear explanation the hon. the Minister gave and because of his undertaking that the Manpower Board will reconsider the entire matter of registration and that, if necessary, there will be further improvements in this regard. On the basis of this undertaking the CP will not oppose the rest of clause 3.

Mr. Chairman, that is correct. I did give the undertaking the hon. member who has just resumed his seat mentioned. To tell the truth, we have been considering this for some time now. A very comprehensive investigation is being undertaken into the entire matter of registration. We shall therefore have further opportunity to debate the matter here.

As far as the criteria are concerned, I want to say that it is very difficult to foresee all possible situations that may arise. What are we trying to do? We want to attempt to defuse an explosive situation. We are trying to bring about conciliation and we are trying to do so at a stage where disputes may already be far advanced and at a stage where they could constitute a danger to the country. The question is whether the Minister must try to settle such a matter in this way. All the Minister can do is try, for example, by appointing a conciliation board for a situation that may be dangerous. I want to tell the hon. member that after a long discussion we all foresaw—this also applied to all the bodies involved—that circumstances could arise under which it would be necessary for the Minister to try to do this. The Minister will also come to a decision on the basis of surrounding circumstances and the particulars submitted to him. What can he do now? He can appoint a conciliation board as is being proposed here; he can make use of the services of a mediator or he can try in some or other way to see whether progress cannot be made by means of arbitration. What is he doing in practice? In practice he ascertains where the problem lies and how it can be solved. Then he makes use of one of these alternatives. However, I cannot agree with the two hon. members. I want to tell them that we have the support of all interested parties who have given this thorough consideration. The formal situation is of course that under normal circumstances what we want to do takes place on its own. The machinery for settling disputes comes into operation in any case. It is only under circumstances where no progress is made that the Minister will intervene. I therefore regret to say that I cannot agree with the hon. member. As far as this clause is concerned I believe that I am standing on solid ground, and after very thorough consideration I feel the clause is essential.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members of the House know, section 1 of the Borders of Particular States Extension Act, 1980, provides that the State President may from time to time, by way of proclamation, transfer to particular sovereign and independent States some of the land defined in the Schedules to the Act. Such land which has been transferred then ceases to be a part of the Republic and becomes a part of the State to which it has been transferred.

This Bill which is now before the House is only intended to amend these Schedules by inserting further land definitions, of which I should like to furnish further particulars.

As far as the amendment of the Schedule on land in respect of Bophuthatswana in clause 1 is concerned, the amendment consists mainly of a few corrections. When the borders of Bophuthatswana were determined, and when the Schedule to the Borders of Particular States Extension Act was drawn up in 1980, a few farms were omitted from the Bophuthatswana territory and from the Schedule by mistake. Two of these farms belong to the S.A. Development Trust, another one is already owned by a private Black person, and one belongs to a Black tribe. This oversight is now being corrected in subsections (a), (b) and (c).

Furthermore, negotiations took place before the attainment of independence by Bophuthatswana, and an agreement was entered into with Bophuthatswana, to the effect that a part of the land quota to which it was entitled in the Cape Province would be transferred to the Orange Free State. The land defined in subsection (d) of clause 1 forms part of this quota which has been transferred and already belongs to the S.A. Development Trust.

As far as the amendment of the Schedule on land in respect of Venda is concerned, it was agreed during recent negotiations with Venda that the Senthimula and Kutama area would be transferred to Venda in due course. This area consists mainly of tribal property while the balance belongs to the S.A. Development Trust. As a result of the decision by the Government that the Kutama-Senthimula area will remain a Black area and will therefore be incorporated into the area of jurisdiction of Venda, a corresponding area of trust land—approximately 20 000 ha—in the Bandelierkop and Soekmekaar vicinity will be deproclaimed with a view to settling White people there. This approximately 20 000 ha of trust land was originally destined for eventual incorporation into Venda, and the Department of Co-operation and Development is at present engaged in identifying this 20 000 ha in consultation with organized agriculture. In terms of clause 2, the land concerned is being inserted into the Schedule in order to make such a transfer possible.

When Ciskei became independent, the Government of the Republic entered into an agreement with the Government of Ciskei with regard to land which was to be added to Ciskei in the future with a view to meaningful consolidation. This agreement was published in Government Notice R.961 of 14 May 1982, and in order to give effect to this and to make it possible for the land to be transferred to Ciskei eventually, the relevant land definitions have to be incorporated into the Schedule to the Borders of Particular States Extension Act, 1980. Clause 3 inserts these definitions into the Schedule. Most of the land concerned has already been acquired by the S.A. Development Trust.

Mr. Speaker, on the face of it the Bill before us is a technical measure to amend the Schedules to the principal Act by adding additional land in the Transvaal, the Orange Free State and the Cape to the independent States of Venda, Bophuthatswana and Ciskei, but in fact it is far more than merely a technical measure because it is a further part of the process of fragmentation of South Africa in terms of the ideology of separate development. So it must be seen as yet a further bite of the ideological cake and another instalment in the Government’s flight from reality in an attempt to escape the real challenges of plural society in South Africa. [Interjections.] Most of the major principles involved here were also involved in the original Acts that granted independence to the three independent States concerned, and we are as opposed to those principles now as we were then and will therefore vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. [Interjections.]

What we are doing here is to excise further South African land and to make it over to independent States of the NP Government’s own creation. What we are doing here is unsettling thousands of people at present living under the jurisdiction of the Republican Government and handing over responsibility for them to our satellite independent States. [Interjections.] Where we are not doing that, we are in pursuit of impractical ideology, paying out hundreds of thousands of rand—–taxpayers’ money—by way of compensation. Let me ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: How much is involved in terms of this particular Bill? Could he tell us—and also tell the country—what the cost to the taxpayer will be in giving effect to this Bill? I think this is information to which we are entitled. [Interjections.] There is compensation being paid, and what I want to know is how much the country is paying for the joy of putting this Bill on the Statute Book and handing over more land to the independent States. There is land involved and there are people involved, White people, Coloured people and Black people who are being affected by this Bill. Will the hon. the Minister also please tell us when we can expect the next instalment, because where does the process end? It may be argued that from our point of view—given the fact that we are opposed to independent States—we should at this stage recognize the de facto situation and now try to improve the situation of those independent States. That is indeed an argument that may be used.

You are very wise.

I see the hon. the Deputy Minister nodding his head, but is the addition of more land going to make all that much difference? Is it going to increase the viability of those States to any great extent? Basically each of the States concerned is an economic dependency of South Africa, Venda and Ciskei to a very considerable extent and Bophuthatswana to a lesser extent. Land consolidation and addition may improve administrative viability, but it is not going to make any great difference to the economic and political viability of the States concerned. We are essentially part of the same economy. When one looks at the Southern African region, when one looks at the Republic and the independent States, one sees that we are all part of the same economy, and the mere transfer of land from one geographic part of that economy to another is not likely to make any positive contribution to the economy of the region as a whole. In fact, in present circumstances the reverse may well be the case, because what is productive land today may not be productive land tomorrow. My colleagues who will take part in this debate will be elaborating on that aspect later. That apart, however, how satisfied—and the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us this too—are the leaders of the States involved in this Bill with what is being offered them, or for that matter with the independence package generally? [Interjections.] What will it achieve in that regard? I ask this question because the demand for land will be an on-going process. That is the inevitable result of the ideology of this Government. [Interjections.] It is fundamental to Government thinking …

No, it’s just a fact of life.

… on the whole question of the future of the Blacks that land is coupled with political rights and privileges. That is fundamental to the whole concept of separate development, because they tell the Black people that if they want political rights, if they want their aspirations to be met, that must happen in their own areas. We have to realize, however, that for as long as the present dispensation for Blacks remains, there will be more and more demands by the Black majority, even those— or perhaps one should say particularly those—working within the system, for more land to be given them on the basis of their numbers alone. It is a process that has its beginning in the ideology of the NP, and it will continue for as long as that ideology dominates Government policy in this country. [Interjections.] I can understand the fact that Black leaders equate land with population strength and political power, but we on these benches are not prepared to lend ourselves to this continuing process by supporting this Bill.

There are other matters, too, which are relevant to this Bill. There is the question the Minister has not dealt with of the land owned by Coloured people in the Stockenström area, which is referred to in this Bill. This is agricultural land and we are dealing here with farmers who belong to the Coloured group. We should like to know what their future is. Are they to be merely incorporated in Ciskei, are they to be compensated, or are they to be offered other agricultural land and, if so, where will they be offered such land?

In Natal.

One wonders what consultation has taken place with the people concerned and what their wishes are in this connection. The Government is presently riding on a cloud of euphoria because a section of the Coloured community has indicated qualified support for its new constitutional guidelines on the basis that they may have a greater say in respect of their own affairs and the affairs of the country. However, what I want to know is: What about the Coloured farmers of Stockenström? Have they been consulted and, if so, what is their attitude? Have their interests been protected? These are questions the hon. the Deputy Minister must answer and which he has not dealt with in his speech.

One wonders what the effect of a Bill such as this will be if and when the new constitutional dispensation comes into operation. Presumably a Bill of this nature will have to be passed by the three chambers. Certainly, in the present set-up it will receive the support of the White chamber. I wonder, however, whether it will receive the support of the Coloured chamber and, if not, which view will then prevail. These are interesting questions which may well be topical issues when the new dispensation is in operation.

Those are some of the questions that come to mind, but in general terms I want to reiterate that we are opposed to the Bill because we consider it unnecessary in the interests of South Africa, because it is a further manifestation of the fragmentation policy of the Government, and also because it disregards the rights and feelings of individuals. The Minister has come with this Bill and will most certainly come with further Bills of this sort in the future, and one wonders what all this will achieve for South Africa in the end. There is little indeed to show that the existing independent States see their status at the present time as a final answer to their aspirations. Their own people, who perforce have to work in the Republic, still regard themselves as part and parcel of the Republic of South Africa and are in no way satisfied with the notion that their political aspirations can only be met in the so-called independent States. The recent meeting between President Matanzima and Chief Gatsha Buthelezi to discuss, inter alia, the possible form of a federation between the various independent States and the self-governing States must be seen as dramatic evidence that Blacks in South Africa do not see their present dispensation as being an end to the process of their political aspirations. So, one wonders again what, in the interests of South Africa, the Government really believes it is in fact achieving in the long term by a measure of this kind, a measure which, as I have said, involves the excision of further land from South Africa, which involves the further unsettlement of people and which obviously is a measure involving tremendous cost for the South African taxpayer.

It is all, in our view, the pursuit of an idle dream, and we on these benches are not prepared to be party to it and will vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is before the House arises from previous legislation which has been passed here. It constitutes a correction which has to be made, as the hon. the Deputy Minister put it, and is mainly concerned with three areas. The first of those areas—I begin in the north—is near Venda and is dealt with in clause 2, the second is near Bophuthatswana and is dealt with in clause 1 and the third is near Ciskei and is dealt with in clause 3.

This whole matter concerns a standpoint which has been adopted in this House over the years. That standpoint has of course been opposed by certain individuals. It concerns the development of the Black states to a status of self-government and full independence within their own territory. This Bill gives effect to investigations that have been conducted, consolidation proposals that have been submitted to the Government and announcements made from time to time by the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. Ministers. Even more important is the fact that these steps are being taken with the full knowledge and co-operation of the people involved. The Government has created machinery for consulting with those people from time to time—and the Government is doing so—to discuss the details of the finalization of consolidation and the creation of independent states. Since the Government has done this with the co-operation and consent of the Black people, I cannot accept the standpoint adopted by the official Opposition, in terms of which they refuse to accept it and are going to vote against the legislation. What is the effect of this? The fact that the official Opposition is going to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill means that they are in favour of giving the Black people less land and that they want to make them less independent. If this is not the case, they should vote in favour of the Bill.

The question which occurs to one—it is a question which every Black person and every voter of South Africa must ask himself—is whether, by adopting the standpoint it has adopted today, in terms of which it is essentially in favour of the Black people having less land and of the independent states being made less viable in this way, the Official Opposition has acted correctly.

The official Opposition wants to weaken the Black states economically as well.

Yes, to weaken them economically as well. One asks oneself: With whom does the PFP communicate? They advance an argument which has been repeated over the years, i.e. that they do not accept the attainment of independence by the Black states. Whom do they consult? Do they consult the national leaders or the Black people living in tnose areas, or do they consult certain individual Black people in White areas who oppose it on the basis of ideological beliefs? This is a question we must ask ourselves. The PFP opposes us on the grounds that we have a political and ideological reason for creating Black states, but they act on the advice of certain Black leaders in White areas who adopt ideological standpoints. Then they exonerate themselves by saying that they do not argue on ideological grounds.

Are you talking about the Minister now?

No, I am talking about you.

Quite a number of arguments have been advanced up to now. The hon. member says it is a technical Bill. That is quite correct. He says, however, that our greatest problems are to be found in the fact that we must solve South Africa’s problems in a “plural society of South Africa”. The Government has been saying over the years that its standpoint is that the Black states must become independent and that the political rights of Black people should be accommodated in that way. This Bill gives effect to that. The NP and the Government will not deviate from that standpoint so as to make the Black states less independent or less viable at this stage and to weaken their economic position.

No matter what Chris’s committee says?

It is very interesting that the hon. member for Bryanston should refer to another constitutional committee which has been appointed to investigate the position of Black people in White areas who are not yet fully accommodated at this stage. Was that committee appointed to inquire into the independence of Black states? Can he honestly and truthfully say that this committee was appointed to …

It is a question of the 1936 proposals. The Government must give effect to those proposals.

But what about the Black people living in Black areas? What is that member’s solution for the Black people living in Black areas? What about the geographical areas involved? I am asking the hon. member.

Within South Africa …

What are they going to do with those people? If that hon. member’s party came into power, what would their standpoint be in respect of the Black people living in the Black States that have become independent?

In the independent Black States?

In the independent and self-governing Black States.

There is nothing we can do about that.

The hon. member says there is nothing they can do about that. By means of this legislation, the Government is creating more viable States for those people. But those hon. members are voting against it.

We are talking about the South African citizens who are being alienated in this way.

Order! I cannot allow dialogues across the floor of the House.

Thank you very much for the guidance, Mr. Speaker. I would have liked to continue the dialogue, because I feel that I am winning.

There are a few other points I wish to mention, points to which the hon. member also referred. He asked how much money was involved in this, and how much land. He also asked how many people were involved. We know, and the Government has said, that the creation of independent States is going to require money and land, but the land was promised as far back as 1936. However, the PFP is not prepared to transfer to those people the land acquired in terms of the 1936 Act. If they do not support this legislation, therefore, they are not prepared to keep a promise which was made in 1936. They are breaking a promise of 1936 if they are opposed to this legislation. No other land than that promised in 1936 is involved. I think they will have to answer for their standpoint.

Another matter which is relevant here is the fact that they talk about the people involved. Over the years, that party has made a great fuss about people who have had to be removed in the process of consolidation. What is the hon. the Deputy Minister trying to do here? In respect of Kutama and Senthimula he is going to give effect to a decision taken by the Government, i.e. the decision that it should be consolidated and that White people should be settled there. After consultation, the Government has now decided that it is no longer necessary to transfer that area and that the Elim-Bandolierskop-Soekmekaar area, which had been offered as compensatory land, will no longer be made available for Black occupation, but that Whites will be settled there. So the PFP’s argument in respect of the removal is not logical either. For that reason I ask: Why are they opposing this specific legislation? The only conclusion one can draw is that they are doing so because they are basically opposed to the creation of independent Black States within South Africa. That is their only reason for doing so.

It is their ideology.

Their ideology is to break a promise to those people that was nade in 1936. However, the sooner they realize that this is the standpoint which the Government has been adopting over the years, that it has the co-operation of the Black people and of the Whites in South Africa, and the sooner they accept this and make an attempt, in the process, to create a South Africa in which the Black States will be economically viable and the Whites will have security, the better.

To come back to the Bill as such, we want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister today on having introduced his first Bill as a Deputy Minister and we want to thank him for having been able to introduce such a Bill. For years he was the chairman of the consolidation committee that dealt with this matter. In this way he has now given effect to it. We gladly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problems with the ideological standpoint of the hon. member for Ventersdorp; on the contrary, I believe that the CP adheres much more strongly to the ideological standpoint that the various peoples in Southern Africa should be accommodated in their own free and sovereign fatherlands than, perhaps, the NP does. Already we see in the standpoint of the NP that they have a different solution in mind for the so-called urban Blacks. The CP says, however, that the political future of all the Black people should like in their own fatherlands.

There the suspicion-mongering is beginning again. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, please allow me to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs on his first handling of legislation in this House. I had to co-operate with his predecessors in this very same field for many years, and I know that the man who handles this portfolio needs the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job to try to satisfy everyone. It is an almost superhuman task. Nonetheless, we wish him every success in his task.

However, Mr. Speaker, I must be forgiven if, on behalf of the CP and on behalf of the farmers of the Northern Transvaal, I am sceptical of every border adjustment between Whites and Blacks in the Northern Transvaal. Why is this so? It is because the whole history of border adjustments in the Northern Transvaal is actually a long and tragic story for the farmers of that region. How many times have the boundaries been moved since 1936? How many times have the White farmers there had to leave their old family farms to go and make a living elsewhere? Indeed, some of those farmers have gone under financially, because their new farming circumstances were different from those they were used to, with the result that they failed. Others still think with nostalgia of the farms on which they were born. Some of those farmers grumbled and protested. However, they complied for the sake of a cause, and because they believed in the policy of separate development. Because they firmly believed in that policy, they were prepared to leave some of the best farms in South Africa so that this policy of the NP at that time could be implemented. The way in which consolidation was handled led to a feeling of dissatisfaction and sometimes even of dejection among the farmers there; farmers who were uprooted time and again and had to start all over again on new farms, in some cases up to three times.

In 1979 it was announced that the 1975 proposals were to be implemented as rapidly as possible. How many of those farmers were actually forced to leave their farms in the process? When the badly situated Black spots had to be removed—and these areas are specifically defined in clause 2 of this Bill—and when other similar areas, including this area, had to be cleared, nothing came of the removal of the so-called badly situated Black areas. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development shrank from honouring his obligations to the farmers of the Northern Transvaal and the 1975 proposals were completely erased, as it were, and indeed we find the situation that both the compensatory land that had been purchased, and the land on which White people were to have been settled, but which was still being occupied by Black people, were withdrawn from agriculture. This is a situation which continued for many years, a situation which is still continuing—that that land is being occupied and the other land is being neglected. I think it is absolutely disgraceful. I have photographs here of farms that have suffered neglect in this way, and when one looks at the ruined buildings standing there, it reminds one of the scorched-earth policy of the British Government during the Anglo-Boer War. These farms have gone to rack and ruin.

When we examine the events which led up to this legislation, the situation is as follows: In March 1981 the previous Deputy Minister of Development, the present hon. Minister of Agriculture, wrote to me about this matter. He said—

This area is situated near the area referred to in the legislation—

The farmers were led to expect that these areas would be reserved for White occupation. What is the situation, however? As far back as April 1981 the Government decided that these areas would no longer be cleared. However, the farming community was not informed of this. I have here a message which was sent to the Chief Minister of Lebowa. It was sent on 13 April 1982, informing him that those areas which his subjects did not want to leave would no longer be cleared. As proof of the fact that the farming community was not even aware of this, I have here a memorandum drawn up by a farming association in May 1982, in which they still plead for the removal of these areas. Just listen to the arguments. Surely these are valid arguments. They say—

In fact, a whole portion of an independent foreign country is being left in an area surrounded by White South Africa where White people should have settled. Secondly, they say—

Thirdly they say—

Fourthly they say that it is traversed by roads, and this particular area which is described in clause 2, and which is now to become a part of an independent State, is traversed by a connecting road, a tarred road from Vivo to Louis Trichardt, for about 14 km. They go on to say—

In none of the cases was anything done, however. Finally, they say—

This is a memorandum sent to the department by the farming association in May 1982. Round about that time they found out that that land was no longer going to be turned into a White area and in July 1982 the Pietersburg district agricultural union wrote to the Minister of Defence because they regarded this as an important defence aspect. They said—

This is the considered standpoint of the farmers of the Northern Transvaal, as contained in this memorandum.

I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how many Black areas have in fact been removed from White territory, as promised by the Government, since the commencement of these negotiations. The locations of Dikgale, that Sekgops area, which were to have been removed by the end of 1981, still remain. The then Deputy Minister said that they had to be renoved before the end of that year. As far as I know, Sekgops remains exactly where it was. There is the Matoks-Ramagoep area. There is Palmietfontein with the Malitzi location. Then there is the area referred to in clause 2, the Katuma-Senthimula area, which is now going to be incorporated into the territory of Venda.

Surely one cannot blame the farmers if they are suspicious about this kind of approach to consolidation, because they were told at Pietersburg in 1979 that the 1936 Act was not a sacred cow.

Nothing is sacred any more, in any case.

Especially not you.

The farmers were disconcerted at being told that the 1936 legislation was no longer a sacred cow, because it increased their sense of insecurity. That is why they want to know whether the 1936 quota has not already been exceeded, for if the hon. the Deputy Minister says this afternoon that that quota has already been exceeded, we shall have to vote against the Bill for different reasons, since it is the standpoint of the CP that we should keep to the 1936 undertaking towards the Black peoples. If we deviate from it, there will be nothing else we can lay down as a norm in order to draw a line again.

Where were you when the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the new consolidation plans?

The farmers also want to know whether the compensatory land referred to in clause 2 will be acquired and will be returned to the farmers. We were satisfied this afternoon when the hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out that that 20 000 ha would be returned.

In principle, therefore, we are opposed to clause 2, because it still leaves Venda in two separate territories, while it could otherwise been consolidated into one territory. It creates a precedent for the other self-governing States such as Lebowa also to refuse to vacate any territory. This would mean, therefore, that Lebowa would eventually consist of ten separate areas. That principle of 1975 in respect of consolidation was accepted by this House. However, the Government has deviated from it. It is true that it has given its reasons, but we are opposed in principle to any deviation from the 1936 legislation and to the continued existence of separate areas where they could very easily be consolidated as in this case by the legislation concerned.

Mr. Speaker, in reaction to the speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg, I want to confine myself to clause 2. In this regard he has expressed concern about the feelings of the farmers who are upset about lines being cut and borders being drawn; farmers have to leave their land and make sacrifices. Farmers make many sacrifices in our country, and not only in respect of borders and border adjustments with other States. If the hon. member for Pietersburg had covered a slightly wider field so as to include other development areas in his discussion, he would have realized that farmers make as many sacrifices in respect of the development of power stations, the building of dams and the building of other structures which our country needs as badly. [Interjections.] Those farmers are as attached to their land as are the farmers who would have been involved in this matter. Consequently the hon. member should not try to arouse sentiments in this regard. [Interjections.] Now I want to give the hon. member some advice. [Interjections.]_After all, the hon. member for Lichtenburg is at present carrying the torch for the gentlemen over there, those hon. members of the CP. [Interjections.] In including his speech, the hon. member for Pietersburg raised two matters on the basis of which they are unable to support this legislation. One is that there is a departure from the 1936 quota.

If there is a departure.

Very well, if there is a departure. The second matter is the detached fragments comprising a State such as this. Now, however, I should like to refer hon. members to a speech made by the hon. member for Lichtenburg when he was Deputy Minister of Bantu Development on this side of the House during the discussion of the Status of Bophuthatswana Bill in 1977. He was replying to criticism raised by the then official Opposition, and they should now go and tell this to the farmers. They should give the farmers in that area this speech to indicate what the hon. member for Lichtenburg said about Bophuthatswana. The criticism was that Bophuthatswana, too, would consist of fragments. The criticism of the official Opposition was identical to the criticism which they are now expressing in connection with the ten detached fragments of Lebowa and the two detached fragments of Venda. [Interjections.] The theme of the hon. member for Lichtenburg at that time was that the larger the number of fragments comprising such an independent country, the more of the infrastructure of the Republic of South Africa it would have at its disposal for providing it with services and the greater the prosperity and economic development would be which awaited that country. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rissik must just give me a chance to complete my speech. Interjections.] On a later occasion he and I will talk to one another again. I have many things to tell him.

I have many things to tell you too.

In the first instance that man denies that he is a dyed-in-the-wool UP supporter (“Bloedsap”). [Interjections.] He denies that he is a “Bloedsap”, but does he think that all the students who were first-year students with him at college have died? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must please confine himself to the Bill.

But I should also bear testimony to the truth in this House. [Interjections.] Now I come back to the speech of the hon. member for Lichtenburg. [Interjections.] I refer hon. members to Hansard, Volume 69, of Thursday, 26 May 1977, col. 8521, and I refer them to the following words of the then Deputy Minister—

He was referring to the fragments comprising a country such as this—

He went on to draw a comparison with the Protectorates, etc., and came to the two most fragmented countries, viz. kwaZulu and Bophuthatswana. They were the countries showing the highest rate of development. I quote further—

Does the hon. member for Pietersburg not remember these discussions? Was he not a member of this House?

They are not relevant in this particular case.

Of course they are relevant. He told this House that there was a connecting road which would run through this area.

Yes, and he was angry about it.

Yes, he was angry about it. From Vivo the road continues for approximately another 14 km. However, how long is the road between 10 fragments?

Surely this is a badly situated area.

The argument advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister at the time was, firstly, that this was so because South Africa’s infrastructure was made available to them over a wider area. The hon. member for Edenvale asked how America would ever cross a hostile territory to get to Alaska and in reply to that the hon. the Deputy Minister of that time advanced the following argument—

Attention was drawn to a series of advantages if these countries could retain contact with us in this way. Now the hon. members of the CP make a complete about-face in respect of what one of their leaders offered as a policy at that time. The development and advantages pointed out by him are not false. The people concerned do have the benefit thereof.

The Venda people living in those two areas which will be retained as regulated by this Bill, viz. the areas at Kutama and at Senthimula, number 30 000. They form part of Venda and, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, the matter had been cleared with the Government of Venda. There were consultations with the White farmers and with organised agriculture. The hon. the Minister of Manpower announced this last year. The compensatory land will be taken back. This is an arrangement which will cause us fewer points of friction. I think it is an arrangement which does the Government and the hon. the Minister credit. I am pleased to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down will excuse me if I do not follow on his argument with the “Bloedsappe” to my right here. They are busy tracing one another’s forbears to find out who were “Bloedsappe” in the previous generation. [Interjections.]

I should like, on behalf of this party, to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the occasion of the introduction of his first legislation in the House. Perhaps a change is already noticeable as a result of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s very deep and intense knowledge of consolidation matters throughout the Republic. Certainly, he is no stranger at all to all the problems that go with it, both on the part of landowners as well as in respect of the terrible removals he will now have to deal with. The first foot in the door, as it were, of a change in attitude towards the question of removals is evidenced in the clause of this Bill which deals with the portion which was to have involved the removal of approximately 30 000 people.

I should like to say that this party welcomes that change of direction. We hope that in fact we can contribute to the further discussion on possibilities elsewhere in order to minimize damaging effects within the context of the direction in which the Government is moving. I think it is true to say that the new constitutional proposals of the Government and the whole change of direction are going to generate their own momentum and their own dynamic. There are situations and attitudes which will develop as things move along. It is quite true to say that consolidation proposals and the situation that has developed—started some 20 years ago— are doing the same thing. Therefore it is absolutely essential to keep reviewing methods and approaches and wherever possible improving them in respect of the current situation in the country and the new constitutional approaches.

I think the background to the situation is one which of course is terribly important, but really the consolidation policy of the Government is one which puts one in an enormous dilemma. It is rather like getting something caught in a mangle. One cannot turn it backwards because the whole works sticks. One can only turn it forward to try to get it out the other side.

Let us look at the situation in practice in regard to the proposals regarding most of the land in the Bill. Nearly all of it has already been bought. It is in the hands of the South African Development Trust or it is in the process—in respect of one area in the Ciskei—of being revalued or purchased. Under those circumstances the ground in the Ciskei forms part of a basis of an international agreement with the Ciskei as an independent State. To move that South Africa breaks an international agreement by going back on its word to fulfil its promise to hand over this ground is a situation which I believe requires a great deal of consideration and soul searching about what in fact has happened since then. The situation of the people who occupy those parts currently can once again be seen in a mangle context. The people cannot really farm adequately and the ground is already known by the inhabitants of the Ciskeian State as being theirs. Their neighbours who bound them are expecting its inclusion. The incidence of stock theft, management and all the developments that go with consolidation when one is waiting in the wings for something to be taken over, are upon these farmers. A decision not to include this land is virtually saying to those farmers: “You can stay where you are; you are in an awful lot of trouble, but on the basis of a previous standpoint taken in the House we have to stick by principle.”

I am very glad the hon. the Prime Minister is in the House today. On the basis of the hon. the Prime Minister’s promise that nobody involved in consolidation would be the worse off I would suggest that the hon. the Prime Minister made a very unwise statement in that regard because those words to those farmers today ring hollow and farcical and are not worth anything at all. The farming situation of those people is becoming absolutely untenable and their lives are becoming impossible. The decision not to include this ground serves no purpose either for the Ciskei or for the current landowners on the ground itself.

The situation regarding usage of land in the country is one which I would like to bring up since it touches very much upon this particular Bill. If one looks at the statistics concerning land usage one finds that the available cultivatable ground per person in 1960 in the White areas in South Africa was 0,56 ha per person. By 1965 it had dwindled to 0,51 ha. By 1976 it had dwindled to 0,42 ha. The total available agricultural ground, including grazing and plantations, per person, was 5,36 ha in 1960 and 4,47 ha in 1965. In 1976 there was already an enormous reduction to 3,57 ha and the expectation is that in the year 2000 there will be 2,4 ha per person of the population and that in the year 2020 only 1,5 ha per person. It is on that basis that this ground, which we in this House already know, has been promised to Ciskei and will go to Ciskei. It is the concern of this party that some information should be available to this House as to the usage of that ground. Looking at the figures which I have just mentioned and looking at the situation in Ciskei and their inability to utilize the ground that they already have—and I am sure that this applies to other homelands as well—it is so essential that with the acquisition of prime farming land for consolidation purposes it must be realized that this offers a unique and final opportunity to establish stable borders between Ciskei and the Republic of South Africa by settling suitably trained Ciskeians on a freehold or leasehold basis on these borders. Such a move would bring about a situation in which farmer would border on farmer, creating tenable situations for agricultural co-operation and mutual understanding of one another’s problems. Under those circumstances individual farmers, farmers’ associations and organized agriculture would play a meaningful role in assisting to establish a free-enterprise land tenure system with all its benefits within Ciskei. I must say that we in these benches are terribly worried about the situation that there is very little progress—I believe there is some in Bophuthatswana—towards introducing the concept of freehold land tenure and getting people involved in food production, which, as I have shown by my figures, is going to become a vital aspect in the years to come.

The alternative to what I have suggested is a Republican farmer adjacent to vast numbers of communal farmers and this offers no opportunity for real co-operation within a single value system. In fact, the reverse situation would pertain, resulting in the inevitable comparison of lifestyles, which must lead to conflict. We believe that this opportunity is one that must be looked at now in all earnestness. The agreements between Ciskei and the Republic of South Africa must not just be words on paper. These must function and this ground must be used for proper production in the manner which I have indicated. This will contribute to stabilization during the process of transition from the Republic to Ciskei.

I should also like to mention that the non-removal of people of Venda from the area concerned is also a matter which we should like to touch on in connection with this particular legislation. No doubt we shall have the opportunity to discuss and debate this matter further. There are certain geographic areas in the Republic that are under a tremendous burden of population and should be totally relieved of their inhabitants for socio-economic and ecological reasons. But these people should not be removed for ideological reasons. In other cases the relieving of the pressure of the population by relocation of large numbers of desperately overcrowded people to the ground already acquired at great cost could lead to a situation in which the remaining inhabitants of the so-called Black spots could be established in a viable community on economic farming units. Once again, these communities could be assisted, encouraged and motivated by neighbouring White farmers and their organizations. Within a confederal system as envisaged by this party the removal of people would be confined to the improvement of their lifestyle and the pursuance of the creation of land-ownership, and the relief of the squatter situation would be to the benefit of all concerned. We are not to be found for the senseless uprooting and removal of people for ideological reasons. Past history and political policies have created circumstances in which it has become impossible for the inhabitants of the Black spots to compete in the economic system into which they are locked and of which they have become a part. However, the blind following of the NP dogma and the ruthless removal of people without consideration for their future, particularly in regard to the relationship of the border corridors with their neighbours, will lead to renewed long-term acrimony between people. The prime consideration must be to discover a formula for living together. We believe that the new trend regarding removals is one that must be looked at very carefully indeed. We also believe that there are far better ways of doing this sort of thing. There are certainly great possibilities in regard to the introduction of land reform in those areas. This is one of the matters we hope will be taken up by the Cabinet committee as well because if in fact those areas are still under South African jurisdiction they will form part of the land that is available to Black South Africans to enable them to become entrepreneurs and land owners within our value system as opposed to the value system of the other States.

It is impossible to change horses in midstream. As far as the NRP is concerned, the acquisition of this ground will have to be proceeded with for the reasons I have stated. I want at the same time to indicate to the hon. the Prime Minister that the announcement that consolidation will be completed within a period of four years has not been greeted with great joy by farmers in our area. In actual fact, a far shorter period should have been envisaged and we hope that with the improvement of the economy that period will in fact be shortened.

With those few remarks I want to conclude by saying that this party will be supporting this legislation. I want to express the hope that the points I have made will not fall on deaf ears. I hope too that the hon. the Deputy Minister will try to find new methods, of handling newly formed boundaries and will also change his party’s attitude towards removals.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister most sincerely on his promotion and on his handling of this legislation. We who served on the commission with him know how hard he worked and the amount of work he did in the interests of the Black people in South Africa. I also want to express my thanks to the hon. member for King William’s Town for his party’s support for this legislation. The hon. member mentioned a few problems which he wanted to bring to the attention of the House. No one has become more aware of the problems in South Africa than the members of the commission charged by the hon. the Prime Minister and the Cabinet with negotiating with people from time to time and with holding discussions with them in an attempt to see that justice is done in the best interests of everyone. The hon. member for King William’s Town said that they would vote for consolidation or the movement of people if that meant an improvement in the standard of living of those people. I think this is in fact what we are aiming for and that what is taking place in South Africa is for that purpose. If one also bears in mind objectives of the hon. the Prime Minister and of the Cabinet in respect of regional development and decentralization in South Africa, then one realizes that they are in fact aimed at improving the standard of living of everyone in South Africa.

The hon. member for Berea asked whether consolidation would be economically beneficial for people in South Africa. He also wanted to know whether the independent Black States would point out any benefits they had already gained from the policy in terms of which they voluntarily accepted their sovereign independence. We are entitled to ask whether the PFP has acted in the interests of the Black people, or whether it is in fact the NP Government that is acting in the best interests of the Black people in South Africa. At the moment we are going through a very important era with regard to Black affairs. No previous Government tackled the problems involving Black people in the same way as the present Government is willing to do. Meanwhile the methods of the PFP amount to boycotts, whereas the CP is practising nothing but ostrich politics. [Interjections.]

This Government is willing to face up to the problems confronting South Africa. That is also why the Goverment has set a high priority on, for example, the enlargement of the commission so that contact with the leaders, the discussions being held, can assist in identifying existing problems and the magnitude of those problems, and in seeking solutions to those problems.

Another important event is of course the announcement of the appointment of the Cabinet Committee, which will be of further assistance in the search for solutions, and which will also, in consultation with the Black leaders, place these problems under the magnifying glass. The central Government acknowledges the economic interdependence of all the States in Southern Africa. That is why the Government also went out of its way, as I have already mentioned, to maintain and to promote a policy of regional development. In the light of this the Government also actively promoted its policy of decentralization, it established the Small Business Corporation, it founded the Development Bank of Southern Africa, it started the corporations for economic development, it established the mining corporation, and it also established various national development corporations. All these measures were in fact taken to improve the standard of living of all the people in South Africa, including the Black people. The policy of the NP Government has led to the leaders among the Black people being identified. They have gained their positions of leadership in a democratic way. At present they are governing in a responsible, orderly and democratic way.

The territory of the sovereign independent Black States has to a great extent already been identified, and those Black leaders speak on behalf of their own people. In addition they have the privilege to consult members of the commission every day and to hold discussions with the Cabinet Committee every day. Consequently there is now more opportunity for consultations than there ever was in the past.

In the independent Black States strong and dedicated heads of state have emerged, leaders who act in the interests of their people. We need only consider the development which has already taken place in the three independent Black States specifically referred to in this legislation. One can also go on to draw a specific comparison between a country which has been independent for five years and a country which has just become independent—I am of course referring to Bophuthatswana and Ciskei—to gain a proper understanding of the problems still being experienced in the latter State. The hon. member for King William’s Town specifically mentioned this.

Bophuthatswana has been independent for five years now; since 6 December 1977. No one can deny that the Tswana people can look back with pride on their first five years of independence. They were five years of freedom and independence, that inspired the Tswana to show initiative and to bring about economic development within their own State. This is an irrefutable fact.

Let us consider development. As far as agricultural development is concerned, Bophuthatswana is the only Black State in Africa that has made such progress that it can export food, in the same way South Africa exports food. This they are able to do, five years after they became independent. One wonders what would have become of this nation if they had not been afforded the opportunity to uplift themselves. As far as commerce and industry is concerned, new industrial growth-points and modern shopping centres have been established. Anyone who wishes can go and take a look at Babalegi, for example. We had an opportunity to visit and we were astounded to see the development that had taken place. An infrastructure has been created in Bophuthatswana, and the tarred roads, the electricity, the water and the posts and telecommunications services are proof of the development that has taken place there. It is there for anyone who wants to see it.

It is interesting to note that in 1977 the South African Government contributed 30% of Bophuthatswana’s budget, whereas this year the figure is less than 6% because they are reaching the position where they can stand on their own feet. One can go and look at the degree of stability, the democracy and the principles of the free market economy which are being promoted and practised there.

Let us consider the capital city of that State, Mmabatho, which is a reflection of what is happening there. If one arrives there by plane, one notices there is heavy air traffic; every day planes are landing there carrying businessmen going there to do business. Five years ago Mmabatho consisted virtually of an hotel and the Parliamentary building, but today there is not only a main post office, but there is also the post office headquarters. This was erected at a cost of R4,6 million. Telephone links have been established and the number of telephone subscribers in the State has increased by 400% by this stage. One can visit an automatic telephone exchange erected there at a cost of R9,4 million. There is also the Police Headquarters erected at a cost of R3,3 million. A magistrate’s court and regional court were erected at a cost of R2,4 million. The erection of the agriculture headquarters cost R4,4 million. There are 120 km pipes and electric cables costing R18 million being used in the city. In the new city there are schools, colleges, factories, landing strips for aircraft, and dams. They are there for all to see.

The general guidelines of Ciskei, Venda and Bophuthatswana have already been drawn, hence the progress. Their Cabinet Ministers are agreed that these steps are positive ones for their various nations. They agree and admit that these steps are to the advantage of their nations.

Their problem area is economic development. We recognize this and say it is a problem we are grappling with—training, job opportunities and housing. We also agree that maximum development of the National States must take place. This is a problem they and we are grappling with together.

As we have come to know the Opposition in the Assembly, we know that they do not have the initiative to undertake these things. They are not original in their thinking. They do not try to develop a better South Africa for all the inhabitants of South Africa. We have come to know them in Parliament as the boycotters, the criticizers who make absolutely no positive contribution. In our search for positive steps in the Republic, we are prepared to endure criticism. I agree with one of the Coloured leaders who said: We say with conviction that the time of protest politics as practised by the Opposition is past. Criticism and boycotts will not solve the problems—they will make them worse. We have here a boycott policy aimed at achieving a unitary State, and this was clear in the debate today. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vryheid must forgive me if I do not react directly to his speech. He must not think I am boycotting him. [Interjections.] My time is limited, and I would like to respond very briefly to an accusation made by the hon. member for Ventersdorp. He accused this side of the House of ducking its responsibilities as far as the 1936 Land Act was concerned. This is not so, however, because what we object to is the fragmentation of South Africa into independent States, and that was never part of the 1936 agreement. [Interjections.]

I should like to amplify one of the objections to this Bill mentioned by the hon. member for Berea. I am referring to the effect this Bill is going to have on the people affected by it. One of the most disturbing features is the effect it is going to have in particular on some 6 000 Coloured people in one of the areas concerned. These are the people of the so-called Kat River settlement situated in the Stockenström district. In terms of the provisions of this Bill, virtually the entire Stockenström district falls in the Ciskei, and that includes the Kat River settlement. This is, however, no ordinary settlement. More than 100 of the Coloured people affected own title to the land. They are farmers, some of them quite considerable land-owners. They own the land in terms of Ordinance 50 of 1828. That goes back a long way. That was when the land was made available to them by the Imperial Government, partly as a reward for services rendered at that time. There are, of course, also Whites who live in the district and who are also destined to lose their land, their homes and their farms. We in these benches are opposed to the displacement of any community, be that community Black, Coloured or White, and our objection to the disruption and displacement of the White and Coloured communities of the affected areas obviously cuts across the colour line.

There is, however, a very important difference between what happens to a White community as opposed to a Coloured community when it comes to having such a community moved in terms of the Government’s consolidation plan. According to an agreement between the Government and the S.A. Agricultural Union there is one absolutely non-negotiable principle that has to be adhered to if farmers are to be prepared to move or co-operate with the Government in this regard. There is an agreement between the Government and the S.A. Agricultural Union to the effect that no White farmer shall be worse off after consolidation that he was before. White fanners are even paid premium rates for their land, the so-called “tranegeld”, which is a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Government to compensate the farmers for the trauma and inconvenience of being forced to move. They are then free to go and buy a new farm of their choice elsewhere in the Republic, and I am all in favour of this. I agree with it and support it fully.

What, however, is the position of the Coloured farmer who is to be placed in such a position? Firstly—I have it on good authority, and the hon. the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that although the White farmers of the Stockenström district have had their farms valued, those of the Coloured farmers have not yet been valued. In fact, there are grave fears in that community that they are simply to be incorporated without compensation. I cannot accept that this is going to be the case, and I therefore call upon the hon. the Deputy Minister to give the members of the community the assurance that their land will be valued in exactly the same way as that of the White farmers, without prejudice or discrimination. I see that the hon. the Deputy Minister is nodding his head, and I am glad to have that assurance.

You know there is a technical problem.

Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will elaborate on that in his reply. More important, what is to happen to these landowners if and when they are bought out? The question I now want to put has significance far beyond the immediate implications for the Kat River settlement. The question is simply this: Will those Coloured farmers, all of whom are citizens of the Republic of South Africa, be able to buy new farms in the Republic when they lose their farms in Stockenström? Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister can give an indication by nodding his head. I repeat: Will they be able to buy new farms in the Republic of South Africa? I see he is nodding his head. So they will be able to do so. Will they be able to do so anywhere, without prejudice…

I did not say “anywhere”. [Interjections.]

Is there then perhaps going to be a Coloured homeland? Interjections.] Anyway, we look forward to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s elucidation on that point. If the Coloured farmers cannot buy land elsewhere, we have here a prime example of the Government’s duplicity with regard to the Coloured people. There is, we are told, no discrimination against Coloureds, but here there appears to be a big question mark hanging over the most fundamental area of all, viz. the ownership of land. White farmers will not only be able to buy land elsewhere in the Republic, but they have the Government’s assurance that, after buying, they will then be in a position to be as well off as they were before.

They have the vote.

Even if we in these benches see our way clear to supporting the excision of these tracts of South African land, we would still find it difficult, if not impossible, to agree in principle to a Bill which will inevitably cause a great deal of suffering and hardship to a large number of people. The Coloured community does not want to move from its ancestral land. It is a stable community with deep roots in that district. It is a peaceful and God-fearing community. They are fearful of what will become of them if they are forced to give up their land, their homes and their jobs. They are fearful of staying on as well because they have been given no assurance that they will be fairly treated by the Government of Ciskei.

In closing, let me quote dominee Murphy Maart of the Dutch Reformed Church there. He has this to say about the proposed moving of this community—

It will mean the end of a community which has battled through thick and thin for 150 years. These are simple folk. They know only one thing, namely that they want to keep that land. It was earned by their forefathers and they want to keep it for their children. How much longer can we continue to ignore the wishes and pleas of people in this way? We are busy building up a legacy of hate, which we and our children are going to have to pay dearly for. I have no doubt of that whatever. For this reason we in these benches will oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

I wish to inform hon. members that I have tendered my resignation as Speaker to the State President with effect from Monday, 14 February 1983. I am taking this step for reasons of health and at the insistence of my physician. However, I shall stay on as a member of Parliament.

I thank this House for the trust it reposed in me by electing me to this high office. I also thank the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, members of the Cabinet, the Leader of the Opposition, the leaders of the other parties and all hon. members for their assistance in performing this difficult task. I also thank the officials of the House of Assembly for their assistance and support. They were always prepared to help.

I wish my successor everything of the best in the performance of his task. May he be richly blessed.