Mr. Speaker, at 16h33 on Friday afternoon, 20 May 1983, the Republic of South Africa experienced one of the most shocking acts of terror in the history of this sub-continent; a bomb attack in one of the busiest streets of its administrative capital, Pretoria. This cowardly act occurred in front of a restaurant and near a horse-racing office at a time when hundreds of people, White and Black, were passing by on their way home after the day’s work.

This attack is a clear example of the influence of PLO training on the methods of the ANC, and follows various announcements by terrorist leaders in our neighbouring states concerning the “year of violence”, as they put it, namely 1983. No self-respecting country like South Africa will permit such acts of terror to be committed in such a cowardly fashion without reacting by taking retaliatory steps. For the sake of interstate discussions with a view to eliminating conflict, South Africa has displayed the utmost self-control. In contrast, some of our neighbouring states, e.g. Angola and Mozambique, have misused this situation by accommodating and even supporting terrorists in their actions against innocent civilians in our territory.

Let me state here and now in the clearest terms that I have no doubt that every South African who is proud of his country and who champions evolutionary change in this country will agree with me when I say that the security forces of South Africa will revenge every drop of blood shed by the innocent—White, Black or Brown—with all the force at its disposal. We are committed to change in an evolutionary fashion and we reject violence, but if necessary we shall take action that corresponds with the action taken against us.

At 07h27 this morning Impala Mark II aircraft of the S.A. Defence Force carried out attacks with rockets and cannon on altogether six targets in the Maputo area. In this retaliatory attack an ANC command post and five other important ANC positions were hit. A missile site of the Mozambique defence force, which was centrally situated and afforded protection to the ANC bases, was effectively neutralized. Among the terrorist bases and targets were the following:

According to a provisional estimate of the damage, the attack on five of the targets was very successful.

I just wish to state clearly at this point that Friday’s attack is regarded as an escalation of the threat to South Africa, and that our action was aimed at terrorism, and not at the loss of innocent human life. This retaliatory action must be seen by the world and our enemies as just an example of what we are capable of doing and what we are prepared to do to protect our territorial integrity and avenge the shedding of innocent blood.

Our enemies must now realize that they are dealing with a country which will not allow itself to be humiliated and that we shall take action against terrorists who seek to destabilize our country and intimidate its people wherever they may be.

Mr. Speaker, please allow me, too, a moment to react to Friday’s events. I have not yet had an opportunity of doing so in this House. The announcement by the hon. the Minister of Defence should be seen and understood in the context of Friday’s horrible events. Accordingly I wish to take this opportunity to convey my sympathy and that of my party to those who suffered there.

†No society can tolerate indiscriminate terror such as we saw on Friday, and we must make our complete opposition to it clear in the most unequivocal terms. At the same time, I am sure, there is a growing concern amongst most South Africans at the recent turn of events.

One senses the options between peaceful and violent change narrowing down dramatically, and there is a very real threat of escalating confrontation, to which the hon. the Minister referred as well. It is the task of our Security Forces and our security system to act effectively and speedily against terror attacks, and to leave the international community in no doubt about our resistance to it.

It is equally our task as politicians and legislators to pursue with as much diligence as possible a dispensation in South Africa and in Southern Africa that will banish and undermine terrorism completely from this region.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the statement that this party issued last Friday with reference to the shocking and profoundly disturbing attack on innocent people in Pretoria. We associate ourselves wholeheartedly with every action of our security forces aimed at taking the necessary vengeance and the necessary retaliatory steps.

On behalf of this side of the House I should like to give our wholehearted support to our Defence Force and to our other security services in South Africa in their efforts to ensure the security of South Africa and all its people and in combating this terrorism that threatens us. We give our wholehearted support in this regard to our Defence Force and to our security forces.

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to associate myself and my party with the condolences expressed by all other parties in connection with the tragic event on Friday.

As far as the announcement by the hon. the Minister of Defence is concerned, I want to repeat that it has our wholehearted and unqualified support. We have no hesitation whatsoever—and I said so earlier today—in saying that acts of terrorism of the nature perpetrated on Friday must be met and dealt with as strongly and as resolutely as possible. Those who believe in using violence to settle political differences must be shown that action of this nature is counterproductive. Any action that can be taken to ensure that this message is very clearly conveyed to those who harbour terrorists and to give them help and assistance in their attacks on South Africa will continue to enjoy the support of this party.

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

At the very beginning of this debate, I should like to extend a very warm word of welcome to the hon. the Minister of Manpower on his return and to congratulate him on his victory in a recent by-election. I should also like to make this plea to him: Please, Mr. Minister, no more challenges.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Let us rather do the challenging—although we get very little response. What is more, if further challenges are issued, they may be taken up again. Meanwhile there is a lot of work to be done; so we are glad that the hon. the Minister is back.

The report on a national minimum wage by the National Manpower Commission was tabled just a few days ago and, together with it, the Government’s White Paper. The debate on a national minimum wage in South Africa has taken place over many years and is likely to continue for a very long time to come. Having studied the report with some care, I believe it is helpful and informative and I think that in the main it may have covered the issue as well as it could possibly have done and has fairly set out the advantages and disadvantages of the introduction of a national minimum wage in South Africa. The PFP finds itself in general agreement with the conclusions reached by the commission.

For the record, and for the information of the hon. the Minister of Finance, who has asked us what has happened to our economic report, I can say that it is alive and well. It was published in 1981 and in it we recognize, and I quote—

I do not think there is any argument in this House that a worker should receive a fair return for his work. The difficulty, of course, is to establish what is a fair return. The ideal at which we aim is one that has to be reached, I believe, by means of the normal collective bargaining system through the industrial councils and wage determinations which actually operate in South Africa right now. It is our view that, as wage determinations, in particular, grow and are extended, the ideal of a basic minimum living standard will be reached. I want to underline especially the negative effect on employment which the introduction of a national minimum wage could have against the background of the present economic climate.

As far as the recommendations are concerned, it is gratifying to note that the Government White Paper supports these, and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he anticipates that legislation to amend the Wage Act of 1957 in relation to these recommendations will be introduced this session. It is particularly important to speed up the implementation of wage determinations and to ensure that these determinations are made timeously and on a regular basis. The formalization of procedures which enable the Wage Board to undertake investigations on its own initiative and the periodic formulation of the general wage position in the country should assist in the maintenance of a livable minimum wage. As I indicated right at the beginning, I am quite sure that we have not heard the last of this debate. It will go on and further work will have to be done by the National Manpower Commission because circumstances are constantly changing.

With regard to those workers who are excluded from basic labour legislation, those who are not protected by law, in particular farm workers and domestic workers, I want to ask the hon. the Minister, if he has the information, to tell us what progress has been made by the commission looking into these categories of workers. Obviously representations have been received from many quarters and many interesting parties. I gather that these are being processed. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister, and I am sure the Committee should like to know, what progress has been made and whether we can expect the conclusion of that initial work in the near future.

The present economic situation has made even more urgent action necessary in this field. The recent farm labour project report does nothing to still the fears of the 1,3 million farm workers, many of whom are totally without protection and have to rely on the goodwill of the farmer concerned. With further hard times ahead for the agricultural sector, as well as for other sectors, it is particularly important to note that farm workers, as well as domestic workers, receive no unemployment insurance benefits should they lose their jobs.

The second matter which I should like to deal with today is unemployment. The rate of unemployment continues to rise and is extremely worrying for all. In the South African context it has implications, not only economic, but social and political as well. Unemployment has bitten deep and hard on the economically active group, Black and White, management and worker. We should never confine the unemployment problem to mere statistics in a national growth plan. Behind these figures are ordinary men and women for whom unemployment has quite terrifying implications. No matter the circumstances under which a person loses a job, it always means a loss of self-confidence and self-worth. It obviously means a battle to keep up payments on rent or housing bonds, it means the tightening of the belt and a loss of opportunity for children. For many it means literally not knowing where the next meal is to come from. Of course for many hundreds and thousands in South Africa it means losing their right to remain in urban areas and being forced back to the homelands.

In South Africa the grim memory of 1976 and the uprising which took place then, led in large measure by numbers of Black youths who were school-leavers facing long term unemployment, brings in its wake serious political and social implications. It does not take a great deal of imagination to realize that unemployment fans the flames of anger and resentment. There is an increasing mass of people with nothing to do, people who are alienated, bewildered and often hungry. What better ingredients for mass demonstrations and for mob action? What better fuel to add to our racial tensions? In other words, large-scale unemployment is a serious problem in any country, but where there exist deeply-felt political grivances and highly unequal distribution of income, the problem is compounded. Unemployment creates desperate men who seek desperate measures to survive. Consequently the price of massive large-scale long-term unemployment is a price South Africa simply cannot afford to pay.

Against this background I believe the Government, and this department in particular, has not devoted enough time and money to job creation. For example, in the budget—perhaps the hon. the Minister of Finance will also give me his attention—for 1983-’84 no special amount has been set aside for this purpose. I wonder, if one looks at the decisions taken in the budget, whether it would not have been a better idea to hold back the repayment of for example the loan levy—I appreciate this is a controversial question—and to invest that money in job creation at this particular time in our economy. I know that this is not alway easy. It is very easy to discuss job creation but it is extremely difficult to do except in the normal process of economic growth. Nevertheless, I do believe that more attention needs to be devoted to this matter.

I believe too that the Unemployment Insurance Board has within its mandate or its conditions the right to make recommendations to the hon. the Minister regarding unemployment. I know that a certain amount of money was allocated to the Urban Foundation, for example, for the creation of certain jobs. I know that money was made available for this purpose. That was some while ago and the amount involved was very small, and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the Unemployment Insurance Board has any other ideas in respect of tackling what the hon. the Minister himself described as a very serious problem facing all of us.

Another area of possible involvement by the Government is the encouragement of a labour intensive economy. In this respect, tax incentives to industrialists to move towards labour intensive investment in urban areas is, I believe, a very high priority. Another change of policy should be the deliberate encouragement of the informal sector. In this regard we can learn a great deal from places like Hong Kong and Taiwan, among others. Instead of breaking down small shacks and stalls that are used to operate one man businesses in a very, very small way, I believe the Government should go out of its way to encourage people to work in this informal sector because it provides a service and thus clearly offers employment, however meagre, to some unemployed person. I believe, therefore, that it makes a contribution in this respect. I feel that it is very often the informal sector where it is most easy to create jobs.

I want to say as a further development that any law that places barriers on anyone to receive or to provide employment should be struck from the statute book. Chief among these are those laws that contradict labour mobility or simply deny labour mobility which is a direct contradiction of the principle of private enterprise.

One of the consequences of unemployment are the severe demands both financial and personal that are made of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and there are a number of questions I wish to put to the hon. the Minister in this connection. The first of these is the long delay experienced by many unemployed persons in receiving payments from the fund. I have received representations from a number of people here in the Western Cape and elsewhere in this connection. There have been letters in the press, comments and press reports all dealing with this matter, and I want to warn the hon. the Minister that there is a considerable amount of anger and disillusionment surrounding the operation of this fund. Many people have been paying into this fund for years and they simply cannot understand why it should have to take months for them to be able to receive benefits. As they point out, this is not charity but something for which they and their employers have been paying over many years. Often the labour offices are a long away from their homes and they spend time and money making repeated visits to these offices only to be told that the money is not available. This may not be regarded as being of serious concern to those who have other resources available. However, for the very poor, for the unskilled, for people who are battling to keep their heads above water the fact that they are not receiving these benefits is something that we just cannot allow to continue. Different excuses have been offered chief of which is that the computer is out of action or that there is a shortage of staff. I would have thought that if there was a shortage of staff, perhaps some of those people lining up to receive unemployment benefits could be employed! The excuses given in this regard are simply not good enough, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will therefore give this Committee some reassurance and in fact some undertaking before the discussion of this Vote is concluded that those who are unemployed and who have been waiting for some time, sometimes months, to receive those benefits are not going to have to wait much longer. In this regard I think hon. members should make an appeal—I certainly do it in the name of myself and of my party—to employers to ensure that employees who lose their jobs are given their blue cards—not the one the hon. the Minister carries—correctly filled in. I understand this is another reason for some of the delays.

I want to know from the hon. the Minister what the latest information is on the Fund and whether any consideration has been given to the improvement of the benefits offered by the fund; in other words, with the demands being made upon the Fund, is there new thinking, new ideas coming forward? Have extensions been made and, if so, how many? Are there any plans for stepping up the contributions by employees and employers?

There was a great deal of money at the disposal of the fund and on investment at the end of 1981. If it were possible for the hon. the Minister to give us an up-date it obviously would be appreciated as well.

A last concern concerning the UIF is the recent decision relating to independent States setting up their own independent funds. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether these funds have actually been set up. Does he have details? After all, there are great numbers—hundreds and thousands—of workers who have to rely on those funds whereas before they could rely on our own Fund. I should like to know whether these funds in Ciskei, Transkei and Venda have actually been set up. Are the systems streamlined enough between this country and those countries to enable those who contribute to the funds to receive the appropriate benefits when they are needed?

It is clear that there are many Black workers who come from these States and who are very dissatisfied with this arrangement particularly when they have to return to these States in order to obtain the benefits. In some instances part of the labour force lives in South Africa and comes to work every day and the other part of the labour force lives across the bridge or river in a foreign country and travels daily to work. Some of them pay into one fund and others into another fund. It is of the utmost importance that all who work in our factories and concerns are equally protected and equally looked after.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us whether he or any member of his department has received any representations or any visits or has conducted any meetings regarding the change over to these separate funds and if so, what the outcome of those meetings was.

The final question is whether some employers have, in fact, been wrongly deducting unemployment insurance contributions from employees who were not registered in the fund because of the change-over; in other words they are not covered by the benefits which began on 1 May 1983. I hear rumours that this has been the case; I am not sure whether this is so. If it is, then obviously they have to repay that. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this is going to happen.

The third and final subject at which I should like to look this afternoon is the whole question of trade unions. According to the 1980 census the membership in 200 registered and 21 unregistered unions is about 1 035 000 and 120 000 respectively. The racial breakdown of union memberhsip is 468 000 Whites, 327 000 Coloureds and Asians and 360 000 Blacks, which makes for about 12,2% unionization of the economically active population. This is very low compared with some of the industrialized economies in other parts of the world: Sweden, 83%; the United Kingdom, 50%; West Germany, 38%; the USA, 20% and Japan, 33%. Clearly, with more unions organizing more and more workers, it would appear that the percentage of workers unionized in South Africa will increase and possibly reach comparable levels by the end of the decade. This is particularly true where Black workers join unions. The race is on to recruit about 5,5 million Black industrial and mineworkers.

We can expect not only growth in trade union membership, but also growth in competition and a struggle between unions. The recent attempt to form a federal control or arrangement is both interesting and advantageous if it would prevent skirmishes between rival unions. Clearly the recession has not increased the bargaining power of workers, and as the recession recedes, we will probably have greater activity. This is particularly relevant in terms of strikes and work stoppages which took place in 1982. According to the statistics I have before me, there were more strikes and work stoppages in 1982 than in any other year in recent South African labour history. There seems to be some contradiction, and I would like the hon. the Minister to confirm whether or not there were 394 strikes last year as compared with 342 in 1981. More significantly, about 141 000 workers took part in strikes, an increase of about 50 000 on 1981. Over 365 000 man-days were lost through strikes and work stoppages. This means that on average 1 000 workers were on strike on each calendar day last year. The average length of strikes and work stoppages also increased slightly. These figures are all the more important and interesting considering the fact that last year marked the begining of the economy’s down-turn, and down-turns usually reduce strike activity.

It is of the utmost importance that both the Government and employers do nothing to aggravate the present delicate relationship with emerging trade unions. This is easier said than done. The whole system in South Africa is such that enormous demands are made on South Africa. Most young Whites spend their school going years at schools that are racially exclusive. They leave school and attend institutions of higher learning which are mainly for one particular group, or they do their national service. When they are about 23 years old, they are suddenly confronted with the problem of relating to lots of fellow-workers who have had an entirely different beginning than they have had. I believe that this makes it almost impossible to maintain labour peace. The same thing happens to Blacks. We are separate for years and years and then slowly but surely we come up against each other and alongside each other in the workplace and we then have to try to understand each other and work things out. From 8 o’clock in the morning until 5 o’clock in the afternoon we work together. From 5 o’clock in the evening to 8 o’clock the next morning we are totally separate. I believe that this represents a very difficult struggle in terms of good labour relations. If we are going to have stability in the labour place, we have a great deal to do in other parts of our society, like schools, residential areas and educational institutions.

It is understandable to ask trade unions to keep out of politics, but as long as they are not given normal political institutions, it is inevitable that trade unions will tend to become involved in matters other than those in the economic sphere.

The last point I want to make, deals with the constant harassment of trade unions by the police, which further bedevils good labour relations. Arbitrary action by the police, by the Government, is difficult to understand. There were 19 unionists in detention in 1981. One of them, Neil Aggett, died in detention; 10 were released without being charged; three had charges against them dropped; four were released and then banned and one was tried and acquitted. Particularly disturbing in respect of labour relationships in the Eastern Cape, is the apparent alliance between the S.A. Police and the Ciskei police. I quote only one instance. Following a strike at the creamery in Queenstown, amongst those allegedly involved in the strike action was a Mr. Vani. After inquiries, no one seemed to know what had happened to him until Gen. Sebe in Ciskei announced that Mr. Vani had been detained there. It is clear that the S.A. Police took this man and handed him over, not on a criminal charge. As a matter of fact, we do not know if any charges were ever preferred against him. However, this action can only give credence to the belief amongst many trade unions that the police are unsympathetic towards them and that there is active co-operation between the various police forces in preventing trade unions from doing their job. It is no good the hon. the Minister of Manpower stating that this has got nothing to do with his department. It has. He, knowing more than anyone about this, should convince his Cabinet colleagues that the labour situation is extremely sensitive and that the police must keep out of the labour field, leaving it to management and workers to use the machinery set up by the State.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to join the hon. member for Pinelands in welcoming back the hon. the Minister of Manpower after his show of strength in the battle of the Bergs. It is true that the majority of the hon. the Minister was not as big as we would have liked it to have been. However, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that he could not have had the odds stacked more heavily against him than they were. There was all the gossip, the drought and the scandalmongering of certain other people. However, we want to tell the hon. the Minister that not even the CP would have liked to see another Minister of Manpower in South Africa.

Before I come to today’s debate, I should like to touch on Friday’s events. I was in Pretoria on Friday, and I shall never forget Friday, 20 May, for three reasons. The first reason was that many of the people who were killed and injured in the explosion, were voters of mine. Some of the Black people who were killed were from Mamelodi, which is also in my constituency. The second reason is that I think that no hon. member who was not there, can imagine what it means for people who were working or returning home from work—I am mentioning this because we are conducting a labour debate today—those innocent people, to be killed or injured. The third reason is that it was my birthday, and a day which should have been a joyful day, was a black day for me. I want to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the relations of those people in my constituency who died or who were injured. I telephoned the Black committee of Mamelodi to express our sympathy to them on behalf of my constituency. They greatly appreciated this. Those people are also shattered. They also feel hurt. They feel bitter. It is a pity that something like this had to happen.

I now want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Pinelands. I think the hon. member made a very positive speech here. Except for the four minutes at the end of his speech the hon. member touched on those matters which are of great concern, to all of us, and I think he did so extremely well.

When the hon. member refers to unemployment, his is not a voice crying in the wilderness. I think everyone in this House is concerned about unemployment. After all, in America alone there are at present between 13 million and 16 million people who are unemployed. That is half the population of this country. America is a far larger country, yet I do not think the American Government is happy about this. What is even worse is that I have been informed that in Europe 25% of all people under the age of 25 who could be economically active are unemployed. That is almost inconceivable, yet it is a fact. But surely one then realizes that this problem is not a problem unique to South Africa. On the contrary, it is a worldwide phenomenon. It is therefore not a matter we can solve in isolation. The hon. member mentioned a few examples of what we could do. We can consider his suggestions.

The hon. member had something to say about farm labourers and domestic servants, but there is something I want to tell the PFP, and that is that the farmers of South Africa are doing everything in their power to keep their Black labourers on their farms so that they are at least able to feed them and give them a roof over their heads. Whether the PFP, the CP or the NP is governing, I do not think any of us want to see someone else out of work. I do not want a hungry neighbour or a neighbour whose children freeze in winter because the breadwinner is unemployed. That is something none of us want to see. In this regard the hon. member is right. We must not be negative about this, but should consider the problem positively. The worker in South Africa, whether he be White, Black or Coloured, is proud of the work he is able to do from day to day. But when he does not have work or cannot work, that pride disappears. Then a feeling of insecurity and of uncertainty takes its place.

At the end of his speech the hon. member discussed the question of labour mobility, in other words that Blacks, Coloureds and Whites should be able to move freely from one place of employment to another. We have debated this matter on numerous occasions. But surely that is when chaos will arise; surely that is where squatting originates. The hon. member has to accept that it is not enjoyable for the policeman, for the Administration Board or for the divisional council, and of course for the Government, to remove people; to take people away from where they are living. But there is after all such a thing as maintaining order, and the Government is responsible for the proper ordering of the co-existence of people here in South Africa. That is why it is not possible to allow uncontrolled labour mobility in South Africa. This is as a result of the composition of our population, historically, and therefore not created by us.

The hon. member brought up the Aggett affair again, which in my opinion was not necessary. I cannot understand him. The hon. member comes to this House and says we live in separation, that from the cradle to the grave the White man lives peacefully among Whites except for eight hours a day when he works with the Blacks and the Coloureds. What does the hon. member want? Does he want us to integrate all schools?

Yes.

Does he want us to integrate all universities?

Yes.

Does he want us to integrate all colleges and technikons?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I am so glad that the hon. member replied with a resounding “yes”. The hon. member should bear in mind that at one time he wrote a letter about Black people who were merely walking through his constituency. Now, however, he says they can even come and live there; they can go to school there as well. No, Sir, we have to draw the line somewhere. We should not be opportunistic and act as it suits us. This side of the House can go along with that hon. member to a considerable extent when it comes to fair labour measures and administration, but when it comes to integration, as that hon. member wants, we cannot follow him. I want to say this: That hon. member’s voters pray that he should never get to the Government side, because then what he is advocating may become a reality. I want to promise the hon. member that we shall keep him and his family White; we shall protect them, and they will also have work.

Mr. Chairman, I now want to come to the debate itself. Since 1979 we have passed reform legislation in this House every year. During those years even the hon. member for Brakpan was part of the process of reform in the labour legislation in South Africa. Now we have entered another phase. The hon. member for Pinelands will agree with me when I say that we have entered a phase of restructuring; a new dispensation in which the labour policy of South Africa has to be restructured.

Order! I am sorry but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise in order to give the hon. member for Roodeplaat the opportunity of continuing with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition for affording me this opportunity.

I believe that we have now reached a stage in which our employers will have to make more adjustments than employees. After all, the employees of South Africa are organized into trade unions. They are therefore used to negotiating. The employers of South Africa are not adequately trained for this. When it comes to negotiations between employers and employees, trade unions and employer organizations, I therefore feel that there should be better training, in the academic field as well. In the academic field, too, our universities and our technikons will have to give attention, for example, to the question as to what is actually the crux of a strike, and what a strike in fact is. Most people think that a strike merely takes place when people sit down or stay at home. They do not realize that there is also a psychological element in a strike. A strike has an epicentre. A strike has to be defused. There is emotion surrounding a strike because it concerns the security of people and their families. For that reason I feel that the time has come for universities that have faculties dealing with labour law also to give their students lectures on the handling of strikes as part of their courses.

The hon. member for Pinelands referred to strikes. He asked whether it was true that there were 934 strikes in 1982 as against 342 strikes in 1981. That is indeed true. Do you know something, Mr. Chairman? I think that we are being rather silly about these statistics of ours.

I also went into this matter. If the hon. member for Pinelands had taken the trouble, he could also have done so. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, what we in South Africa are by this time calling a strike? When 1 000 Black people or 1 000 White people work at a factory, and the guard at the gate sits down and says he is on strike, even if it lasts only an hour, we consider this to be a strike. That is the truth.

That is merely a work stoppage.

Oh yes, the hon. member for Pinelands is very clever, he knows everything about labour law. I also took a look at the statistics in connection with strikes in Canada. Why are the Canadian statistics so much lower than ours, which are so high? I made inquiries about this. In Canada, if a strike lasts less than 10 days, it is not a strike; it is not recorded in the statistics as a strike.

The hon. member for Pinelands has already given a number of lectures in the USA. After all, he has had long discussions with the people there. Can the hon. member for Pinelands tell me what is recorded as a strike in the USA?

No, you tell me.

The hon. member cannot. However, I can tell him. In the USA a strike means that more than six people participate in it, that it lasts longer than one day or one full shift; not an hour or two or three, or merely five people or a gate guard going on strike.

Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest something to the hon. the Minister. I want us to reconsider the definition of a strike so that we do not record a strike every time a man sits down and says he is striking because he stubbed his toe. This sort of thing counts against us. Why do we do it?

However, there is something else I should like to ask the hon. member for Pinelands, Mr. Chairman. Has he noticed how many strikes have taken place recently? During the first three months of 1982 there were 72 so-called strikes in South Africa. During the first three months of 1983 there were only 25 so-called strikes. After all, we now have a recession in the economy, something about which the hon. member for Pinelands has kicked up such a fuss. He warned us that we were going to experience problems. Yet there were only 25 strikes during the first three months of 1983. That is only one-third of the number of strikes during the corresponding period in 1982. What should I conclude from this? I think I have to conclude from this that there is a greater sense of responsibility among our people. The hon. member was right when he said that ±400 000 Black people had joined registered trade unions. That is true. Whereas in 1981 there were only applications for approximately 25 conciliation boards in the whole of South Africa, there were 60 such applications in 1982. What does this tell me? This tells me that the employer organizations or the individual employers and the trade unions, whether they be Black or White, are prepared to talk to each other, because that is what a conciliation board is for. They are prepared to sit down and talk to each other, instead of striking. Strikes decreased from 72 to 25, and the conciliation boards increased from 24 to 60. Surely one measures success by results.

In spite of the fact that we were a little hesitant—let us be frank with one another—regarding the establishment of Black trade unions, there is something that proves to me that we did the right thing, namely that in the field of labour in South Africa we have brought about a stability that other countries can be jealous of.

It is also frequently said that we are not doing enough in connection with training. However, something wonderful has happened. In the past we battled to get White apprentices to enrol, but in 1982 we succeeded in getting 2 530 more White apprentices to enrol than in the previous year. Surely this spells something out to one, namely that the action of the Government in the training of all the people in South Africa—I shall get back to people of colour in a moment—has had positive results. In the field of the industrial training of workers, i.e. the training of truck drivers, tractor drivers and mechanics, farm workers, etc., we trained 77 000 workers in 1981. On the other hand, we trained 143 000 in 1982. In the course of one year therefore double the number of people were trained, a 100% improvement. I must say that I think that with such a labour record the Government also deserves a little credit. The Government is trying to give guidance and create the structure or framework, but the private sector will have to do far more to make maximum use, within that framework, of what the Government has placed at its disposal.

In conclusion, I want to say that I do not believe that we should become emotional in a debate of this nature. I do not believe that we should make personal attacks in a debate like this either. I think that as participants in a labour debate it behoves us to make a contribution with the necessary care, circumspection and responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, apart from what the hon. member for Roodeplaat said about the question of Black trade unions, there is not actually very much one can argue or disagree with him about. I want to tell him that the CP associates itself with what he said about the act of terrorism committed on Friday, 20 May.

The hon. member apparently anticipated the fact that we would be criticizing the Minister about certain matters. He must simply accept the fact that we shall be doing so. Sir, I should like to request the privilege of the second half-hour.

The CP seriously considered proposing a decrease in the hon. the Minister’s salary, but after his impulsive blunder on 8 February 1983, his unflattering loss of prestige during the by-election campaign and his shattering humiliation in the Battle of the Bergs, we have abandoned that idea. What we say is: The longer he remains Minister, the longer he occupies this post, the more beneficial it is for the CP. Whether his impulsiveness, his complete lack of sound judgment, his idiotic evaluation of facts and data can any longer be of any benefit to the Government or the country, however, is a matter about which the hon. the Prime Minister must decide. It has been my experience that the hon. the Prime Minister does not have much patience with anyone he regards as a millstone round his neck. I just have a feeling that the hon. the Minister is busy working out his period of notice.

I have here a pamphlet entitled “Fanie, the man of action”, which was distributed in Soutpansberg. In it supporters of the hon. the Minister say, amongst other things, that in 1958 he even repaired the tunnels between Wylliespoort and Louis Trichardt which had been closed down as a result of storm damage. According to the brochure, he even had Dr. Verwoerd’s help in doing this. In this long document, however, no mention is made of so-called achievements in the labour field. In the Battle of the Bergs his supporters did not say a word about his so-called wonderful deeds in the labour field.

Last year the CP issued the warning that when the NP ship sank one day, the hon. the Minister of Manpower would be remembered as the Minister who, from within, had blasted the biggest hole in the ship’s hull. And, Sir, is the truth of that prediction not manifesting itself? The hon. the Minister’s love of provocative challenges and disparaging questions has hopefully now been tempered. In the course of various debates this year, and also on TV, he put certain questions to the CP, questions to which he will be getting answers in the course of this debate.

At this stage I just want to make a few remarks about the annual report. In studying the annual report, one chiefly gains two impressions. The first impression—I particularly want to bring this to the attention of the hon. member for Roodeplaat—is that whilst at the political level we are still adopting a policy of political separate development, integration is taking place at an increasing rate in the manpower field. That is what the hon. member for Pinelands is striving for. The logical consequence of this policy of integration in the labour field is integration in the political sphere as well. That is what the NP is busy doing. Another hon. speaker of the CP will be elaborating on this.

Secondly, when one reads this annual report, one ends up in a labyrinth of committees, commissions and organizations that overlap one another and function independently of one another, with the hon. the Minister at the head of this “empire”. The National Training Board and the NMC do research. One of the objectives of the NMC is training and re-training. Then there is also Manpower 2000 and the Foundation established recently. This is an overlapping and supplementing of various organizations, commissions, etc.

Before I come to the answers to the questions the hon. the Minister put to the CP, I should like to ask him one question: Has he taken the trouble to read the CP’s manpower policy?

Yes, I have it here, and I shall be replying to that in due course.

Then he has not studied it. [Interjections.] I say that because if he has indeed studied it, he has not understood it. If he had he would not have asked the astoundingly insensitive questions that led to his downfall.

Firstly, we come to the question of the autonomy of trade unions, because that is part of that policy. The hon. the Minister asked us about the autonomy of trade unions, but that is in our policy. That is what sparked off the Battle of the Bergs. We say that in White South Africa, where the Whites govern in terms of our policy of separate development, the autonomy of trade unions would be restricted in in the sense that only Whites would be allowed entry. In fact, the NP itself has certain restrictions on the autonomy of trade unions in the sense that they may not actively engage in politics, that they may not be financed from abroad and that they have certain financial obligations. We accept that.

Secondly, there is the question of freedom of association. As far as White South Africa is concerned, this would consequently be limited to Whites. Mixed and other trade unions would be phased out. This is the very opposite process to that adopted by the hon. the Minister. Initially only people living in White South Africa could become members of trade unions. At a later stage people in the national States could also become trade union members. This consequently means that a process of integration has been phased in, and we will phase it out by way of a deintegration process.

As far as salaries and wages are concerned, the hon. the Minister is asking us to turn back the clock. This is specifically one of the aspects the South African electorate most decidely holds against him, because an increase in salaries without a concomitant increase in productivity is probably one of the major reasons for inflation in South Africa. If Pres. Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher could succeed in bringing inflation down to 4% or 5%, why can South Africa not do it too? I do not have the time to quote the relevant figures, but one can read the disturbing figures on page 4 of the report of the National Productivity Institute. Other hon. members in these benches will elaborate further on this. As far as we are concerned, we shall, for South Africa’s sake, be taking a very searching look at the relationship between salaries and wages and productivity. By the way, just think what this series of by-elections cost South Africa, and the man responsible for those by-elections was that hon. Minister and no one else. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister also asked, in the course of debates and so on, whether we would repeal or amend laws that he has piloted through. That goes without saying. The hon. the Minister asked what laws we would repeal or which sections we would amend if we were to come into power. In this very session we made suggestions for amendments which the hon. the Minister rejected. How can the hon. the Minister therefore say that we would not amend one single section or law? We would take a very searching look at the manpower laws that have been passed, and we shall do so in the light of our basic objectives, i.e. self-determination and separate development.

Just to give hon. members an idea of that hon. Minister’s debating style, I want to mention two examples. I want to refer to Vol. 6 of the Hansard debates of this session, col. 2857. There I said the following—

This is also to be found in the booklet the hon. the Minister says he has read. But what did the hon. the Minister make of my words when he replied to the debate? He said that I was—

That I did not say. Then the hon. the Minister asked me: What about the farmers? Creative withdrawal, which we regard to be in the interests of the country, he approved of in subsequent columns. If hon. members would read what he had to say in col. 2882 and subsequent columns, they would see that he approved of it, because he spoke of decentralization and the building up of an infrastructure in the national States. Nowhere is there any mention of withdrawal on a large scale, as envisaged by us. Nor would we do anything to adversely affect our farmers. What childish, naive nonsense is that! There I want to agree with the hon. member for Roodeplaat.

Then we come to col. 2855 where I suggested that—

In col. 2885 the hon. the Minister, however, says that I allegedly stated that we should import immigrants on a large scale. Where did I say that? Surely selective immigration is also Government policy. He says that I am arguing that people should not be trained. Where did I say that? I, and the CP in general, are in favour of the training of our workers. That is, however, the hon. the Minister’s style: He sets up his own straw dolls, transforms them into grotesque Frankensteins and then shoots them down himself. That is his style, and that is why he has been unmasked. He, the hon. member for Roodeplaat and other hon. members of the NP, say that I am conducting a personal vendetta against the hon. the Minister. I have criticized him throughout in his capacity as a public figure; never in his personal capacity … [Interjections.] … however vulnerable he may be in that capacity. He must stop provoking me in this regard.

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

I do not want to dwell for very long on his monotonous arguments—and those of other Government members—about our supposed acceptance and propagation of the development of the manpower policy. One day he himself told me, on a bus to Chamdore, Krugersdorp, that he would resign if his policy in regard to the admission of mixed trade unions or full autonomy were not accepted. He was angry at me. Subsequently he arranged for discussions between hon. members of the House and his own hand-picked verligte trade union leaders. One simply has to ask the hon. member for Alberton about this; he was present. The previous hon. member for Hercules was also present. I was the only NP who took issue with his hand-picked trade union leaders. He is free to consult his office and his erstwhile advisers. Some people laughingly referred to me as “verkrampte Frank”. We did not, however, regard those differences as being of so fundamental a nature that we would have to leave the NP as a result. He knows what the position was; he knows what the conditions were.

It was not easy to decide on such a step. We imbibed nationalism with our mother’s milk. I was a nationalist, for example, when the hon. the Minister was still propagating Afrikaner dictatorship.

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

Sir, you will remember …

You are attacking the hon. the Minister as a public figure.

That hon. Minister, who is regarded as a racist, would do well to keep quiet.

And you are a Fascist.

Order! The hon. member for Brits must withdraw the word “Fascist”.

Sir, I withdraw it.

You are simply an ordinary “sus” (old woman).

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan may proceed.

Sir, I see that the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare’s own newspaper has a few things to say about him and about the hon. the Minister of Manpower. There are also certain people in the constituency who say they would have done better without the hon. the Minister.

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Vote under discussion.

Sir, you will remember—I should just like to remind you—that hon. members on that side continually attacked me by saying that the CP went along with all this and propagated it. I am now replying to that, and surely I am entitled to do so.

Let met therefore go on to point out that we accepted all this, because we did not regard it as being of so fundamental a nature as to necessitate our leaving the NP. The hon. the Minister knows what aspects gave rise to our taking leave of the NP.

We have a sound standpoint on selective immigration. This is proved by table 5 on page 5 of the NPI report. In that table certain classes of employees are mentioned, and the following comment is made—

In South Africa it is 52:1. It is surely clear that a policy of selective immigration to eliminate this kind of situation is a sound policy. The hon. the Minister, however, must not set up any more straw dolls by saying we are opposed to the training of workers in this connection. For every argument he must present a counter-argument and debate the matter in an orderly manner.

Seen as a whole, the CP has a sound manpower policy. The red lights are, however, flickering for the NP. It is going to be a tremendous task to unravel, for the sake of South Africa and all its people, the tangle caused by the Wiehahn Commission and the legislation that resulted from it. Under those circumstances, what we are saying is that the path the Government has chosen to walk, this path of integration in the labour field, is going to create a basis for a dangerous situation in the political sphere. Therefore we reject the hon. the Minister’s policy in the labour field.

Mr. Chairman, I think the whole House will agree with me that although the hon. member for Brakpan denied waging a personal vendetta against the hon. the Minister, this factor nevertheless stuck out like a sore thumb in his speech. I think it would be a good thing for the hon. member to confine himself to labour matters in future and leave the hon. the Minister alone. Their personal problems have nothing to do with the discussion of this vote.

Before I discuss certain matters with the hon. member, I just want to get some assurances about certain remarks he made. He said they would phase out coloured trade unions, would not allow any coloured trade unions. Did I understand the hon. member correctly?

Read my speech.

I think the whole House agrees with me that the hon. member spoke about coloured trade unions. Let us, however, leave it at that.

On a previous occasion the hon. member said that matters involving workers should be handled at an inter-State level. According to newspaper reports the hon. the leader of the CP said at Carletonville that Black trade unions would put a weapon into the hands of South Africa’s neighbouring countries. When the hon. member for Brakpan talks about “inter-State level” and the denial of trade union rights, does he think that these people must exercise their trade union rights in the neighbouring countries? Must they, for example, exercise them in Bophuthatswana?

Do you want me to reply? Do you want me to make a speech?

No, I just want an answer to the question. Is that what those hon. members want? Apparently not, because they would not have been ashamed to say so if that had been the case.

The hon. member also spoke about increasing integration in the economic sphere, whilst the Government, in reality, is adopting a policy of separation. I want to ask the hon. member what example he can mention, since having left the NP, of increasing integration which had not already been in existence for years or for decades. I know the hon. member will end up owing me an answer again.

One can only describe it as astounding that South Africa has to be governed, by this Government, under conditions such as these. The one opposition party says that everything must be mixed together, whilst the other party says that everything must be even more widely separated than ever before in our history. This undoubtedly places an enormous burden on the shoulders of any Government. I want to ask hon. members of the CP whether it is a fact that they want to deny Black people their old and vested rights in South Africa? There have been Black trade unions in South Africa since 1917.

They also had White representatives in this House.

That has nothing to do with the matter under discussion. The CP wants to deny these people their vested rights. I just want to point out to them—and I am sure they are aware of this—that Black trade unions have existed since as far back as 1917. In 1978, when a start was made on the present labour modernization campaign, there were 27 Black trade unions, with extended membership, in existence. Surely those hon. members are aware of that fact. Now they want to deny those people their vested rights. That is not all, however. Do they want to tell me that in an international climate such as the one we find ourselves in at present, with the prevailing trends and attitudes in regard to South Africa, they want to deny these people the most basic right in international labour philosophy, a right which is recognized internationally, the right to organize oneself into trade unions for collective bargaining purposes? If that were true, it would attest to a paucity of realism, which could only spell danger for South Africa, and I think those hon. members are aware of that. The members of the general public must know this, because it is as plain as a pikestaff, as plain as the nose on one’s face, that if one were to deprive people of their vested rights or deny them those rights, one would undoubtedly drive the Black workers of South Africa straight into the waiting arms of communism and its underground organizations such as the ANC, with the sort of consequences we have already experienced.

Have you read this pamphlet?

That is not relevant at the moment. I have put certain questions to the CP which they have replied to in the affirmative. At the same time that party pays lip-service to the ideal of justice for all in South Africa, particularly by way of its leader. Sir, how does one have justice without rights? Can any of those hon. members answer that question? Surely those are two aspects that are totally incompatible. How does one have justice without any rights at all, even with the denial of vested rights, rights which already exist at present? In contrast to that, this Government regards all the people in South Africa as its responsibility. This is in complete contrast to the CP which apparently only holds itself responsible for the Whites and does not want anything to do with the other people. If the CP begrudges the Black people any rights at all what responsibility do they want to accept for them? This Government wants to give all the workers the most basic of rights, and it wants to do so in a responsible manner. They want to allow them to operate within the system. In a previous debate the hon. member spoke about that occasion on which the NP recognized trade unions. Surely he knows that is not true. We did not, after all, recognize trade unions. They had been in existence for a long time. There was nothing that prohibited them. We merely allowed them to exist within the statutory system, to operate within that system. That is all we did. We want to allow those people to operate within the system, educate them and teach them to utilize their rights and privileges responsibly in this respect. In order to do that they must be in the system, because if they are in the system, one has control of certain factors which would otherwise be uncontrolled and definitely could be very dangerous in the long term.

There are signs—I want to spell this out very clearly this afternoon—that this policy is succeeding, even succeeding dramatically. The hon. member for Roodeplaat has referred to that fact. At the end of 1980 there were 24 000 Black members of registered trade unions. At the end of 1982 they had increased to 395 000. These are Black members of registered trade unions, and I want to be very clear about that. In contrast, unregistered trade unions can only claim about 100 000 members, a figure which is completely uncorrelated and quite probably exaggerated. This is the case, in spite of the fact that there is the strongest possible opposition, from South Africa’s enemies, and from hostile factions within South Africa, to the registration of Black trade unions in South Africa. The hon. member for Brakpan knows this only too well. Any objective observer, I believe, would agree that this is the correct policy and that this policy is succeeding, and when the history of this era is written one day, the historians will have to concede that a wide-awake Government and a wide-awake department made a timely evaluation of certain trends and needs, and therefore correctly anticipated them. I do not think there can be any doubt about this at all.

The hon. member also made a sweeping examination of mixed trade unions. He elaborated on the issue, but obviously has no idea whatsoever of the concepts of free association and trade union autonomy. No one is being forced to join a trade union, and no trade union is being forced to accept anyone else as a member of that trade union. It is any person’s absolutely free choice. The hon. member also spoke about the group of “liberal” trade union leaders whom the hon. the Minister supposedly brought together and who were supposedly in favour of mixed trade unions. I also attended such a meeting of trade union leaders, and I know that what he said was incorrect. At the group meeting I attended, and the hon. member was there too, there were people who were not well disposed to the Government’s policy, who were not in favour of mixed trade unions, whilst others, who could in no way be regarded as liberals, were indeed in favour of mixed trade unions. And what was their motivation? Here, Sir, I want to take up the cudgels for the trade union leaders of South Africa, as I have come to know them. They are a balanced and responsible group of people who, at all times, put South Africa’s interests first. These people want to teach Black trade unions the responsibilities of trade union action, and they also want to help the administrative side of trade unionism, something which the Black worker, with his background and milieu, finds very complicated. That is the praiseworthy motivation of these people. That was my experience of trade union leaders recently, people who are anything but liberal. These people are prepared to render South Africa a great service. They act in a responsible and balanced way and are patriots in the true sense of the word. As such they do, at all times, put the interests of South Africa first. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, because of the limited time I have at my disposal, it will not, unfortunately, be possible for me to react to everything the hon. member for Sasolburg had to say, and although I do have a great deal to say about trade unions and our policy in that regard, regrettably there is no time to do so today.

Mr. Chairman, the NRP, too, welcomes the hon. the Minister back in his portfolio in this House. To us it is very important that a member of this House should be able to speak with authority, irrespective of the majority obtained by him in an election contest. The most important thing, as far as democracy is concerned, is that a member should be elected as such by the electorate. Only then does he find himself in a position to act here with authority.

†The two aspects on which I should like to concentrate today are, firstly, the report of the Manpower Commission on minimum wages and, secondly, the problems we are having with the administration of and the policy in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

I should first of all like to refer to the report of the National Manpower Commission regarding a national minimum wage. The recommendation of the commission in paragraph 7.3.1(a) on page 52 of its report is probably the most important expression of qualification regarding the implementation of the concept of a statutory minimum wage. This paragraph reads as follows—

Against this background and the fact that South Africa has an oversupply of unskilled labour I believe the answer to the problem is a total strategy regarding remuneration and job opportunities and therefore income of individuals rather than a singular approach to the establishment of a statotory national minimum wage. The reason for this is evident. In a situation of a total oversupply of unskilled labour, when one creates a minimum wage, even if it is as suggested by the hon. member for Pinelands at the minimum living level, then one can be sure of one fact, and that is that there will be an increase in unemployment. We saw it as a result of the 1973 strikes in Durban, in Natal, when the average wage went up by 73% in two years as a result of which unemployment rocketed, because the entrepreneur is after all somebody who works for profit and if the cost of labour is higher than the cost of mechanization, he is free to and will always accept a cheaper alternative in order to keep his input costs down. As is stated by the Manpower Commission here, if we want to introduce the concept of a national minimum wage then we can only do that in conjunction with a full programme for the creation of alternative job opportunities for those who come onto the job market and for those who are unemployed. I spent some time during the budget debate earlier this year asking the hon. the Minister of Finance and other members of the Cabinet to pay urgent attention to the question of creating unskilled job opportunities which will at least give the unemployed millions in South Africa the opportunity to earn a wage so that they may at least keep body and soul together. We have not deviated from that point of view at all. I also believe that it has been necessary for the National Manpower Commission to do an in-depth study so that when we come to disccussing this question in future we will have a ready source of reference.

Perhaps the more vexed of the two questions I should like to discuss here this afternoon is my extreme concern regarding the problems we are having with the administration and policy decisions regarding the Unemployment Insurance Fund. What are the facts in this regard at the moment? And these are facts as I have researched them. I have not only relied on newspaper reports but have been in contact with a number of people and it appears to me that the question of administering unemployment insurance benefits has collapsed. It can now take anything up to four and a half months for a beneficiary to receive a benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. In reply to questions put earlier this year in connection with this matter, we were told that a computer was causing the problem. But, Sir, computers do not cause problems, they merely manifest the problems of the management using them. One cannot blame a computer for bad management and bad decision-making. But if it is the computer’s fault, if a computer is indeed retarding the process, it is up to the management of the fund to rectify that problem immediately, because when do the problems of a computer supersede the needs and requirements of the people it is supposed to serve? I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister as a matter of urgency and in the interests of the Unemployment Insurance Fund and those people who contribute to it, and more important those who benefit from it, that the time has come for us to relook at the overall administration of this fund. To this end I believe it will be necessary for the Minister to call a conference of interested parties, of employers’ organizations, of chambers of commerce, of industries and the Chamber of Mines—in truth every organization that contributes to this fund—together with organized labour, trade unions and other labour organizations, together with the relevant State departments and actuaries in an effort to see whether we cannot decentralize the administration of this fund, both from the point of view of collecting subscriptions as well as the payment of benefits to the individual. This is being done in many cases as far as pension funds are concerned. For instance, an individual pays his pension fund contributions through his company to a central insurance organization and when he leaves the employment of that organization he collects his refund from his employer. Would it not be possible, as we are doing now with the collection of subscriptions to the fund by employers on a decentralized basis, to pay benefits to individuals through their original points of employment? This is a possibility, because one thing we cannot continue to do is to have a system which is getting further and further behind when it comes to the payment of benefits to those entitled to benefits.

Then there is the actual policy-making and the prescription in terms of the Act of qualifications for benefits. The hon. member for Pinelands referred to this as well. Here we find a lot of anomalies. For instance, we find that where a woman bears a child naturally she qualifies for maternity benefits while a woman who adopts a baby does not. Furthermore, we find that there are illness benefits in respect of which an individual can draw unemployment, when they are ill or incapacitated, but if the treatment for the illness cause a psychological or physical state of affairs as a result of which a person is unable to be employed, due to the effects of the treatment, then that individual does not qualify either.

Then we have this anomaly of the initial waiting period, where an individual has to wait for at least six weeks before he even qualifies for unemployment benefits. Can the hon. the Minister imagine what it must be like, when someone is living on the breadline, with perhaps five hungry mouths to feed, to have to wait six weeks before one even qualifies for unemployment benefits? After that initial six weeks’ waiting period that particular individual has to wait possibly another three months before he has any cash in his pocket.

People cannot live on promises of payments. They require the cash. There is an urgent need to review the total administration of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I think I have made that point very clear, and I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to calling that conference of people to investigate ways and means of improving the system.

You are overstressing the matter, Ron.

Well, I hope, Sir, we are going to get an overreaction from the hon. the Minister. That will at least be something. [Interjections.]

Then, as far as the Fund itself is concerned, it is obviously in a very healthy state. The Fund itself increased by R19,6 million in its reserves last year. We see of course that the number of payments have increased considerably as well, which is of course a reflection of the state of the economy and its influence on unemployment. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have been expecting an hon. member on the Government side to speak, but since no one has got up, and I do want the debate to continue, I shall take the opportunity of addressing the Committee. I do not know whose turn it was to speak. It does seem, however, as though there is something wrong with the NP. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, we will keep the debate going because I think it is important for the country that we do so. [Interjections.]

I want to react firstly to the question of the minimum wage, something the hon. member for Durban North touched on in his speech. I want to say at the outset that the issue of a minimum wage is a very emotive one for workers, not only in South Africa but world-wide. The problem which is related to it is that fundamentally any person who actually makes a contribution to society by putting in an honest day’s work is entitled to having a certain minimum standard of living. Once one accepts that principle, in the light of that, one can apply it to an issue as we try to do now. I do believe also that we did so successfully in the economic commission of the PFP. In the present situation in South Africa a national minimum wage, or one wage for the whole of South Africa, may be extremely difficult to accomplish. A minimum wage determined in accordance with regions, with industry categories and with other considerations, however, is, in present-day conditions in South Africa, very important. I will illustrate in a moment, in a different context, how the struggle for minimum wages is going on in any kind of labour movement in South Africa.

The other issue I should like to touch on is one that perhaps lies at the root of the dispute between the NP and the CP in respect of labour relations in South Africa. As we see it, the problem of labour relations in South Africa is a major factor in regard to political stability in this country. Without dealing satisfactorily with the labour relations one cannot deal satisfactorily with the political stability of South Africa. Whereas I for one may not agree—and my party, I believe, certainly does not—with much of what the hon. the Minister has done or believes in, the reality is that within the constraints of his own political beliefs he has indeed—I must concede—tried to deal with this problem. He has recognized the existence of this problem. Even if, in the process, he is to fail politically, whatever else he will be able to say is that he has in fact tried, and we are prepared to grant him that. He has tried indeed, and that is a reality.

If we look at the labour relations in South Africa, we have to take into account—as the hon. member for Pinelands has pointed out quite clearly—the present unemployment situation, and bearing in mind that there are structural aspects of that unemployment situation which are not going to disappear when there is an upswing in the economy, and also bearing in mind that in South Africa something like 60% of all Black unemployed are indeed under the age of 30 years, the dangers that that has for the political situation in South Africa cannot be overstated. There is the problem of the urbanization of the economically active people and the problem of the relative living standards in South Africa. There is also the problem of competing unions. The new thing on the South African scene is that the ambitious now find their vehicle for advancement in the trade union movement. That ambition and the issue of the competing unions are going to become major problems in South Africa in the years that lie ahead. Then there is the problem, a problem to which we have drawn attention before, of the absence of alternative channels of political expression, particularly for urban Black people. There is also the issue of alternative economic policies and, in particular, the impact of the politics of competing slogans as regards economic policy. In that respect we are without any doubt at a grave disadvantage because if one holds out a slogan to deprived people which offers them an alternative which they think is better than their present circumstances, they jump at that slogan. They then never have the opportunity of finding out whether that slogan was in fact right or wrong. By the time they find out that it was wrong, there is no opportunity for them to go back. That is the problem of international communism, namely that, once one has made the choice, there is no second chance; one is in it and one no longer has an opportunity of throwing it out. I want to say that to some extent the Government fails with regard to the issue of slogan politics relating to labour, because it does not hold out an attractive concept to the deprived people, a concept which they can accept as offering them the alternative. In that respect—even though the alternative may be the better one—the Government in fact has not succeeded. I think that that is a matter we should look at as a whole, because to that a lot of the future of South Africa relates.

There is one other aspect I should like to deal with. As regards labour relations, the question of industrial councils is perhaps one that always arouses a certain degree of dispute. I have said previously in the House, and want to repeat, that I am actually a champion of the industrial council system. I believe in it because, whereas I believe that there must be good relations between labour and management on the shop floor, what the industrial council offers is something that cannot be overlooked. I believe there is too much stress being placed only on wage negotiations. What is also important—and I do not underestimate the importance of wages—is the conditions of employment and, secondly, the question of enforcing industrial agreements and wage determinations to ensure that they are actually obeyed. Unfortunately exceptions occur again and again and one finds those employers who are the bad eggs in the basket and who bring employers as such into disrepute, trying to underpay, exploit and make people work extra hours. There is no effective mechanism available in South Africa, other than the industrial council system, to deal with that aspect from the workers point of view. If only we could sell the concept to the worker that here he has a mechanism which is designed to help him and protect him and to make sure that agreements are kept, we would in fact be doing the worker a service and the industrial council system would be better understood.

There is another matter to which I should like to draw attention. In the new system of industrial councils one not only has the trade union movement and management represented but one also covers the whole racial spectrum. What is happening—and it is important that we should be aware of it—is that people of all races can hold office in an industrial council. Let me give an example. Only recently a Black man was appointed as vice chairman of an industrial council, having been unanimously nominated by a White, a Coloured and a Black union. He was appointed with the approval of the employers. So the concept of working on the basis of merit, as opposed to the basis of race, can succeed in an industrial council. In the same way inspectors of all races can be employed and matters like this can be dealt with on an industrial basis rather than a racial basis. If that again is sold to the unions and is shown to them, then more people will want to be part of industrial councils rather than try to push them into the background as being purely Government organizations, which they are not.

I want to touch briefly upon one other matter. It is now of course fashionable in all circles, including all of us participating in this debate, that the informal sector should be encouraged. One of the aspects of the informal sector that has to be looked at is that whereas there are a multiplicity of laws, permits and formalities which make the task of the unsophisticated and often untrained person very difficult, there are other aspects which also have to be taken into account. I want to give an example. In industries where there are industrial agreements which lay down working hours, minimum wages and other working conditions, an informal sector can develop where these conditions are not observed but where that informal sector is in competition with the formal sector. In the informal sector workers are underpaid and made to work excessive hours, while there are also other disadvantages. This is possible not only because there is a high unemployment but because many of the workers in the areas concerned are illegally in that area and are willing to work under more disadvantageous conditions. In those circumstances one finds objections both from the employers about unfair competition and from the unions because exploitation in fact takes place. But the answer from the other side is that it is better to work and earn something than nothing. This whole aspect of competition between the exploited worker in the informal sector and the formal sector is one that will have to be looked at very carefully. It undermines a basic concept which relates to the unionization of workers, to the minimum standards of workers and where this competition can run side by side with organized industry it can be unfair to both employer and worker. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to support the hon. the Minister today in the discussion of his Vote. If there is one Minister on the NP side—this is, of course, the only side where Ministers are to be found—who has done his share in the past, then it is the hon. the Minister of Manpower. It is not the NP’s fault that in their hearts hon. members of the CP supported a different policy, without having the courage to stand up in the study group or the caucus and say that they did not agree with the official policy and that they would accordingly get up and leave. What I do know, however, is that many of them discussed matters with hon. members on this side of the House and said that they did not understand these things. I was present when the hon. the Leader of the CP said this to an hon. colleague, and asked him to write down exactly what this legislation was about. The person concerned promised him to do so because the hon. member for Waterberg was at that stage still NP leader in the Transvaal.

[Inaudible.]

We did so. It was in the reading room. What is more, I can go and fetch the witness. [Interjections.] That is what it is about. On the one hand, those hon. members did not understand what it was about, and on the other they lacked the courage to leave when they should have left, when they disagreed as a matter of conviction.

As far as the workers of South Africa are concerned, I wish to state unequivocally that the Government regards it as a matter of the utmost importance to look after the interests of all the workers of South Africa. We are not so naïve as to think that one can deal with merely a facet of the interests of the workers of South Africa without also taking into account the other interests which form part of the total setup. In this process we are prepared to consult with all parties concerned. We look after the interests of employers as well as those of the employees. In the process, structures have been created under the leadership of the hon. the Minister, structures such as the Industrial Council where deliberation can take place. The National Manpower Commission was established with the specific purpose of looking after the overall needs of the workers of South Africa. The National Training Board was established to ensure that the standard and quality of the workers in South Africa would remain at a very high standard. There are several such structures that have been established to deal with the needs and the quality of the workers of South Africa.

We are implementing further important programmes for the protection of the worker and the improvement of his skills. In this regard I want to refer to my own constituency where a vast number of industries are established. I want to praise both employer and employee, because they are doing an enormous amount to promote progress and an increase in the standards of living of the people of South Africa. Some of my voters who are involved in those industries are sitting on the gallery. They are proud of this hon. Minister. They came to speak to me and invited me to their factories. I have not sucked these remarks of mine out of my thumb. I speak from experience, in the sense that I visit my people on the factory floor.

In the second place, it is a matter of great importance to this side of the House to see to it that the interests of the worker, who has certain rights, are looked after in this regard. A framework for self-determination is established for each worker. I cannot understand why hon. members should run away with the idea that this Government is at present engaged in a policy of integration, when in fact structures are being established to guarantee the right of self-determination of the worker on the factory floor, in that there may be consultation with the employee by the employer or vice versa if problems should occur on the floor.

A further instrument is being created in that we are according recognition to the fact that autonomous trade unions must be established that will look after the interests of the group or the members of that group. An Industrial Council, and a system of conciliation boards for reaching binding agreements with employers, have also been established.

We believe, too, that it is imperative that machinery to settle disputes should be created, because to us this is a question of peace on the factory floor. It is not a question of established rights being taken away, as hon. members of the CP have very clearly intimated today. Those hon. members want to deprive people of rights they have possessed since 1917. They want to tell those people that what they have had for so many years is now being taken away. That is a guaranteed method of causing a situation to develop in South Africa in which one will achieve conflict rather than peace on the factory floor. I wish to state today that both employees and employers in South Africa want peace and progress on the shop floor so that the South African economy may develop and so that a better future can be created for everyone in South Africa.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister this afternoon because among the possibilities created for the worker is inter alia the fact that he has free access to the hon. the Minister. There are people from my constituency that I have taken to the hon. the Minister. Moreover there is free access to the Registrar of the Industrial Council, where matters can also be discussed with them. It is merely a matter of whether we want to make use of that or not.

A sixth guarantee built into the policy of the Government is that access to the industrial court is being made possible in the case of an alleged unfair labour practice. It is quite possible that unfair labour practices can arise, and therefore the machinery now exists to deal with them even if the most extreme action is taken, if necessary, namely lawful use of the strike weapon—something we hope will happen as little as possible. However, if necessary they even have that.

The worker also has legal protection against victimization, and what better protection could one want if one was being victimized? Trade union federations exist which can also furnish advice to members. Then, too, there is a Wage Board to investigate conditions of service. There is protection against unemployment. When the hon. member for Brakpan referred to the unemployment situation in South Africa he did not say to us what the solution was or put certain choices to us one could opt for. One of the biggest problems the British Government is faced with at the moment is this: The choice of deciding between a high inflation rate, on the one hand, and a high unemployement rate on the other. It is as simple as that. The British Government prefers a lower inflation rate, but they are struggling with the problem of high unemployment because one cannot have one’s bread buttered on both sides in the present setup. Many other matters are also being investigated.

In conclusion I wish to make a few brief remarks about the rights of the worker on the one hand—there are about 10 to 15 of them—and the rights of the employer—which are equally important—on the other. The worker has the right to work. When we consider all the rights of the worker it is of importance to note that he must have the assurance that he can pursue his occupation in a safe place of work where he is able to negotiate. While I am speaking about the rights of the worker, I should very much like to conclude by calling attention to certain guidelines we have in connection with the employer and the employee. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to welcome back my friend the hon. the Minister of Manpower, although all of us knew that he would be returning. I just wish to remind him that we need not celebrate his victory in the Bergs, but we must at least begin to celebrate our being together for 25 years in this House. We put it off until his return.

As I see it, there is a major misunderstanding among the hon. members of the CP. Because there is a misunderstanding, or because they refuse to understand, they are accusing us of integration. I want them to say what happened to justify their leaving. The only thing that happened was that it became possible for Black trade unions to be registered. That is the important issue, not so? But that is far from being integration.

I want to give my hon. friend some idea of the background to the trade union movement in South Africa. The struggle in the trade union movement, particularly in regard to registration, began shortly after Union. The hon. member for Sasolburg in fact pointed out that as long ago as 1917 a few Black trade unions had already been registered. This gave rise to a terrible squabble in South Africa. The White workers did not want Black trade unions to be registered. That is why no Government registered Black trade unions. They refused tó do so; the old United Party also refused to register them.

All that that Government did was to refuse to recognize them.

No, they refused to register Black trade unions. I say that the only change which has occurred since 1980 is that Black trade unions are now being registered. This is what they now call integration!

Let me go into the history of this matter for a while. The largest employer in those days was the mining industry. In the mining industry there were, on a large scale, what one could call employers and employees. The employees came primarily from Britain, but so did the employers. Since they were acquainted with trade unionism and the struggle within the trade union movement in Britain, they were bitterly opposed to trade unions in South Africa. That is history. What precipitated the conflict was the large numbers of Black labourers who were prepared to work for any wage. This accelerated the conflict here in South Africa. It gave the Whites in particular a big fright. In 1922 that conflict culminated in a full-scale war, and brother fought brother. We had a war in this country over trade unionism, and there was bloodshed.

The Industrial Conciliation Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1924. This legislation regulated the trade union movement and registered trade unions recognized in terms of this Act were established. As I have said, all Governments refused to allow the registration of Black trade unions. Under the Industrial Conciliation Act Black trade unions were still not allowed to register. Blacks were able to establish trade unions, but registration as such was refused. All governments allowed them to establish trade unions, but refused to register those Black trade unions.

The Industrial Conciliation Act was improved during the ’fifties. Trade union funds were placed under control. That is in fact what the registration of trade unions means. Only in 1952 did the new Industrial Conciliation Act take trade unions under its protection and regulate their financial affairs. The legislation not only regulated their membership, but their financial affairs as well. They were placed under the control of the then Department of Labour. Trade unions were then prohibited from affiliating with any political party. The custom in England of trade unions affiliating with political parties had also began to develop in South Africa, but it was prohibited by this Act. In terms of the Act, registered White and Coloured trade unions, together with employers’ organizations formed industrial conciliation boards and industrial councils which regulated wages and conditions of employment. The regulation of these matters has therefore existed in the Act since 1952. Few, if any, strikes occurred and conflicts were settled by means of arbitration. As a result of the Industrial Conciliation Act, there have been virtually no strikes among the Whites in respect of registered White and Coloured trade unions over the years. As far as I remember, there was only one major strike, and that was among the mineworkers in 1947. This happened before the Industrial Conciliation Act was improved in 1952.

But what did we have in the late seventies and early eighties? We had an enormous number of strikes in South Africa. Just think of all the strikes that occurred among Black workers. The hon. member for Pinelands referred to this. There were hundreds of strikes among Black workers. Thousands of working hours were lost. Then the report of the Wiehahn Commission on labour matters appeared. After that there was a new approach on the part of the NP Government to the trade union movement. Black trade unions have been allowed to register since 1980. Is it not a significant fact that the number of strikes decreased immediately afterwards? They decreased considerably.

Your facts are wrong.

Last year the number of strikes in aggregate was fewer.

The number increased.

In aggregate the number decreased. They were not more.

Go and have a look.

Yes, I shall. A registration certificate for a trade union is the equivalent of a person’s birth certificate. This certificate is in safe keeping until the day when it is required, and it is there whenever it is needed. In 1981 there were 200 registered trade unions. This is the strangest aspect of this entire situation. There was no rush for registration. In 1981 200 trade unions had already been registered. In 1982 this figure decreased by one. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Mr. Van Staden dealt at length with trade unions and strikes, for which we are grateful to him. He did so in his usual calm and composed manner. We are also grateful for the information he gave us.

I should like to say a few words about the Department of Manpower. At the outset let me convey my gratitude and appreciation on behalf of this side of the House to the department which has now, for the first time since it came into existence, tabled a White Paper for us prior to the discussion of the Vote. We can derive a great deal of benefit from it. I should also like to thank the department for the memorandum on the estimates dealing with the statistics in connection with training, trade unions, employers’ organizations, the Unemployment Insurance Fund and manpower utilization. During the last few years the Department of Manpower, together with the hon. the Minister, has placed this department on a very high level, nationally as well as internationally, we are very proud of and thankful for that too.

Since its establishment on 1 August 1924 the Department of Manpower has been a full-fledged department and responsible for the implementation of our manpower policy. For this purpose the department was, in the first place, entrusted with the administration of the labour laws and the regulations under its jurisdiction. Secondly, it has to implement Government policy and resolutions. Thirdly, it must report to the Government on developments in the sphere of manpower and on any practical problems which are experienced in the implementation of the policy, and advise the Government with a view to policy and statutory adjustments. The Wiehahn Commission was appointed at the time in order to give effect to this, and in 1979 the commission tabled its first report. After that the Government published its White Papers in which it elucidated its attitude to the report and what it intended to accept. I think that with these White Papers which the Government tabled at the time, a new approach and a break-through in the sphere of manpower and labour relations in South Africa took place. After the White Papers had been tabled, the Government drafted legislation, as recommended in the Wiehahn report, and it was passed by this House. I think it is time we gave generous recognition to the fact that the labour legislation which has been adapted by this Parliament since the Government’s White Papers on it, has been the greatest break-through for the Government and for South Africa, on a national as well as international level, as far as the labour is concerned. With the adjustment of this country’s labour legislation this Government laid the foundation for further development in the sphere of manpower, based on the principle of freedom of association, justice, self-determination and orderliness. This is truly a basis on which one can build with confidence and faith in future.

If we consider this year’s estimates, we will note that during all these years the department has continued to grow. For the 1979-’80 financial year an amount of R23,6 million has been appropriated for this department, while in this year’s estimates R71 million has been ear-marked for this department. Although the activities of the department have expanded, the work has been done with the same number of staff members, and even with fewer staff members in certain sectors and divisions of the department. Moreover, the Government has also done a great deal more to commit itself to the attainment of certain objectives, and for that purpose certain structures have been created, structures which must serve as the best framework for this purpose, for example the Industrial Court, the National Manpower Commission, the National Training Council, etc. Training programmes have also been introduced and the attainment of these objectives made possible.

Let us consider a few of these programmes of action which the Government has introduced for the protection of the worker. When I talk about workers, I mean all categories of workers of all races and colours. The Government has introduced certain training programmes to improve the skills of all workers. The rights and the interests of the White workers in South Africa, and those of all other population groups, are protected by a statutory framework which is constantly adjusted to the demands of the time in consultation with employers and employees, and which affords every individual worker a maximum opportunity for self-determination.

In the second place the worker has the right to establish an autonomous and an officially recognized trade union of its own choice, which he can manage himself, and which can act on his behalf to ensure his interests in labour matters by way of collective bargaining. In the third place, the worker has the right of access to an industrial court in cases of alleged unfair labour practices. He can also approach a wage board to investigate conditions of service. He enjoys protection against unemployment by way of an unemployment insurance fund. Furthermore, he is statutorily assured of safe places of employment and healthy working conditions.

Then, too, the worker has access to the industrial registrar, and even to the hon. the Minister of Manpower. The hon. member for Brits spoke at length about the protection of the worker. I believe that the Government will in future, just as it has done in the past, ensure the protection of the White worker who may feel himself threatened by the preponderance of numbers. Proven and effective means exist whereby workers can protect and promote their interests and eliminate any obstacles which may exist.

Some of the most important rights of the South African worker are, inter alia, the right to be able to work, the right to a fair remuneration and conditions of service, the right to access to training and retraining, the right to organize and to belong to an employees’ organization, the right to negotiation and to collective bargaining, the right to protection of his safety and his health, and the right to protection against unfair labour practices.

Another area in which the department has made great progress during the past few years is that of training. The Government realized a long time ago that in an industrial country like South Africa there was no shortage of workers, but there was a shortage of trained workers. That is why the department and the Government are devoting special attention to matters in this connection. If we consider the statistics which have just been released, as they pertain to occupational training only, we note that during 1981-’82 there was an increase of 4 341, of which 1 427 were White, 624 Coloureds, 622 Asians and 246 Blacks.

The training of industrial workers also showed a tremendous increase. In this respect there was an increase of 65 946 between 1981 and 1982. This was truly a wonderful achievement on the part of the department. There was a tremendous increase in the total training scheme as far as adults were concerned. During the year 1981-’82 the number of adults undergoing training increased to 96 114.

Another matter to which the department gives a great deal of attention, although perhaps not all that directly, and for which R4 million is being appropriated this year, is that of productivity. It will be of no avail if we train these people and it is then not possible to use their labour to good purpose. That is why the Government supports the National Productivity Institute and devotes considerable attention and energy to this matter. Consequently we have every confidence that with this department, with this Minister and this Government there will always be a safe future for the worker who wants to work, whether he is White, Coloured, Black or Asiatic.

Mr. Chairman, I do not really want to react to the speech of the hon. member for Alberton. I want to deal with a completely different subject. Economic prosperity makes demands on the worker and brings real problems in its wake. An expert once alleged that a people could go under because of challenges which were too great or too small. I want to say that implicit in this allegation is a great deal which is significant to the peoples of our country who are involved in our labour dispensation. I want to ask whether there are no peoples that become weak as a result of challenges that are too small. If they receive greater responsibility of their own and if greater demands are made on them, they will develop greater self-respect of their own accord and foster higher ideals for themselves and for their people. A person always has far greater appreciation, esteem and respect for the possessions which one has acquired oneself.

There is a second question I also want to put: If, on the other hand, a people wants to overcome challenges in the economic sphere which are too great, will it not perhaps have to pay too great a price in cultural heritage and identity?

In our day the phenomenon of materialism is a dangerous one, and prosperity for the sake of prosperity is to my mind really not something we should propagate. The watch-word for our times is: Equal treatment, equal opportunities and equal facilities. I want to repeat that these things should be accompanied by equal standard of work, equal productivity, equal responsibility as well as equal working capacity.

Now I want to come specifically to the subject I should like to discuss, viz. the working woman. Take the woman out of education, nursing, the business world or any other sphere of the labour market in our country, and I wonder what would happen. The woman with her staying-power and sense of responsibility is absolutely indispensable, and I want to allege, without fear of contradiction, that the woman today produces an equal standard of work and productivity and effectiveness and displays an equal sense of responsibility. Gracefully she makes her contribution in the sphere of labour, and she does so in a very responsible and exceptional way, without losing her femininity.

However, the woman does not do this without sacrifices. Sometimes she does this with great inconvenience to herself, for she does, after all, have other obligations, she also has a home, children and a husband. Her own household duties and taking care of her family make heavy demands on her, and so do the community services which she renders with such selflessness. All these extra things which she has to do, although she is productively engaged in the world of labour, keep her busy for hours every day.

The woman has adapted to these rapidly developing circumstances, but not without sacrificing the luxury of leisure time, of recreation and of time for planning.

This has had its effect on a woman, this has done something to her. A working woman has to plan her daily programme very carefully in order to do justice to everything. The high cost of living compels a woman to work—I have no fault to find with that, because I know she can do it—but cannot employers make things easier for her?

The woman is indispensable in family life, for the safety of her children, and to give them security, to discipline them and to give them love. Frequently she also has to play the role of father in the home because heavy demands are also being made on him. However, she is able to do this so that her husband and children can function effectively in society. This is very important in the set-up we have today.

As I have already said, the woman sometimes has to occupy the position of a father figure in the home, yet without detracting from it in any way. This also requires a great deal from her and much of her leisure time is devoted to this. In our day and age, too, the woman is absolutely essential in the national economy.

We are merely asking that the woman be helped in various ways. In the first place, cannot employers make far more half-day posts available for women? If this could be done, the woman could be at home with her children in the afternoons to give them those things a mother ought to give her children. There should also be crèches in the labour sphere so that a mother can perform her daily task without undue concern because she knows that her children are near to her and are being cared for. I am referring here to pre-school children.

We must guard against paying too high a price for prosperity. Employers have a very important task. I wonder whether women today do not represent almost half of the total labour force in the country.

Dr. P. J. Meyer said something on 15 July 1980 which affected me very profoundly. He said—

I maintain that economic prosperity and growth should occur for the sake of mankind and not that mankind should function for the sake of prosperity and economic growth. In addition it should not occur at the expense of mankind which is a continuation of history and has to venture into the future. It is our duty to ensure that we do not overdo things, and do not lose things in the field of labour which are very precious and dear to us.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members on this side of the House, hon. members of the official Opposition and also hon. members of the NRP who had kind words for me and for the department this afternoon. The hon. member for Alberton made a remark about the early tabling of the annual report. Hon. members will recall that in the past the request was made that the report be tabled at an earlier date. This year it was on time. I wish to extend my cordial thanks to the department for this. It is, of course, a major task to prepare such an annual report and to have it available to hon. members here in good time. I am very grateful that it could be available this year and I am also grateful to all who worked on it.

On this occasion I also just want to say that it is probably not the easiest of tasks to maintain peace and contentment in South Africa in this time of depression, with all the kinds of pressure that that causes, in a very difficult sphere, the labour sphere, in which so many millions of people are involved, and where it does not take a great deal to make emotions run high and where it is not very easy always to keep abreast of development and demands.

At present the Department of Manpower is in the uncomfortable situation, as far as its staff situation is concerned, that more than 48% of its posts are either not filled at all or are inadequately filled. This means that all this work has to be done by a department which is under very severe pressure, the kind of pressure—I know it myself—which entails that many of our officials are already working over the weekends to be able to handle the work. Hon. members will also understand that due to circumstances, one division of the department, for example, the unemployment insurance division, is working under even greater pressure, because apart from anything else, the claims are of course increasing considerably. Accordingly, against this background I wish to extend my cordial thanks to the department for the loyal way in which all have co-operated in recent months to deal with the activities of the department as meaningfully and as well as they have in fact done. All the officials deserve the praise of this House and I shall take pleasure in conveying it to them. I also wish to say that 30 additional senior posts have been approved, several of which have already been filled. This will also improve the position in the top management of the department. I am grateful that the Commission for Administration was able to assist the department in this regard.

I should like to say that we can be very grateful for the economic situation in South Africa. If we compare it to that in the world at large, we can be very grateful about one important matter, and that is the stability which has fallen to our lot in this country, because it is so easy to be destabilized in any country if a country’s labour force has problems either with the Government or among its members, if severe pressures should occur. I need not inform the Committee as to what is going on in other countries of the world. Hon. members read the newspapers and they know what the situation is. South Africa’s position is even more difficult than that of other countries because here we are saddled with a population structure which is so much more difficult than the population structures of countries that draw their labour force from a homogeneous population. I am tempted to say that the South African situation is exceptionally difficult compared with any comparable country in Europe. The fact that in our circumstances we enjoy our present labour peace, speaks volumes. The fact is that this is expressed in different ways. If we compare the labour unrest in South Africa to that in America, for example, or in the countries of Europe, then I want to say that there is no comparison whatsoever. The hon. member for Roodeplaat also indicated that we were in a virtually stable situation. If we look at the strikes which have taken place in this country during this year, we see that they signified a loss of work per day per worker—this is in respect of all workers in the industries and services of South Africa—of 7 seconds. To tell the truth, the loss in respect of workers who came to work late and left early was far greater, as far as working hours are concerned, than those in respect of the total numbers of strikes in South Africa. That is how fortunate our circumstances are. If we are to express in figures the situation which obtained last year which the position this year as regards the time lost due to strikes in South Africa in comparison with other countries, we find that the average duration of a strike in South Africa was 2,6 days per strike. The United Kingdom was closest to that figure with a figure of 14,5 days. As regards the first quarter of this year, in comparison with the first quarter of last year, the average loss in strikes in the first quarter of 1983 was 1,3 days as against last year’s figure of 2,6 days, which was exactly 50% higher. This figure was several times better than the best in the rest of the world. I call that stability.

In this regard we must also take into account the fact that there is the pressure of unemployment. One cannot argue one’s way around that, because it is a fact. I want to say that the discipline of the people of South Africa, whether White, Brown or Black, is also praiseworthy in the circumstances. The average member of the population of the Republic of South Africa behaves far better in these circumstances than his counterpart in Europe, and this applies to all the races in this country. Those are the facts. I think we can therefore be very grateful that in such circumstances and in very difficult times we are able to deal with these situations in the way we are doing in our developing and growing country.

Having said all that, I want to add that stability is still the basis of our propserity for the future. If we do not have stability, then several things are not possible. It would not be possible to have the economic growth which is so vital. If we did not have economic growth and if we did not have trust, in this country, between all the people and the Government, among all the people amongst themselves and between all the people and the institutions and agencies that serve them, then it would not be possible to sustain a stable economy. It is as simple as that. Moreover, stability is far more important for us in particular than for other countries, because if we were to be destabilized, then the consequences could be graver for South Africa than they would be for other countries in the same circumstances; and this is due to several factors.

In the first place there is our population structure. This fact can make the situation more explosive than in other countries because our population is not homogeneous. This situation can become increasingly difficult, because the pressure on South Africa is far more severe than that on other countries. Moreover, the situation can become far more difficult because South Africa’s present needs, that it must meet in our specific circumstances, are greater, and South Africa must get by with less assistance in this regard than other countries. That is why I say that it is all a matter of stability. Trust in stability is the most important requirement today to keep our economy and the prosperity of this country going.

In this country we have 5,5 million workers, 3 million of whom are Black, and not all are citizens of this country. They are involved in our economy since they have come to our country to earn money here, because we have opened the mines and built the factories, and because we have to keep our economy going. These millions of people who have gathered in this country are very sensitive about certain matters. In this sphere, perhaps even more than in any other sphere, it is of the utmost importance that there should be no feeling of discrimination and conflict. This is the case in respect of two very cardinal matters. The one is concerns the whole issue of bargaining. Can one imagine a South Africa, structured as it is, with so many more workers who are on the way and who are coming to work in factories, and who are not White but are chiefly, according to the population increase rates, Brown and Black, belonging to different peoples? These numbers are steadily increasing. Not only are they steadily increasing, they are also becoming increasingly sophisticated. 50 years ago it was probably a totally untrained group; today, due to changed circumstances and as a result of training, the group is increasingly being involved in sophisticated work. Apart from the fact that the group is larger, the individual in the group is also in a stronger position, economically and otherwise.

In these circumstances we must be very careful how we deal with the 5,5 million people whose numbers are growing in our factories at such a high tempo. Therefore there is one important issue at stake. It has been discussed here today and I personally have had a great deal to say about it both in this House and outside. Indeed, we have passed legislation in this House and argued and motivated this in order to say why these things have to happen. This has happened over a number of years and when all these pieces of legislation had been placed on our Statute Book, this took place without a single vote against it in this House, except in the case of minor amendments that had nothing to do with the important issue.

There are two matters that workers feel very sensitive about. The one is discrimination in bargaining. What is the history of this? The hon. member, Mr. Van Staden, can speak from very long experience. He has sat in this House for very many years. Indeed, as far as we are concerned, he is a doyen of this House. He is also acquainted with the situation of the workers from before 1948, when the NP came to power. The hon. members knows what the background of the situation is. What was the background?

The background of development was, after all, as follows: Not only the present Government, but all Governments have always said that for two reasons one must not permit trade unions to which certain persons belong, to be registered. In the first place they said that the development of those people was not yet adequate, and in the second place they said that the existing situation could be dealt with well enough as it stood, with the existing trade unions. If things were to change in the future, we would consider them, but up to that stage we would not permit Black people to be registered in Black trade unions.

This worked well up to a point. Then we encountered a certain situation, and I have to remind hon. members of this because we are so quick to forget why our party did certain things. One fine day we found that we could not continue arguing as we had done up to that stage, because in the meantime a considerable degree of discrimination had been built in. That discrimination revealed itself in a very dangerous way. Several of these trade unions said that they did not need registration, but what happend then? They entered into agreements with large companies, and those large companies accommodated them well by means of such agreements. They also saw to it that they honoured the agreements. Therefore we developed a double system in South Africa. The next thing we knew, we were faced with a situation in which hundreds of thousands of Black people belonging to various peoples belonged to a large number of trade unions that had entered into agreements with a large number of companies. On the other hand, there were other trade unions which acted in accordance with the provisions of the law, and the people who belonged to them were White, Brown and Yellow. Thus we had a dualism. We then said that we could not permit a situation of this nature to persist. After all, we were allowing a very dangerous situation to develop. On the one hand we had a lawful system, and on the other, a system which had arisen as a result of that and over which we had no control. This system could have become very dangerous. Then we said that the wisest step we could take would be to say that as regards the machinery used by all the workers in this country, such workers should have access to the lawful mechanisms created by this State. In this regard the hon. member Mr. Van Staden is correct. The biggest and most important thing we did then was to change the definition of “worker”. Instead of saying that a worker in South Africa was a White, Brown or Yellow worker, we said that all workers in South Africa were workers for the purposes of the Act and should have the opportunity to participate in the machinery for settling disputes and negotiate with regard to their wages and salaries. If we had not done that, problems would have occurred. I can mention as an example the event which occurred in Johannesburg a few years ago, when 15 000 people went on strike. These 15 000 people worked in the city cleansing services. Within two days an epidemic was threatening and we had the situation that all the important people in Johannesburg had to travel with rubbish bags in the back of their Mercedes’ to dispose of those bags themselves, in order to prevent an epidemic from occurring. While those 15 000 people were on strike, no one had control over them and no one knew how to negotiate with them.

I do not intend sketching the whole history of the matter to hon. members once again. I just want to point out what has happened since then. From that time up to the present we have had an exceptional degree of labour peace in this country. There has been wonderful co-operation. It has already been said this afternoon that 21 trade unions have been registered, 9 of which are Black trade unions. 400 000 workers belong to those 21 trade unions. Since then not one of them has failed to comply with its obligations or caused problems for the department or participated in a strike. It is true that we encounter difficulties, but they are experienced with unregistered trade unions, to such an extent that amending legislation was introduced earlier this year to give the Minister the power to deal with difficulties in the case of unregistered trade unions as well. That legislation, too, was passed by this House without a single opposing vote. We have proved in practice that there can be a dispensation in which there is mutual co-operation and which enjoys the support of all.

Three parties are involved in this process. In the first place there is the Government, which has to see to the machinery and has to see to it that peace prevails. However, the most important two parties are the employers and the employees. In the process of the development of relations in the future, the employers and the employees of South Africa must do their best to see to it that we can continue to maintain peace on our shop floors.

What interesting developments do we envisage? Over the past two to three years we have observed what has virtually been a revolutionary development in this sphere. There is tremendous interest on the part of industrialists, the major employers and employees to come face to face with one another and to speak to one another. The development of goodwill in this sphere is the greatest in the social sphere of South Africa. If this were not so, how is one to explain the fact that despite major problems as regards the payment of unemployment insurance, we have enjoyed so much labour peace in past months? But we are fully aware that many efforts are being made to create problems. We all know that. However, those efforts do not lie within the orderly sphere, but outside it. We know that. We regret it and we shall do our best to see whether we cannot achieve peace there as well. I therefore say that in the development of a system it is unimaginable that one could speak about 5 million people working in the economy of South Africa within a double system, one for one’s own people, and one—which is regarded as discriminatory—for a large number of people, millions of workers who then lose confidence in the system and instability. Stability in South Africa’s economy is due inter alia to the good relations between the employees and the employers of our country.

There is another major possibility for unrest, and that would be if there were discrimination in another important sphere, namely earnings, the payment of wages. Do not think for a moment that one is going to get away with having two wage systems in the private sector, one for White people and one for people of colour. The fact is that the trade unions—and I am now referring to trade unions for Whites and for people of colour—have had one major fear for many years. As long as there has been a system of discrimination, and Black people were not permitted to belong to trade unions or to register, do hon. members know what they were afraid of? They were afraid that there would be two wage systems: a cheaper one, which many people would be able to offer in competition with people who were accustomed to a higher wage. In other words, there would then be a danger of destabilization of living standards. If one speaks of this today with any White trade union official, he will tell one that the Magna Carta of the White trade union leader is the assurance he has that in South Africa there are not two wage systems. Therefore a company cannot, for example, come from America and establish a major business enterprise here and then buy up the cheap labour. That is simply not feasible; a double system does not work anywhere in the world. That is why there is so much confidence in the Government’s jealous protection of the worker in this sphere as far as his wages are concerned. I therefore wish to say that it has always been the standpoint of the Government that as far as this is concerned, it wants to make the position of the workers of South Africa unassailable. I therefore wish to reiterate that the Government does not intend allowing a system to develop here which will disturb that situation in future.

Having said that, I want to add that we can of course expect that on the road ahead very heavy demands will be made on our economy in general, but very heavy demands will also be made on the department that must deal with this situation. This being so, it is important that we state our objectives. I do not wish to discuss this at length. I just wish to state our objectives briefly. Objective number one is, of course, the maintenance of stability, and in order to maintain this we shall of course have to see to it that all the workers of this country are trained and retrained to the maximum extent. It is impossible to develop a large-scale economy if a large percentage of one’s people suffer from a lack of training of the desired standard. It is impossible to develop the economy when one has to produce and export goods in competition with a competitor whose workers are three to four times more competent or expert or skilled than one’s own. One cannot compete internationally in this way. That is why the Government has said that it will go out of its way to co-operate and assist as far as possible in this major process of development of people on the factory floor. That is why the figures being quoted here this afternoon are figures of exceptional importance. It is of the utmost importance to note that over the past year we can report an increase of more than 160 000 in the number of workers who have undergone further training. When I speak about training I am not speaking about people who have received degrees or who have become artisans. I am speaking about an improvement from one grade to the following grade in the quality of workers—a human improvement, an improvement in skill and in expertise in accordance with measurable standards. This, then, is our next objective. Indeed, it is not possible to achieve that objective without doing what we are trying to do now, and that is to ensure stability and at the same time to allow training to take place.

A third and associated objective—and this links up with certain remarks made here—relates to productivity. It is simply not possible to talk about productivity if one does not have trained people who see to it that productivity is sufficiently high. Of course, this is based on sound relations. Therefore these are the four objectives we endeavour to achieve in order to determine whether we cannot maintain the economy of South Africa and build stability into it on the basis of these four objectives we set ourselves in the field of labour.

Thus you will understand, Mr. Chairman, that against this background I cannot agree with a great deal of the criticism expressed from time to time. For example, people say that we should permit everyone in South Africa to be taken into the economic system, even if they lack training, as long as they are kept in employment. That is not how things work. The Government is in the process of ascertaining in all kinds of ways whether there are perhaps methods of surmounting these problems.

Against this background I should just like to reply to a number of questions put to me by hon. members. The hon. member for Pinelands referred to a minimum wage. He also referred to the commission. I want to associate myself with what he said by saying that I am very grateful that the commission has published an illuminating report on the issue of a minimum wage and that there will therefore be no doubt that the way in which we determine the minimum wage will be in accordance with the system we have. The wage board decides what the minimum wage should be in any specific industry, or the conciliation board negotiates for a minimum wage. However, it is not for the Government to determine what minimum wages should be specified throughout. That does not work anywhere in the world except in socialist countries, and we are not a socialist country. Therefore the widespread demands for a minimum wage which are made from time to time simply can never be accepted by us, as, indeed, was also proved by the commission that published this report.

The hon. member for Pinelands went on to refer to the unfortunate situation relating to the delays in the payment of unemployment benefits. The answer I provide him with now is also intended for the hon. member for Durban North, who also discussed this matter. I have already sketched the staff position to hon. members. The fact is that as the unemployment situation has expanded, the number of claims has risen, for example, from 37 000 in July last year to 49 000 in November, and after that it again rose to more than 70 000 up to March this year. Therefore hon. members will understand that when the number of claims doubles, the processing of claims in such extraordinary circumstances will cause bottlenecks. We all regard this particular bottleneck as a very serious problem. That is why I paid tribute a moment ago to the staff of the department, who have been working day and night and over weekends in an effort to normalize the situation.

It is true in the first instance we encountered serious problems. The number of people who have to perform the work remained unchanged, while the amount of work doubled. In the second place, hon. members must surely be well aware that disposing of a claim is a very long process. Documents have to be sent in by someone. Sometimes the documents are faulty and have to be returned. It can then occur that a long correspondence takes place before a claim is paid. We have problems with this. We also have problems as a result of big employers not always reacting sufficiently promptly to assist in the process. This creates problems for us.

Disparaging reference was also made to the question of the computer. It is true that a computer broke down. The fact is that every department that has been computerized—this applies to the private sector as well—has found that it can take months before the necessary people are trained and the process operates smoothly. This is what happened here too. The introduction of a computer in this department did not, therefore, follow a pattern different to the introduction of computers in other bodies. One does not install the machine, press a button and then have things running smoothly; that is simply now how it works. People have to be trained for this. The fact is that we did not have trained people available. We had to train people to handle this.

I also wish to point out that in addition, many of the claims had to be returned to the homelands or to magistrates in distant parts. They also complain that they do not have the necessary staff to provide the necessary facts without further ado and to submit the forms necessary to dispose of this. That aside, these delays lasted two to three months. Nor was there tremendous fuss about that. Indeed, a large number of members of this House were not even aware that a bottleneck of this nature existed. The fact is that today conditions are virtually back to normal. I wish to convey my sincere thanks to the department for that. How did they manage this? They managed to do it by transferring officials from regional offices to the few offices where bottlenecks did occur. Head office staff also piled into the work. They worked at night and over weekends. The Commission for Administration were of assistance in this regard. Where women had to work at night to make up the backlog, the Commission for Administration permitted those women who had transport problems, to be transported by the State to enable them to work at night. We were very grateful for that as well. That tremendous team effort meant that over the past two to three months we have been able to dispose of 10 000 arrear claims, and today conditions are virtually back to normal. I think that hon. members should be grateful for this. These are the facts. I am grateful to the staff that this never got out of hand to the extent that major problems occurred. It is true that there were problems, big enough problems as far as we were concerned, but not problems that could cause a major fuss outside. We are grateful to have been able to get the situation under control in good time.

The hon. member for Roodeplaat also raised the question of strikes. In this regard I want to associate myself with what he said. I can only say to him that his information in this regard was entirely correct. I am grateful for the reduction and I am grateful that the hon. member was able to argue the matter here with the result that I need not do so. He pointed out the important inference one can draw from the fact that conciliation boards are now being used. He said that over the past year there were no fewer than 60 applications for conciliation boards. The fact is that 26 of these concerned unfair labour practices. What does this tell us? It tells us that the industrial court, which is also involved in this regard, has been accepted. The fact that the industrial court has also come into its own in such a way is an indication to us that this institution is a success. It is really with profound gratitude that I take cognizance of this.

The hon. member for Sasolburg contributed a good speech on trade unions. He spoke about balanced trade union leaders. It is true that if we had not had such responsible and balanced trade union leaders in this country over the past few years we would have had far more problems than we have in fact experienced. I want to thank the hon. member most sincerely for his contribution. On more than one occasion the hon. member has been present at meetings with trade union leaders, and he was able to infer that their attitude towards me and towards the officials of the department was an exceptionally favourable one.

Apart from certain questions relating to delays in the payment of benefits, the hon. member for Durban North also asked whether the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Fund could not be investigated. It seems to me that his idea is that we should investigate it de novo and should also consider whether we could not decentralize it. A short time ago the Unemployment Insurance Board appointed a subcommittee to investigate this very aspect.

The hon. member for Yeoville—he is not present at the moment—discussed minimum wages and stability. What I said at the outset will serve as an answer to the hon. member as well. He strongly championed a system of industrial councils. I agree with him. We must never under-estimate the industrial council system in South Africa. This system is the cornerstone of the stability we enjoy in the field of labour.

I listened attentively to the hon. member for Brits. He referred to and discussed the various structures. I want to thank him most sincerely for doing so and point out to him that these structures to which he referred do work, and there are several of them. The very fact that progress has been made in so many spheres attests to the fact that they work. The hon. member made a very sound contribution. I want to thank him for doing so.

I pointed out earlier that the hon. member Mr. Van Staden made an exceptionally good contribution concerning the background history of our trade unions.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to reply to a number of questions which I raised?

I am coming to that.

I also wish to thank the hon. member for Alberton. He referred to the activities of the department.

I now turn to the hon. member for Brakpan. I am very sorry that he again launched such a bitter attack today. I want to say to him that I do not think he understands a great deal of this. The mere fact that the hon. member Mr. Van Staden spoke about the registration of trade unions and the hon. member for Brakpan spoke about the recognition of trade unions, makes it very clear to me that the hon. member for Brakpan does not understand this. The way in which a trade union is recognized is by registering it. The hon. member for Brakpan gave me the impression that he did not know what this was all about. What is more, whereas the hon. member attacks everything that is being done, I am still waiting for him to tell me which of these pieces of legislation we made together he no longer agrees with. I have asked him this in the past as well, and I ask him again now. The hon. member simply attacks me, but the fact is that the hon. member supported this legislation during this very session. However, he attacks me and says that the legislation I brought before this House is the legislation which has shot the biggest hole in the body of the NP. What legislation is it that he referred to which has supposedly shot such a big hole in the NP?

But you say that you have read our policy.

But he voted for everything.

He voted for everything. On pages 12 and 13 of the document on CP policy, under the heading “Manpower”, the following appears—

The hon. member asks whether he can assume that the Whites will be given preference in the White area. Is that what he means?

Just read it and do not start asking questions again.

The hon. member should not be so cautious. I do not wish to catch him out. I am merely asking. The hon. member asks whether I have read it. The hon. member speaks about labour preferences. I therefore now ask him: Is the labour preference …

You will not get answers from me across the floor of the House. Forget the questions and finish your speech.

I ask the hon. member whether this labour preference means work reservation for the Whites? The hon. member need only answer “yes” or “no”.

Did you hear me?

The hon. member speaks about preference, and I am asking a perfectly simple question. He and I made legislation together here to phase out work reservation. Now he comes back and wants to give preference … I ask him now whether this means work reservation. Does it mean, if he gives preference to Whites, that he will reserve work for them? Is he going to reserve it for them, or is he not going to reserve it for them? The hon. member is being cautious now. He does not know what is coming. I ask him whether he wants to reserve work again. I ask him whether preference means that work will be reserved. I ask him whether he wants the Whites to be given preference as regards the number of types of reserved work. If the hon. member does not know what this is about, then let me explain it briefly. When he and I began to make laws to rectify this question, there were several types of reserved work. He and I agreed in this House that we should abolish this. I am therefore asking him now: Does he still want these things to be abolished, or must our party reserve work for the White man again? The hon. member does not know what this is all about. I ask the hon. member whether he can refer to a single type of work or industry in South Africa—not a minor one, but a major one—say, for example, the construction industry, the footwear industry, the transport industry, the mining industry or whatever, in regard to which he gives preference to Whites alone? Can he refer me to a single such industry? There is no point in the hon. member saying things here and then sitting there without replying. I asked him what section of the legislation we drew up together he no longer wants. He is unable to reply to me in that regard. I ask him whether their policy means that there will be work reservation again. He cannot reply to me on that score either. I ask him to show me one major industry where there should be preference for Whites alone and he cannot reply to me in that regard either. I ask him to mention just one industry in the whole of South Africa, and he cannot even give me one. I ask him: Has he read this policy of his? The hon. member sits there on the other side grinning, but I just want to say to him that I cannot help it if he and his colleagues have miscalculated to an extent that has resulted in their present situation. I can understand his bitterness because he is in a party which has one member fewer than it had a short time ago, and they are getting smaller. The hon. member dare not furnish an answer in regard to even one of the matters we are asking him about because he does not have an answer. I think I had better leave the hon. member at that. I am only sorry that he has acted with such bitterness. I do not intend to show bitterness in arguing with the hon. member, but the hon. member persists in attacking me from the outset in the most unsavoury language.

Who is talking about unsavoury language now!

That hon. member attacks me in the most unsavoury language …

You are the last person to talk about unsavoury language.

As soon as I reply to his argument, there is a reaction on the part of those hon. members. I asked him a perfectly simple question. He said something unpleasant about me today when he said that I had shot the biggest hole in the body of the NP by way of the legislation we had introduced here. But when I ask the hon. member a very simple question, viz. that he should tell me which of those laws with which we have supposedly shot holes in the body of the NP we should withdraw, he sits there as quiet as a mouse.

Surely you heard my speech.

I shall leave the hon. member at that and await the further course of the debate.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to thank the hon. the Minister for a particular act which was carried out at his instigation in the part of the country that I come from, namely Port Elizabeth. In the motor industry in Port Elizabeth, one of the trade unions called an illegal strike. The result of this was that members of another trade union arrived at work because the action of the other trade union was illegal. However, the employers could not accommodate them because too many people had gone on strike. The situation therefore was that as a result of the illegal behaviour of certain trade union leaders people there had to forfeit their incomes. I think this runs counter to all the legal principles in South Africa, namely that one has to behave in such a way that one’s behaviour does not cause one’s neighbour to suffer harm. This was illegal behaviour, which resulted in people who wanted to act legally suffering a loss because they received no income. These people addressed representations to the hon. the Minister and I am happy to be able to say that at his instigation the Unemployment Insurance Fund announced that from 1 September 1982 those persons who reported for duty after an illegal strike would be compensated for the loss of income they had suffered. I can assure the hon. the Minister that there is great appreciation for his action in this connection. I want to thank him most sincerely on behalf of those workers.

It just so happens that in the last part of his speech the hon. the Minister was speaking to the hon. member for Brakpan. I also want to speak to the hon. member for Brakpan. However, I trust that it will not be in a spirit of bitterness. Earlier this year we passed legislation here which gave a certain degree of recognition to unregistered trade unions. The hon. member for Brakpan expressed serious misgivings in connection with that legislation. He motivated this by saying that the relaxation of legislation to allow unregistered trade unions to negotiate would create fewer incentives for trade unions to register. Today I should like to take a closer look at this statement. I want to deal with this matter by pointing out in the first place that there are certain minimum requirements which apply to both registered and unregistered trade unions. After that I want to deal with the benefits which exist for a trade union to be registered.

The minimum requirements with which trade unions, including unregistered trade unions, have to comply, are that their constitution have to be submitted to the department. Their head offices have to be in the Republic of South Africa. Their annual financial statements also have to be submitted to the department. They also have to keep a register of members. As I said, these conditions apply to unregistered trade unions as well. They also have to provide the department with a list of office-bearers and officials and have to inform the department of any changes. They may not—and this is very important—be affiliated to a political party. They may not give financial aid or incur any expenditure or continue any activities or influence their members with the object of rendering assistance to any political party or any candidate for the election to any office or other position in a political party or legislative body. After all, it is central to our trade union set-up that they may not participate in political activities. A trade union may not render financial assistance to any person with the aim of persuading that person or enabling that person to participate in an illegal strike. I think this is also extremely important. In this connection the department has wide powers to ensure compliance with these requirements.

It is therefore clear that there are still a number of requirements an unregistered trade union has to comply with which will contribute to there being orderliness in this case as well.

I now want to consider the benefits accruing to a trade union which does register. In the first place we find that it has a statutory legal personality which does not apply in the case of an unregistered trade union. The hon. member for Brakpan will at least know what benefits are attached to this. It has access to the statutory industrial councils and can therefore enter into statutorily binding agreements. It has the right to object officially—and this is also essential—to the registration of another trade union which will serve the same interests as the one for which it is registered. It is therefore able to prevent the registration of a competing trade union which is not sufficiently representative. The benefits I have mentioned here are only available to registered trade unions. Another essential advantage is that it has the right to stop orders, a right which an unregistered trade union does not have.

If a trade union does not have the co-operation of the employers to collect its membership fees from the employees by means of stop orders, that trade union is actually doomed to be a small powerless organization in any large industry.

A registered trade union also has the right to approach the Industrial Court requesting that there be a demarcation of industries. Of course this applies in particular where there are conflicts regarding which territory has to be served by which employees. Office-bearers and officials of registered trade unions are protected against civil proceedings. The hon. member for Brakpan will admit that this is also an important concession to the office-bearers and officials of registered trade unions.

A registered trade union is also entitled to nominate persons to serve on statutory bodies in the labour field. Because mediation and arbitration can only follow on disputes considered at industrial level, only registered trade unions can be involved. Only registered trade unions are able to register federations which can be registered in terms of the Act. Such federations can enjoy official recognition. Such registered federations are even consulted on matters of national interest affecting the workers, for example, the anti-inflation manifesto.

In my opinion the benefits accruing to the registered trade unions are such that it would be every trade union’s ideal to be registered, because in that way it would assure itself of a status it would not have as an unregistered trade union. I therefore think that the hon. member for Brakpan’s fears in this connection are unfounded. As a matter of fact, his behaviour in not voting against the legislation in spite of his objections showed that he himself felt that his fears were unfounded.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this afternoon in the course of the debate the hon. member for Brits said that the only alternative as regards the solution of the unemployment problem was to play off inflation against unemployment. Obviously politicians are always looking for that mix which will minimize the number of dissatisfied voters. I am glad to say that I am able to announce a new labour philosophy this afternoon which will clearly show that there are also new and creative solutions to those problems.

*Just before I get to the new philosophy, I should like to list some of the constraints in the way of seeking such a solution. Firstly, some of the constraints are of a cyclical nature, namely a decreasing demand in the troughs and limited resources in terms of capital and construction capacity to provide the infrastructure like buildings, equipment, etc. in times of upswing. Secondly, and a very important factor, is that the technological revolution makes jobs redundant. I think that containerization and computerization are two obvious examples. The era of full employment on an 8 to 5 basis has simply gone forever. Apart from a few continuous process plants or extremely high capital-intensive plants, one can observe in any industrial area the 8 to 5 basis, namely the old single-shift operation which used to be the norm in South Africa. I believe we need a new work ethic, a new philosophy based on job sharing rather that on competing for the limited number of 8 to 5 jobs. The objective must always be to minimize the number of totally jobless and the related social and political problems. It implies a different attitude to various policies. As I list some of them, I would ask the hon. the Minister, the private sector and worker organizations to see how they can in each case contribute to make a such a new work ethic possible.

Firstly, in times of economic decline or recession it requires a retrenchment policy whereby one rather has one hundered per cent of the people working 80% of the time than having to fire 20% of the workers. Secondly, it suggests a retirement policy which provides for people retiring or partly retiring at a younger age so that younger workers and new entrants can stay in the market and can prepare themselves for times of upswing. Thirdly, even if there is full employment, for example in the building or construction industry where output is limited to the availability of skilled workers, why not share the unskilled jobs, which are fully interchangeable, on, let us say, a four-week-on, one-week-off basis.

The advantages of all these policies are quite obvious. Firstly, they reduce the number of totally unemployed. Secondly, the whole work force is given the opportunity to gain experience, thus making it better for effective competition when the economic climate improves. Thirdly, the team spirit and the work ethic of the whole of society are enhanced. Fourthly, in-service training is not as disruptive as in the case of full employment. Fifthly, I think it is important that it will be in total harmony with the Government’s new philosophy of self-help housing, which obviously implies both time and resources being available to a person. At the moment it is true that the employed has no time and the unemployed has no money. I therefore think that job-sharing, especially for the lower ranks of workers, could go a very long way to making this new housing policy a success.

Sixthly, I want the hon. the Minister to see how he can make this policy easier for industrialists to take by, for example, linking transport levies to the number of days worked rather than to the number of workers. These and other levies should be based on the total number of hours worked rather than on the number of employees.

In times of expansion, there should be a different series of policies. Firstly, rather have two shifts than build a new facility. Secondly, design a factory for two six-hour shifts rather than for one eight-hour shift. Thirdly, rather extend than duplicate. Again, I think that the advantages are quite manifest. Firstly, one gets a better utilization of the existing facility, namely by creating jobs without a proportional increase in capital requirements. Secondly, one management team or an administrative team on an eight-hour flexi-time basis can probably supervise two six-hour shifts, thus giving lower skilled workers time to train and time to build houses while at the same time reducing overheads, and it spreads the limited higher skills further. Thirdly, it gives a better utilization of infrastructure, transport facilities and other services. Fourthly, the capital cost of the job created is much reduced or, conversely, the same capital can produce more jobs. Fifthly, competitiveness in world markets will increase and, lastly, the equipment reaches economic life sooner, thus making technological redundancy less of a problem. There again I think the Government needs to take a serious look at its taxation policy, its system for depreciation allowance and its system for investment incentives so that these obvious benefits can be realized.

I should now like to mention a few things with regard to the new constitutional proposals as they affect manpower. When one looks at the Bill one can almost conclude that this hon. Minister, who has never been scared of change, had no say whatsoever in the drafting of the Bill. Firstly, the legislation will be an administrative nightmare as it increases the number of contact faces between the private sector and the departments and also between departments by three or four fold. Secondly, the creation of four bureaucracies will be a tremendous drain on manpower in the higher skills or management field. However, there may be some spinoff owing to the increased demand for paper, of wastepaper baskets, etc., but I do not think that that outweighs the disadvantages. Thirdly, it will certainly add to the cost of Government which is something that we can ill afford at this stage. Fourthly, in terms of labour relations and the promotion of free enterprise, the Bill, if it ever becomes law, will certainly not be a step in the right direction. It will in fact be a total disaster. I say this because in South Africa, for reasons that we all know, management is White and labour is predominantly Black. For employer organizations to say, albeit with some reservations, that this Bill is a step in the right direction is to tell their workers that management believes that workers should not have a part in the government and the political processes. This will immediately bring political debate right on to the factory floor through those labour organizations that can now operate quite legitimately. The free enterprise system will be seen as a system where management sides with Government in an oppressive way against workers. The president of the FCI once stated that one of the functions of management was to “identify and counter the insidious socialist philosophies which are becoming evident in labour organizations.” After the Bill has been passed, I can tell hon. members that these tendencies will no longer be insidious; they will be blatant and rampant. Industrial peace, as the hon. the Minister said, is perhaps not because of the good relationships between management and labour organizations, but precisely because labour organizations are busy organizing on a political level as they would not like to rock the boat at this stage. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Greytown. I must say I am rather disappointed. He started off by promising us a new job philosphy, but, if I interpret his statement correctly, it boils down to a system where 100% of the people in this country should be employed for a lesser percentage of time. If that is correct, he would also, I presume, advocate a kind of centrally planned economy. Then the hon. member switched over to the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill and he referred to the increase of the bureaucracy which, according to him, would put a drain on the available manpower. I really fail to follow the argument there. If there is such a high unemployment rate, why then should we complain about a drain on manpower if what would actually be achieved, is the employment of more people? The hon. member also referred to the erosion of the free enterprise system in terms of the new constitutional Bill and yet in terms of his philosophy, as I understand it, he pleads for a more centralized approach to economic activity.

*However, I do not wish to spend too much of my time on the hon. member for Greytown. I must concede that he did mention a few very interesting examples of labour practices, the majority of which are applied in a variety of circumstances and by a variety of enterprises in the private in the private sector.

I should like to refer to the report of the National Manpower Commission concerning the principle and implementation of a national minimum wage. This makes very interesting reading, and other hon. members have also referred to it. The hon. members for Pinelands and Yeoville referred to it as well. In the first place, I should just like to draw the attention of hon. members to paragraph 5 of the foreword to this report, in which the National Manpower Commission states its point of departure, viz. that it attaches great value to the principle of free enterprise, a principle which underlies the free market system. However, he goes on to mention that the National Manpower Commission is also fully aware that there are circumstances in which the free operation of the labour market is not always possible, or only partially possible, or in which the results—e.g. levels of employment and remuneration—are not always in accord with the individual or the broader interests and needs of the community. The chairman goes on to say that in these instances the Government must have the right to take remedial action.

Later in this report—I think it is on page 20—there is a discussion of the 1970 convention of the International Labour Organization, and reference is also made to the factors to be taken into account—this in fact served as the motivation for our not ratifying this convention—in the determining of minimum wages. Then, too, the commission refers to the needs of the community that have to be taken into account, and to other economic factors. I should like to stress the concept of needs as it occurs here.

Thus it is argued in the report that the institutional framework within which these things must operate, is adequate, and statutory amendments are not recommended for the adjustment of the overall framework.

However, a third point comes into the picture here, where reference is made to the free market system as the underlying basis. This of course has reference to the standpoint of the Government. The National Manpower Commission puts forward as its point of departure in regard to economic activity, the concept of individual economic responsibility. I want to emphasize this once again. Although this is linked to the free market system and the market mechanism, they emphasize their point of departure, viz. individual economic responsibility. Elsewhere, too, the concept of social responsibility comes to the fore. This social responsibility is something I would like to see developed into a total responsibility—an economic responsibility in the widest sense. It is argued that in fact, collective bargaining is the best mechanism for determining a wage. However, at the same time it is mentioned that in fact this only covers 23% of the total corps of workers.

The statement I want to make is that a great many of the people who in fact need the protection most are not covered by this approach. Several are excluded for obvious reasons, e.g. farm workers, domestic servants, public servants, etc. Although it ought not to be the purpose of wage determinations to resolve the problem of poverty—and I agree wholeheartedly with that—nevertheless this is indeed a matter which requires urgent attention.

The statement is made on page 49 of the report that the economic prosperity is limited largely to the White population group. In this regard the commission sounds a warning to the reader. I wish to refer hon. members to a speech made recently by Prof. Sampie Terreblanche to the Pretoria branch of the Economic Society, a speech in which he made the following statement—

Among the households that received less than R2 000 …

Per month or per annum?

That is per annum. The households that received less than R2 000 per annum in real value in 1973, therefore constituted 13% of the total as against 20,7% in 1980. On page 14 of the professor’s paper there is a table showing that in 1980, 800 out of every 10 000 Whites earned more than R12 000 per annum, as against only three out of every 10 000 Black people. Moreover, 335 out of every 1 000 Whites earned more than R3 600 per annum, as against seven out of every 1 000 Blacks. The point I want to make is that it is important that we consider this position and try to rectify it. We have a major responsibility to attend to this problem.

We are engaged in the democratization of the South African society, in spite of the opposition we are encountering from the Opposition parties. The more this process of democratization develops, the greater will be the insistence on the redistribution of wealth or the introduction of socialist measures. One certainly cannot expect the authorities to take over everything and undertake central planning. However, one can expect the authorities—and I also take it that they reject the approach of a national minimum wage—to begin to think in terms of pension schemes, unemployment insurance and other benefits for those who are not covered by this approach. Secondly, I think it is important that the authorities and people in a representative capacity will increasingly point out to the private sector its responsiblity as regards meeting its obligations in terms of a just and fair economy. This does not mean that these people have carte blanche to do as they like, but that they will in fact have to decide in everyone’s interest what they are going to do for the community.

The hon. member for Germiston District quoted Dr. Piet Meyer and added in a very positive spirit that she believed that to be economically active meant that one should be of service to and assist one’s fellowman in the service of God. She was speaking about all the people in the country. I associate myself wholeheartedly with what she said in this regard. This demands of one that in one’s economic activities, material considerations—that is to say selfishness—should not come first; instead, the primary consideration should be the opportunity to serve. In this regard I associate myself with what the hon. member said. I want to say that our conduct towards those people who indeed have most need of protection and assistance will, to a very great extent, determine to what extent we shall be able to live a contented, prosperous and peaceful life in this country in future.

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to be able to follow up on the speech of the hon. member for Randburg.

The strength of any country lies in its people, its workers. This applies to South Africa as well. The economically active people in South Africa, including the Black national States, are structured as follows: 17,3% are Whites; 9,5% are Coloureds; 2,3% are Asians; and 70,9% are Blacks. We therefore realize that the economy of the Republic of South Africa and the Black national States is built on interdependent labour. That is a fact of history. It is interesting to note that as far back as 1934 the churches in South Africa held a national congress at which the question of the poor Whites was discussed. On that occasion the English-speaking Abercrombie introduced a motion that 10% of the Black labour force should be repatriated every year so that, after a period of 10 years, a White Republic could be proclaimed. Thereupon a certain Dr. Koos Botha asked whether that was a practical suggestion. He asked what would happen if the farmers, the mines, the transport services and the factories were to relinquish their Black labour. They then proceeded to the next item on the agenda.

The White factory workers in the Republic of South Africa represent about 25% of the total economic White manpower in our country. Newcastle is pre-eminently a factory workers’ constituency, and for more than a quarter of a century it was my privilege to be one of the White factory workers of our country. As hon. members are aware, this year Newcastle was in the news, on occasion, because of the staff reductions at certain places, and also because of the dismissal of some people, particularly at the local Iscor works. Allow me, on an occasion like this, to pay tribute to the responsible way in which White workers conducted themselves under those circumstances.

Today the White worker of the Republic of South Africa is at the crossroads. He must choose between evolution and revolution. The acceptance of four important pieces of manpower legislation this year rounded off the recommendations that flowed from the Government’s White Papers on labour. These White Papers have clearly set out the Government’s manpower policy since 1979 and the objectives that are being pursued. The question we now have to answer is: How does the White worker in general, and more specifically the factory worker, see the present labour situation? My observation, after discussions I have held with trade union and staff association leaders, is that there is a feeling amongst the White workers that they are being neglected. It would therefore be desirable to look at the reasons why that feeling exists amongst White factory workers.

Possibly the greatest contributing factor is the fact that internal relations between employers, employees and even trade unions are not what they should be. I shall endeavour to set out a few reasons for this state of affairs. A great shortcoming that exists is the lack of efficient communication between management and first-tier supervisors. It is probably accepted too readily by employers that change takes place merely for the sake of change and that the sort of action described by a certain Mr. Gellerman is unnecessary—

What this amounts to is that change should be managed. What I am alleging is that there is possibly a problem in communications between top management and first-tier supervisors.

A further shortcoming is the lack of sound labour relations, particularly at the first tier, in other words the supervisory level. The White Paper in this connection is very welcome. The State cannot interfere directly. The White Paper says as much. Let me quote—

At all times the same standards must apply, whether to Whites or Blacks. They will also have to be applied very clearly and very emphatically at all times.

A further point is that clear staff regulations, including policy and procedural statements, must already be available, in comprehensible language, at the moment of employment. Employers must realize that the less one tells the worker, the more dangerous it is.

A further point is that rules, regulations and standards must be applied uniformly. This must not be left to the personal interpretation of individuals.

The greatest possible conflict situation, however, is to be found in the sphere of the White artisan. There will have to be a thorough investigation into the fragmentation of trades. As it is, artisans are choosing to become production workers. A further aspect is that the classification of artisans, with the concomitant wage differentiation, will also have to receive serious attention. Possibly it would be worth while to arrange for a thorough investigation into the position of the artisan in the Republic of South Africa.

I have already referred to the White worker’s choice between evolution and revolution. I am convinced of the fact that all responsible and reasonable White workers, including factory workers, will choose the evolutionary path.

I want to conclude with an idea expressed by Danie Greyling, the editor-in chief of Volkshandel. On occasion he said the following—

Mr. Chairman, I think it is many, many years since we last had a newspaper headline like the following: “Só verarm Suid-Afrika: Die feite ruk”. I Quote—

One finds oneself swallowing so hard, when one thinks of the problems of one’s own population group, those of the White man, that one cannot find words to express oneself.

What is the present-day position in South Africa? A body like Iscor paid off 8 000 workers. Where must they go to? What posts are open to them? A working man’s stomach and the non-working man’s stomach are the same. Hunger sets in after he has missed his first or second meal. The problem is that the report is simply written in one day, whilst the facts mentioned in the report have become a reality to more than one family. There is, in other words, large-scale unemployment in this country of ours. There are people who have jobs at present but who are not sure about still having those jobs tomorrow. [Interjections.] Oh, Sir, I wish the hon. member for Rustenburg, with his 400 little votes, would rather keep quiet. He ought to make a better showing in his constituency. In this Committee he bores me. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Manpower regularly appoints commissions. He is also one of the Ministers who regularly brings people from outside into his department. Those people do very good work, but it must be processed by the political head. Those labour proposals drawn up by people outside the political sphere, must then be processed by the political head. This shows us how meaningfully we can implement this in practice. We find, for example, that a commission is appointed to investigate the possibility of a national minimum wage, with special reference to the Republic of South Africa. For what other country would we have this matter investigated?

For Southern Africa.

Yes, Ron, you are a clever little guy.

Right!

You are on your way over there. They need you. [Interjections.] Does the hon. the Minister not know what has been happening in the labour field in South Africa over the past 50 years? In this period there has been a basic minimum wage paid in South Africa. Does the hon. the Minister not know of the great differences that have existed in the conditions of service for the various population groups? There is also the question of the difference in the level of training and the level of education for the various population groups. Why is the hon. the Minister again looking for a sounding board with which the rest of the world can beat us? The hon. the Minister is looking for something he knows already exists. He knows that there are differentiated pay structures for the various population groups. He knows that the determination of a minimum wage was not even successfully implemented in the former Rhodesia. Had he lent an ear to what was going on across the border, he would have realized that it was not an economic proposition, that it was not practicable. In South Africa it is impossible, too, because of the standards of living of the members of the various population groups in South Africa. If one laid down a basic minimum wage, one would find the Whites placed in a certain position. One of the hon. members referred to that a while ago. Certain Whites, let us assume, earns R12 000, and in the group below that they earn, for example, R2 000. How can one therefore determine a minimum wage? How can this be determined so that it is comprehensible to all and sundry? What I am saying is that the hon. the Minister is creating a sounding board for himself and hauling down coals of fire on this country’s labour policy. He is implicating people who should never have been implicated. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister can use television to blind the South African population with the sort of one-sided Karel Kraai and Sarel Seemonster speeches made here by Pik Botha.

Order! What does that have to do with the Vote under discussion?

Sir, I just want to point out how it is done. [Interjections.]

One can make that kind of speech to a public audience. The world has certain bodies that carry out investigations into labour relations in a country. These reports are read throughout the world, and throughout the world they are followed up. The result is that throughout the world it will be said: Although South Africa alleges that it is moving away from discrimination, because of the prevailing circumstances, it really cannot lay down a national minimum wage.

The greatest problem one could create for oneself would be to broadcast cosmetic slogans to the world. One of the biggest mistakes one could make would be to say “work for the worker”, because later one would have to give him that work. One of the biggest mistakes one could make would be to say “equal pay for equal work”, because later one would have to keep one’s word.

Of course.

That is the other side of the story.

The biggest single problem the Government has, is that its slogans are catching up with it. I must tell the hon. the Minister that he was on the right track when he said, for example, that he was appointing a commission to investigate labour relations. That is also what one encounters in the American method. For quite some time one sees large headlines: “Commission investigating minimum wages”. Everybody is happy, but one day that commission of enquiry must come up with an answer. Let us look at a slogan like “adapt or die”. What a terrifying slogan in this country of ours!

Order!

Sir, I am about to link that up with manpower.

Order! I should be pleased if the hon. member would do so now.

Then one gets a slogan like: “The Coloured is not a leper”.

Order!

Sir, then one finds that a minimum wage does not fit into the structure.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I allege that the hon. member for Langlaagte is playing the fool with the Chair.

Order! I request the hon. member for Langlaagte to come back to the Vote under discussion.

Sir, that is exactly what I am busy doing. I want to point out that by making certain utterances to the outside world, the hon. the Minister of Manpower wants to make the world believe that there is an equalization process taking place in the field of labour, whilst he knows that this cannot be done. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning must remember that the other evening I had to listen to him for two and a half hours; he can now listen to me for a little while. Let him therefore sit down. Our biggest problem in recent times … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the Committee have as much compassion for those who, as a result of the recession, are having a difficult time of it, as set out in the HSRC report, but since the hon. member for Langlaagte has used the same newspaper cutting on a previous occasion to make a similar disjointed speech, he cannot expect me to react to his comic stodginess this evening.

Tell us the story of your membership of a supernation.

I must say that I find it absolutely lamentable and totally unacceptable that in each manpower debate, whether on legislation or on the Vote, the CP’s chief spokesman has very little to say about labour matters, engaging us rather in all manner of trifling, insignificant gossip about the hon. the Minister of Manpower. As the second largest Opposition party in South Africa—that is, in any case, no achievement—that party has a duty …

Tell us about the letter to Connie.

What letter to Connie? I want to tell that hon. member that in my whole fife I have only written two letters to Connie Mulder, and both were letters of thanks. The one was in reply to a letter he wrote to me when I won in 1977, and the second one was when he made an appearance in my constituency. I also have letters from those hon. members and from their leader, and I would not hesitate to quote them if they carry on with their nonsense here.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to ask what this has to do with the Vote under discussion.

Order! I agree with the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member for Benoni must confine himself to the Manpower Vote.

It is lamentable that the hon. chief spokesman on manpower matters in the CP never has anything to say about manpower in the manpower debates. It is no use his quoting, as he did here this afternoon, a few sentences from the programme of principles and then asking us whether we have read that programme of principles. There is a difference between a programme of principles and policy. The policy must be detailed and must be a statement of one’s actions in implementing one’s principles. The place for such policy statements is here, and the opportunity for making such statements was this afternoon.

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Vote under discussion.

In a previous manpower debate the hon. member for Brakpan, with all the venom at his disposal, shouted across the floor of the House that the CP was going to abolish Black trade unions. This afternoon he said the CP would phase them out. I should like to ask the hon. member how the CP thinks it is going to manage that. Is he going to ask Black trade unions to cancel 10% of their membership each year, or is he going to cancel the registration of one trade union each year? Surely that is not possible. The hon. member says he wants to abolish Black trade unions. Because it is typical of their conduct, I take it that is also what the CP envisages. I want to tell the hon. member for Brakpan that abolishing Black trade unions is just as impossible a task as their envisaged Coloured State. I now want to ask him whether he is also going to phase out or abolish Coloured trade unions.

Each people’s State will have its own trade union.

As the hon. member for Sasolburg said this afternoon, as far back as 1917 there were Black trade unions with thousands of members. They existed, although they were not granted official recognition. The CP will not, however, be able to abolish trade unions. The most they would be able to do would be to withdraw their recognition. If that party wants to make enemies of the thousands of Black people living in harmony in South Africa, let me warn him that he will not even obtain the goodwill of the Black people that he is advocating. If it is the CP’s intention to abolish Black trade unions by prohibiting them, that is a recipe for insurrection and revolution.

That is what Gen. Smuts also said.

I do not care what Gen. Smuts said We are now living in 1983 and are faced with certain conditions. That hon. member knows that if they were to do that, they would change all these peace-loving workers, with their orderly way of life, into allies of those very people who were responsible for the atrocity committed in Pretoria on Friday. I am warning the hon. member of the consequences of their actions. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, in the course of the debate, sit reading a newspaper?

Mr. Chairman, it is an information brochure that I am studying in preparation for the coming debate on agriculture.

The hon. member for Benoni may proceed.

I am issuing this warning about attitudes in this country with the utmost responsibility at my command. Until February of last year the hon. member for Brakpan was a member of this party’s manpower study group. He also knows that in the late ’seventies the Soviet Union appointed two labour attachés in Maputo. The hon. member is also aware of the fact that the communist-inclined World Council of Trade Unions opened an office in Maseru, with only one object in mind, i.e. to misuse trade unionism in South Africa for political ends in order to destabilize this country, to make them fronts for the ANC and the Communist Party and to destabilize this country by way of general strikes and violence. The hon. member also knows that the steps the hon. the Minister has taken have to a large extent, if not completely, headed off this threat and that the control measures applicable to registered trade unions are now applicable to unregistered trade unions. They also have to submit their membership lists now. They must declare their finances by way of audited statements. We therefore know where they get their money from, and we also know that that is the reason why they also have to supply the address of the head office and the addresses of their office-bearers. They have also been made subject to the ban on political activities, granting political support to a party or body, or receiving such support. That hon. member agreed with these control measures here this afternoon. This has brought peace and order to this country of ours. It has headed off a threatening situation. After all this good work has been done, on the strength of purely racial considerations, these people now want to undo all that good work and drive people, who are favourably disposed to this country, into the hands of the country’s enemies. It is not merely a question of their wanting to do it indirectly. The hon. member for Brakpan acts so irresponsible in these debates because he hates the Government and individual Ministers so much that this has completely blinded him. His previous conduct proves this statement. He hates this Government to such an extent that he does not care how he gets at the Government, even if such action does favour Marxists, revolutionaries and others with hostile intentions towards this country. The hon. member is shaking his head in disbelief. Why, then, did he lodge a plea, in this House, for Mr. Cheysson who praised Swapo? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is always good to speak after the hon. member for Benoni has spoken, because he always makes a meaningful contribution, and today was no exception.

We in South Africa are faced with one of the biggest challenges in this country’s history as far as labour matters are concerned. There is increasing unemployment in South Africa, and this is aggravated by the recessionary conditions prevailing throughout the world.

Today I should like to confine my attention, for a moment, to unemployment and what this entails for the future of South Africa. In South Africa at present there are 250 000 new applicants for jobs annually, and unless an economic growth of 4,5% can be maintained, there will not be jobs for all those workers.

It can rightly be asked what the Government is doing to create job opportunities for these people.

I create by-elections. [Interjections.]

As mentioned by previous speakers in this debate today, let me just point out again how these people are trained; how the Government has training done and makes money available for this purpose. We also know that small undertakings are big employers and that they also receive Government support. Then we also have the process of decentralization, which helps to facilitate an efficient distribution of work throughout the Republic of South Africa.

From the Third World we have learned the lesson that economic development schemes in those parts of the world failed because of the large population growth in those countries. With a levelling off of the economy in South Africa, we could only supply 134 000 people with jobs this year. This leaves 116 000 people who could not be supplied with work, and we in this House will therefore simply have to accept the fact that in the short-term there is going to be an increase in unemployment in South Africa. One could well ask how this problem could be overcome. This brings us to the question of our capital investments in this country which are necessary to provide for the needs of a growing population and which can be divided into two main categories. The first category is that of investments in economic growth, i.e. the creation of job opportunities, capital formation for future growth, etc.

The second category is that of demographic investment, for example in education, housing, health services, etc. It is true that demographic investment does contribute to an increase in productivity in our country. At the same time, however, it reduces the capital that can be made available for economic development projects. These are largely investments in economic growth that contribute to the creation of new capital for real growth and to the creation of new job opportunities. The balance between these two must be maintained at all times.

Let me just venture a glimpse into the future by pointing out that on the basis of price calculations for 1981-’82, the cost of education by the year 2020 will, it is estimated, amount to R2 000 million per annum, and by 2050 this amount will have increased to R8 470 million. During the same period the cost of health services will have increased from R670 million to R2 800 million, and the cost of housing from R780 million to R1 916 million per year. The amounts I have just mentioned give us an idea of how economic capacity is decreased in order to stimulate growth and create job opportunities.

As far as we are concerned, there are only two solutions to this problem. The tremendously high expenditure can only be combated by a successful programme of family planning. In the short term the latest estimates indicate that in the next few years, up to 1985, there will be an increase of about 292 000 new applicants entering the labour market every year. The creation of job opportunities for this number of new workers is beyond the capacity of South Africa’s economy, even if there were an annual growth of 4,5%.

If we look a little further into the future and analyse the situation in more detail, we notice that between the year 2015 and 2020 it is estimated that 573 000 new workers will be entering the labour market annually. Once again the implications are clear. No country has the necessary investment capital to create new job opportunities so rapidly.

A further problem that we in South Africa face is the distribution of abilities in the labour force. There is a serious shortage of high-level manpower. This results in 15% of the labour market having to provide job opportunities for 85% of the labour force. This 15% consists chiefly of members of the White group, the traditional source of high-level manpower. Here the rate of population growth is so low that in future they will not be in a position to provide for the increase high-level manpower needs. South Africa is also experiencing a large-scale shortage of skilled workers in the lower levels of the labour force, and this aggravates the job supply problem.

What this amounts to, in a nutshell, is that we in this country—this also applies to each one of us in this House today—will have to co-operate in bringing home to people, including people of other colours, that the tremendously high population growth rate will have to be curbed.

We also just want to express our thanks to the hon. Minister for the training being done in this country, because if it were not for that, we would have had an even greater unemployment problem in South Africa. If we can succeed in combating the problems involved in curbing population growth and providing training, I foresee a fine future for this beautiful country in which we live. If, however, we do not succeed in doing so, this can only result in a large increase in unemployment, and one can only guess what the results of such a state of affairs would be.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carletonville gave us a preview of the future labour situation up to the year 2000 and after. He sketched a picture of the astronomical sums that will have to be spent on education, training and housing. He also appealed to the various peoples in South Africa to consider family planning. He also said that it would not be possible for the government and our economy to create the necessary employment opportunities in view of the present growth in population. However, the hon. member spoke about the peoples of South Africa as though they were peoples belonging to one country. He did not refer to the diversity of peoples we have here at the southern tip of Africa. [Interjections.] I should like to tell him that we share his concern about the future. However, we say that employment opportunities must be created for the labour force. I also want to point out to him that demographers have indicated that from now until the year 2000, 19 cities the size of Soweto will have to be built for Black people. However, if the government of the day allows those 19 Black cities to be built in the heartland of the Whites in South Africa, if it allows that development to take place in the heartland of the Whites, and housing and employment opportunities to be made available to that increasing number of people, it will create endless problems for us here in South Africa. That is why the CP says that as far as the labour force is concerned, planning should take place in such a way that the employment opportunities, housing, education facilities and schools be provided within the borders of the countries of the various peoples.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brits said that if the CP were to come to power it would remove the rights of the Black people by phasing out Black trade unions in South Africa. The hon. member for Sasolburg said that Black people had certain established rights. He also said that there had been Black trade unions since 1917, and if Black trade unions were done away with, Black people would be deprived of an established right and they would be driven into the hands of communism.

Since the hon. member for Sasolburg has referred to the established trade union rights of Black people, I want to remind him that Black people once had political rights in South Africa too. However, through its policy of separate development, the NP has striven to make the various peoples free within the borders of their own countries, and it has systematically removed the rights of Black people from the political system of the Whites and given Black peoples political rights within their own territories. [Interjections.]

Separate development is not a policy of deprivation. Separate development is a policy that gives, too. This means that if Black people have political rights in their own areas, they should also be given preference in the labour market of their own countries. For example, this means that the Tswana should be given preference in the labour market in his own homeland. Where White workers have been replaced by Blacks in the national States over the years, the NP has said that this was creative withdrawal. However, when the CP says that it is its policy to give the various people preference in the labour sphere in their own territories, and to the Whites in their own territory too, it is said that this is racist and that Blacks are being deprived of established rights and that they are being driven into the hands of communism.

According to the NP’s policy of liberating all Black peoples politically in their own countries, a stage will be reached when all peoples will be free and there will be no Black citizens in White South Africa. Every Black man in South Africa will be a citizen of his own State. Whites working in the national States must be replaced systematically. The Black man has preference in his own national State. That is NP policy, is it not? Or has the NP deviated from that? If it is still NP policy, I want to ask: Is it unfair and un-Christian for a party to say that White workers should have preference in the White areas of South Africa? Is that un-Christian and unfair?

No.

The CP says it is the right of the White worker to be given preference in the White areas of South Africa. Does the hon. member agree?

Yes.

Why, then, does the NP argue with us when we say that that is our policy? In the same way it is the right of the Tswana to enjoy labour preference in Bophuthatswana.

The major concern of the CP is that the labour policy of the governing party gives Black peoples who have been liberated politically in their own countries, a bargaining power in White South Africa which could have far-reaching political implications. The Government’s labour policy has been presented as being essential for labour peace, to promote greater productivity and to facilitate negotiations between employer and employee. What has happened since the new labour legislation came into operation and since Black trade unions have been accorded recognition through registration? A report dealing with this appeared in the Argus of 17 May 1983, under the headline “1982 Record Strike Year”. I quote—

I should like to quote from the explanatory memorandum of the department. It mentions that since the labour legislation of the governing party was accepted, there have been many more strikes in South Africa than in previous years. The result is that the instruments for labour peace and higher productivity are to an increasing extent being utilized by Black people and Coloureds to achieve their aims and ideals through strikes. I become concerned when I consider the NP’s attitude in respect of the rights and privileges of Black and Brown people. In Die Nasionalis aan die werk people are told that when they reason with people, they should make them despondent about the preponderance of numbers and should emphasize that the rise of the Black man and the Coloured is inevitable and that we should utilize their numbers and expertise positively, since they are not necessarily enemies. As far as the labour field is concerned, one point in particular was referred to, viz. that labour involves certain rights. That is what the NP said in its publication Die Nasionalis aan die werk. This gives rise to even greater concern if one reads this in conjunction with certain statements. Mr. Jaap Cilliers, the retired Director-General of Manpower, said that the new labour dispensation had caused many Black workers and workers of colour to have expectations in spheres outside the field of labour.

Of course.

The hon. member for Pinelands agrees. He also said that because that is what he wants. Mr. Jaap Cilliers said that he agreed with those who said that Black workers were going to use the field of labour to give expression to their political aspirations. Mr. Bobby God sell, an expert on labour in Angola American, said that it was impossible to draw a distinction between trade unionism and politics. He said that what was much more important, still was that Black trade unions form a power basis for political reform. Let us see what Prof. Blackie Swart had to say in the Journal of Labour Relations. He said: “The new labour dispensation creates an island of non-discrimination in a sea of discrimination. The Black workers are going to use the labour field to express their political aspirations. Constitutional reform should take place more rapidly to make provision for the political aspirations of people of colour.”

Order! I regret that the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member the opportunity of completing his speech.

I thank the hon. Whip most sincerely. The professor said that the new labour dispensation was an island of non-discrimination in a sea of discrimination. He was referring to the political sphere.

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

No. The hon. member for Pinelands said that the Government had adapted its labour policy to the extent that the hon. member for Bryanston was able to say of the hon. the Minister of Manpower: He is the person who has created equal trade union rights for Blacks in South Africa, and more than any hon. Minister on the opposite side of the House, he has had the courage to throw the policy of Strydom, Verwoerd and Vorster on the rubbish-heap, where it belongs, and to come forward with labour legislation in this country which almost corresponds with the basic principles of the PFP. Despite this fact, that hon. member still says that there have been more strikes than before. Has this legislation not fulfilled the necessary requirements? The hon. member for Pinelands also said in the same booklet—

The hon. member for Pinelands is saying to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs and to the hon. the Minister of Manpower: “We are satisfied with your reforms in the field of labour. Thank you for throwing the traditional policy of the NP on the rubbish heap.” The PFP, through the hon. member for Pinelands, is also saying: “Throw the traditional policy of separate political development on the rubbish-heap as well.” That is what he is asking for. He says that those hon. members have already thrown half on the rubbish-heap, consequently they should throw the other half on the rubbish-heap as well. He says that there will be peace then. However, the CP wants to warn the Government party: Be careful not to place South Africa, by way of your labour policy, in the compression chamber of political integration. The CP says that it is the right of Black peoples to have preference in the labour field in their own countries, but that at the same time it is the right of the White worker in South Africa to have preference in his own area.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I really find the hon. member for Kuruman very odd. When the English-language Press and the pink press suit him, he quotes them. I want to put a few questions to the hon. member. How does one give the Tswana trade union rights in his own country when he works in the RSA? How do we deal with the joint claims of the Zulu and the Venda, in addition to ours, if we have to cross all their political borders? I just want to say to the hon. member that if he were to go to Germany, where Turks and people of other nations work, the so-called “Gastarbeiters”, he would find that those people all have trade unions in Germany. However, they have no political rights in that country. This can be compared directly with our situation here. What about the English and the Portuguese and people of other nationalities who work here? Is the hon. member for Kuruman going to keep them out of the trade unions, or is he going to allow them to retain their trade union rights as people who were not even born here, simply because they are White, despite the fact that they have only lived in this country for three months? [Interjections.] These are questions to which they must reply.

I also want to say to the hon. member that strikes do not only occur among people who are members of recognized trade unions. That is a specious argument. Strikes have always occurred; they occurred long before Black trade unions were recognized. Why say now, all of a sudden, that last year’s strikes occurred because Black trade unions had been recognized? Really, Sir, I do not know how those people think! The hon. member for Kuruman is living in a dream world. Does he really think that strikes are the result of the recognition of Black trade unions? Really, Sir, he should come back to earth.

I now wish to come back to a situation which is gradually starting to recur in this country. Colleagues of mine in the business world have told me that they expect a great deal of pressure to be exerted on American and European companies in the near future, supposedly to ensure just treatment of their workers. This approach is nothing new, since most of us—excluding the CP, of course—know something about the political pressure that has been exerted on companies in the past. However, few of us know where this whole affair originated, and consequently I want to concentrate on the origin and development of this pressure from abroad.

The champion of Black rights in the USA, Dr. Leon Sullivan, is regarded by many as the father of the movement to force companies to meet certain requirements in the labour sphere, particularly after the publication of the so-called Sullivan Code which is held out to American companies. The hon. member for Brakpan has also referred to Sullivan. Apparently this is all he has heard about in the past. The idea of using the labour set-up in the RSA as a political weapon originated as far back as 1964, when the ILO adopted a declaration on South Africa. [Interjections.] Those hon. members of the CP have had a turn to speak, and they will have another turn. They may as well keep quiet now. Of course, the ILO is an out-and-out instrument of the UN, as became apparent at a later stage when our membership of the ILO was declared null and void. Whatever the case, the preamble to the constitution of the ILO, and also the Declaration of Philadelphia, was accepted by its members, in terms of which they solemnly declare that all people, regardless of race, colour or sex have the right to pursue both their physical and their spiritual development in circumstances of freedom and dignity, economic security and equal opportunities. In itself, all this sounds very impressive, and I shall come back to it if I have the time.

In 1974, 10 years later, a committee of the British House of Commons, after having carried out an investigation into British business interests in the RSA, published a code of labour practices that was adopted by all nine member countries of the European Economic Community in 1977. In this way the onslaught by the European countries was launched. On 28 April 1978 the Canadian Secretary of Foreign Affairs announced that the Canadian Government had also published a code of labour practices for Canadian companies in the RSA. The onslaught therefore began expanding to the Americas and as I have already said, this culminated in the publication of the Sullivan Code in the seventies, which the then American Assistant Secretary of State, Richard M. Moose, gave absolute recognition on 1 March 1979, when he said—

Thus the full circle in the onslaught on the most vulnerable artery of the RSA, its labour situation, was therefore completed and as a result, one of our major allies had played into the hands of the ILO and of our other enemies.

Why do I say this? Allow me to motivate this further. All the above-mentioned codes pursue fine, impressive-sounding ideals. Most of them originated as a result of pressure from the ILO. All those countries have fallen into the same trap.

However, not one of those countries has given the same publicity to what the hon. the Minister and his department have achieved in the field of labour. Here and there a word of approval has been heard, but nowhere has the progress that has been made in the labour field in the RSA been unequivocally praised. On the contrary, when the ILO began to realize that our major trading partners were making sounds of approval, it decided to put a stop to this immediately, and, lo and behold, it showed its true colours.

A little more than 12 months ago the ILO decided to “update” the 1964 declaration. The declaration is no longer concerned with labour; it has become an attack on the entire socio-policical structure of our country. Just listen to what they say now—

The ILO adopted the following programmes of action, and due to a lack of time I shall quote only one: Member countries of the ILO are to carry out the following plan of action—

One asks oneself whether material support for such atrocities as were committed in Pretoria on Friday is correct. Is this the purpose of support from countries that are our trading partners? No, the time has come for our trading partners to take stock and realize what they are supporting. I ask our Western allies only one question: How many other codes of conduct have they adopted officially? Have they also published codes for Russia, East Germany, Zimbabwe, Communist China, India or any other country?

Do you know what, Sir? Here in our country people are merrily playing into the hands of our enemies, and here I am referring to the CP. Whereas the Government, with its labour policy, including the recognition of the freedom of association, has brought about labour peace and stability, the CP is now coming forward with riduculous statements such as that they are going to put a stop to Black trade unions; they are going to prohibit Black trade unions. Can they imagine what they would unleash on the factory floors? Can they imagine what the result of this is going to be? Do they realize what chaos they are going to cause in our mines? Precisely what our enemies want. The ILO will ride on the back of chaos, its appeals will gain more credibility.

We warn the CP: Cease your diabolical game; the only ones who stand to get hurt, are the people you pretend to want to protect—the White workers of South Africa—since chaos on the factory floors will affect them too. The hon. members of the CP are in the process of stirring up unrest among the Blacks, and the bitter fruits of this will be reaped by the CP.

The Government has brought about labour peace and stability, a precious commodity that no one—and that includes the CP—is going to upset. We will never allow other Governments to use our labour force to thwart our policy. If they do something which falls within the framework of the Government’s policy, they are most welcome to do so; but if not, we will fight them with all the power at our disposal.

Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker, the hon. member for Stilfontein, made a contribution to this debate in his characteristic fiery manner.

Next year in this debate I should like to ask the hon. member for Brakpan to elaborate on his statement that the CP would adopt a policy of “creative withdrawal of labour”. We should like to debate this matter with him next year.

From the memorandum the hon. the Minister’s department was kind enough to provide us with, it appears on page 8 that the number of apprentices undergoing training rose from 31 757 in 1981 to 36 098 in 1982. This fact in itself is perhaps the most irrefutable proof that the new labour dispensation which took shape in the early eighties under the guidance of the hon. the Minister is succeeding. Having said that the number of apprentices under contract rose by approximately 4 500 in one year, one asks oneself what the status of these apprentices is when they have completed their apprenticeship. What is the status of the artisan?

The law provides that an apprentice whose apprenticeship extends over five years may take a trade test at the trade test centre at Olifantsfontein after 3½ years have elapsed. If he passes this test, he immediately has artisan status. If he does not pass, he may take the test again in six months’ time. He need not take the test at all. After five years have elapsed he then achieve artisan status.

I maintain that if a person qualifies for artisan status, but only through effluxion of time, he has little status in his profession. I also feel that a person who takes the trade test and passes it should have a higher status than the person who becomes an artisan because that period of time has elapsed. But because his colleagues are able to become artisans in this way, the artisan who passes the test does not really have a higher status.

I therefore want to recommend that the Apprenticeship Board and the Manpower Commission should consider the following suggestion: I want to suggest that all artisans should be compelled to take a trade test. They may do so after three and a half years, after four years, or after five years, but all apprentices should have to take a trade test before they qualify. They can then be issued with a certificate according to the grades they achieved in the test. One could therefore have a Grade C artisan, a Grade B artisan or a Grade A artisan.

According to the German pattern, if a Grade A artisan has two years practical experience and has also passed a further proficiency test, he can qualify as a master artisan. Mr. Chairman, can you imagine what status a master artisan would have in our country and what wages he could command for the work he does?

If such a system were to be accepted, one could ask what benefits would be derived from this? What would the consequences be? The quality of the work done by our artisans would improve tremendously because a standard would be set. When a standard is set by our better artisans, the poorer artisans would strive to attain the same level so that they could also qualify as high-grade artisans. A further benefit which would be derived from this would be that the artisan, and particular the better qualified artisan, could negotiate a better remuneration because he would be better equipped to do work of a high standard. He could prove this by the grades he achieved when he took the trade test. A further result of this would be that our trade test centre at Olifantsfontein would either have to be enlarged considerably, or other centres of this kind would have to be established. I am saying this because we know from experience that good artisans, who have completed a period of service of 3½ years and who wanted to take the trade test, unfortunately could not be accommodated. There was no space in the trade test centre for them to take the test, and some of them have to wait for up to six months or longer for an opportunity to take the trade test.

That is why I should like to ask that the compulsory writing of a trade test by our apprentices receive attention and that the Apprenticeship Board or the Manpower Commission make representations to the hon. the Minister in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciated the two replies that we had from the hon. the Minister earlier on in the debate and I look forward to replies on a number of other questions which I put to him earlier in the debate. I think his explanation—I cannot put it any higher than that—regarding delays in the Unemployment Insurance Fund is simply not good enough. It may be all right in the relaxed atmosphere of this Chamber, but when one is talking about people who are unemployed and who have been paying their dues and simply have to wait month after month, that kind of explanation is not good enough. So I hope that we are going to get the assurance from the hon. the Minister that there are going to be no delays in the future. I do not think that his reply was good enough.

I have given you the assurance that we are normalized by now.

Yes, but normalized means that you are way behind.

I am sorry, but I cannot do better than that.

Well, I hope that the people concerned, people who have been paying their dues, are going to be able to go into those offices and get what is their due. That is what is important.

There has been a great deal of discussion as to why Black trade unions were recognized and why they were not, and so on. There is no doubt about it that the NP changed its mind on this matter, and all credit to them for having had the courage to do that. I wish it would change its mind on a number of other issues as well, and it probably will. As far as I can see—if one tries to analyse the situation—in 1973 there was a spate of strikes, notably in Durban but elsewhere as well. It was, however, principally in Durban. As a direct result of that there was a new look at and a new think about the dualistic system which existed in South Africa. By that we do not mean that there were a whole lot of Black unions that were uncontrolled, but rather that White trade unions, and also some Coloured and some Indian trade unions, had legal rights which were denied to Blacks.

In the introduction to the new labour law, where the definition of employee was changed, this hon. Minister—and he told the House that earlier—recognized that all workers were workers. Therefore, for the hon. member for Kuruman to say here that White workers must be given preference in so-called White areas is absolute nonsense, and for the hon. member for Roodeplaat actually to agree with him is even greater nonsense because that totally contradicts the position held by this hon. Minister.

Quite right!

The one thing I must say is that the position of the CP is at least consistent…

Consistently bad.

Yes, consistently bad. However, it is at least consistent whereas if we were to take the utterings of the chief spokesman of the NP, the hon. member for Roodepoort, who said across the floor of the House: “Yes, that is right; White workers must get preference”, it is absolute nonsense, to put it mildly. I nearly used the language normally used by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs but I believe I should not do so in this august assembly, especially not in front of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs himself. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is, however, that we have an economy which is an integrated one. We do not have factories, mines, etc., in kwaZulu. But we do indeed have workers, and workers are workers, to quote the hon. the Minister of Manpower himself. He is absolutely right in saying that, and it is time that hon. members of the NP recognize the implications of the policy which is theirs. Workers are workers, and White and Black and Coloured and Brown and Indian workers are all united to build up the economy of South Africa, and therefore they should have the same rights and the same opportunities and the same privileges. [interjections.]

Political rights as well?

Of course, Mr. Chairman, there are inevitable implications flowing from that. One cannot ask a man to give his work and his commitment to an economy without his having political rights in that self same economy. [Interjections.] We have made it very clear, and I want to forecast now that there will come a time, in the not too distant future, when hon. members of the NP will have to acknowledge that if people are going to have responsibilities to maintain and to sustain an economy they will have to have the same opportunities and responsibilities in the political and social spheres as well. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I am the last speaker on this side of the House—so I assume—before the hon. the Minister replies. If one had to evaluate this debate up to now, I believe, it would be quite safe to say that from the part of the official Opposition we have heard nothing more than we have been hearing over the years, in any event, as long as I have been in this House. [Interjections.] The same applies to the hon. members of the NRP, of course.

As far as the CP is concerned, this debate will probably be known as the debate of the unanswered questions. [Interjections.] They dare not answer any questions, for if they did, and if they wanted to do so with conviction, their house of cards would collapse. [Interjections.] They are living in a world which is completely removed from ours; a world which is very different from this one. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Waterberg has still not answered the questions put to him by the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] He has still not answered those questions. I want to tell the hon. member that Waterberg is still waiting for him to answer those questions. Waterberg is still waiting. Waterberg is waiting in tense expectation. [Interjections.]

Order!

Waterberg is still waiting for the hon. member to answer those questions asked by the hon. the Minister. One thing is very clear to me. That is that it was necessary in the interests of South Africa that this hon. Minister should return to this House. That I do not doubt for a moment.

It will only be for a short while, anyway.

If there is one sphere in which the Government must use very clear language in spelling out its policies and in producing plans which can work, it is the labour sphere. I see that the hon. member for Waterberg is leaving the Chamber. He knows nothing about plans which can work. He produces things on paper and he uses language which appeals to people’s emotions, he could never produce anything which is practicable, because he knows nothing about practical politics.

What about a little challenge on Rustenburg? Or Delmas?

Order!

We produce plans that are practicable, plans which take account of circumstantial factors, in the labour sphere in general and in the field of manpower provision in particular.

This should apply not only to the policies of the present Government, but also to the Opposition parties which may believe that they could become alternative Governments. There may be room for many things in politics today, but there is no room for playing with words in South African politics today. The solutions lie in simple language. The simplest solution must be found to this difficult problem. The ambiguities of the CP and the conjuring with concepts which are lavishly put forward as possible solutions should be tested against reality once and for all. We must expose the foolishness of their plans. I can only say that the attacks made by the hon. member for Brakpan in particular on the person of Mr. Fanie Botha are repugnant to hon. members of this House and to people all over the country.

It is becoming clear now what an A. P. Treurnicht was already thinking of when he attacked the Minister in his Marble Hall speech in a hypocritical and veiled manner.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to speak of the hypocritical manner in which the hon. member for Waterberg made …

He referred to a “hypocritical manner” and not to a “hypocritical member”. The hon. member for Rustenburg may proceed.

I submit that the hon. member for Waterberg …

He is not as hypocritical as you are.

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte must withdraw his allegation that the hon. member for Rustenburg is hypocritical.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Sir, I submit that the nerve of the hon. member for Waterberg failed him even then at Marble Hall and that he was not prepared to accept the challenge of the time. With his usual play on words he launched veiled attacks, but he never had the courage to say in the party caucus or before Transvaal MPs as leader of the party in Transvaal: “Gentlemen, I see the red light.” He did not have the courage to do that. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is often said that something is a truism. I want to say that it is a truism that our strength in the labour sphere has in fact rested on power-sharing all these years. The position will be the same in future, no matter who is in power. [Interjections.] This has been accepted through the years by those who preceded us as a part of the reality of the day. Those who came before us—this was long before the hon. member for Kuruman came here—were forced by circumstances to share power, and now we must ask ourselves: Have we been weakened by the fact that we have shared power with people of colour in the labour sphere? Are they blaming us for having shared power? On the contrary. It has made us into a strong country. We would have been reduced to impotence if we had been hampered by a negation of that reality, on the part of our predecessors as well. Looking at the matter from a different point of view: Does the hon. member for Kuruman mean to tell me that if we removed people of colour from the South African scene, we would have more power? Would we have more power if we removed them from the labour sphere?

We want to have exclusive power in the White areas.

After all, one does not have to be clever to answer questions of this nature. The CP makes the following statement of policy—

Why do they not add that there have always been and will always be millions of people of colour in the Republic who will never have or seek employment in any other area than this one in which we all live? Why did the CP not tell the voters in Waterberg that the Government was specifically engaged in regulating and dealing with this problem? Their programme of action bristles with terms such as “arbeidsbesparende tegnieke”, “Blanke selfwerksaamheid”, “selektiewe immigrasie” and “skeppende onttrekking van vreemde arbeid”. Does the hon. member for Germiston District know what all this means? Has she ever read it? Not a word is said about training, however. Surely we must give our people the reasons why the Government regards training as essential if we are to grow and develop. The voter should be informed and should realize that the days are past when the labour scene could consist of a few experts in the top structure with subservient unskilled workers making up the rest of the labour force. Is it not clear to some people that one of our most pressing problems in the manufacturing sector is precisely the problem of low productivity? This is one of the reasons why our products cannot be offered at competitive prices.

The most important factor in this connection is precisely the enormous unskilled labour force which we have and which we must accommodate. We cannot wish it away. As though the UN, the International Labour Organization and other hostile groups were not creating enough problems for us by their interference and the political game they want to play in our labour situation with a particular end in view, the CP produces a policy document full of all kinds of crazy policy statements which are not worth the paper they are printed on. They do not take account of the factual situation and the demands of the times. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to the various contributions made by hon. members late this afternoon and this evening. I shall begin with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North. He referred to an incident—I think it is a very important one—which took place last year when there was an illegal strike in Port Elizabeth. On that occasion, a large number of workers who did not want to participate in the strike were given the opportunity of being laid off. They would be laid off, but with a loss of income, of course. On that occasion, therefore, there was a choice between allowing the parties to sweat it out, which would have resulted in great injustice, or trying to find a way of helping people who had been laid off and who could most certainly claim unemployment benefits if they were out of work. After all, that is the purpose of such a fund, and that is why the Unemployment Insurance Board decided to make R2 million available in case such workers remained unemployed and could not be usefully employed by the companies. They could then be tided over this period. This is very important, for in doing so, the government gave the assurance that it would assist those people who behaved in an orderly manner. It created great confidence on the part of a large number of workers in this country who want to co-operate to maintain order as in the past.

This step was criticized, however, and it is interesting to see by whom it was criticized. The criticism did not come from the workers or from this side of the House, but from the people who always criticize the Government for everything it does. The effect, however, was that great confidence was created on the part of the workers who benefited from this. I want to repeat that if such circumstances were to recur, the Government would not hesitate to assist the White workers or the Coloured workers. It so happened that in this case there were White, Coloured and Black workers involved. I want to say, therefore, that in my opinion, it was a good and timely action and it proved the Government’s good faith when it says that it will stand by the workers. Therefore I am glad that the hon. member raised this matter.

I also want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Randburg. He made a good contribution this afternoon and he actually expressed what is felt by many of us in this country. That is that there is such a thing as individual economic responsibility, as he put it. In a free economy, after all, it is not always the responsibility of the State alone to render assistance and to keep things functioning smoothly. In actual fact we all have a responsibility. I think the hon. member wanted to say that if a community acts responsibly and if a community takes an interest in its own people who work for it and if a community is balanced, that community will take steps to ensure that certain standards are maintainded. This hon. member argued and said that we should not lay down a minimum wage. It should not be necessary in a prosperous country such as South Africa, if everyone contributed their share. The point which the hon. member made is very important and relevant and I think we should all take it to heart. After all, it is not necessary that all assistance should come from the State. Everyone can contribute his share if he is a responsible member of the community. Responsible companies in particular should ensure that this kind of standard is maintained so that everyone can live there.

The hon. member for Newcastle referred to information and guidance. I know what he means and we have said before in this House that there should be much better contact between the top management and the people on the shop floor. This has been one of the shortcomings up to now. In spite of that, things have gone very will in a developing economy such as ours. We have not had a lot of labour unrest and problems and everything has gone smoothly. There has always been such a demand for skilled people and it has been possible to sell almost everything. Everything has been in the favour of the manufacturer and the employees have been neglected. However, this situation is changing, and it has increasingly come to the attention of business and industrial leaders that there will have to be closer relations between employers and employees in future. In fact, a few years ago only a few big companies had personnel managers. Today even small companies have personnel managers. Today big companies do not allow workers to enter their service unless they have undergone a period of in-service training. What the hon. member was trying to say, I believe, was that much better guidance was needed under these changing circumstances. The fact is that much better guidance is indeed being made available and that today many organizations concentrate on training staff to make proper use of the information. The State also makes subsidies available for the training of people who will be able to train others and who will be able to maintain labour relations on the shop floor. I want to thank the hon. member for his remarks.

The hon. member for Benoni spoke about labour peace, and there is nothing I can add to his remarks. The hon. member discussed the whole question of labour peace and maintaining labour peace, as well as the contribution which people can make in this connection. I want to thank him for the contribution which he himself made in this connection.

I come now to the hon. member for Carletonville. The hon. member for Carletonville underlined the dilemma in which we find ourselves, i.e. the large number of people who enter the labour market every year and the resultant strain on our economy. There are not many countries in the world that can be compared with South Africa in this connection. We are a developed country and we have an economy which we ourselves are trying to compare with those of other developed countries. The standards we aspire to are not those of Africa. They are the standards of Europe. We want factories and production such as those of our competitors in the rest of the world. However, there is a very big difference between them and us. Those are countries which either have no population increase or a very low one. Some of them even have a negative population growth. The result is that they do not have to accommodate many thousands of new entrants to the labour market, as South Africa has to do every year. They do not find themselves in our position, where we have to grow and to make up the backlog which we have as a young country, as well as accommodating many thousands of entrants to the labour market. Not only do those people have to be trained; new services and jobs have to be created for them. That is a different matter. The dilemma which the hon. member underlined is the dilemma of population increase. He was right in saying that unless we maintain a certain growth rate, we shall not be able to provide for that development and the creation of new jobs. This is a very serious problem.

To maintain the economy at such a level of development is no easy task. However, I think we all agree that the way in which the strong South African economy has nevertheless been able to absorb and train the entrants to the labour market in recent years, as well as to provide jobs for them, has been phenomenal. In saying this, I also want to concede that the backlog is enormous. At the moment there is an enormous backlog in all parts of our country with regard to the employment of so many people who keep entering the labour market at a certain tempo. This is a matter which we do not have to argue about now. It is a matter which should actually be viewed in its totality when we are talking about the creation of jobs. In this connection I want to say that the creation of jobs is not the responsibility of this department alone. It is the responsibility of the total economy of the country.

The hon. member for Stilfontein spoke about the codes which we had learned to live with over the years. He referred to the Sullivan code, the EEC code, the Canadian code and other codes which do not have much practical significance in South Africa. The effect of the pressure of these codes is simply this: If there is labour peace in the country as well as good relations, those codes are of no significance. These various codes are only of significance when things are not going well in our country. I want to make the statement that things are going so well in South Africa in all spheres that the codes introduced against this country have had no effect in our country. In spite of the hue and cry that is raised, the fact remains that the caravan is moving on, however much the dogs may bay at the rising moon. We are not bluffing ourselves; we have been living with them for a number of years.

I say they are a help.

No, they are designed to interfere in various ways. However, we have learnt to get on with what we have to do in this country. The success we have had in the labour sphere and the peaceful conditions we have maintained constitute an adequate reply to these various codes, after all.

The hon. member for Hercules made the point that apprentices can acquire expertise without undergoing the test. They can do this if they have been developing their skills over a sufficiently long period and then they can eventually become artisans in this way. His idea is that there should be, I could almost say, super artisans or master artisans; in other words, there should be a high degree of expertise. I believe this idea is a very good one. In fact, the National Training Council is giving its attention to this matter, for a very good reason. But the fact is that there is a very great shortage of artisans in the country. Surely it is clear in practice that there are degrees of expertise, that demands can be made on people who do not need to possess such a high degree of expertise, but who can nevertheless render a service. Diversification, or quality of workmanship, to call it that, is a matter which merits investigation. It is accordingly being investigated at the moment by the Training Council. I want to say, therefore, that the hon. member has made a very meaningful remark.

†Earlier today the hon. member for Pinelands put a number of questions to me and I should like to turn to them. He asked what progress had beem made by the National Manpower Commission in regard to basic conditions of employment for farmworkers and domestic servants. This matter is in the hands of the National Manpower Commission and I cannot tell the commission at what speed it should complete its work. I do, however, have a notion that the investigation could be completed during the course of this year and that by next year a report could be coming forward.

He also wanted to know whether legislation to amend the Wage Act would be introduced this year. The answer is that it will not be introduced because there will not be time to permit the introduction of such legislation. The hon. member will know that in all legislation of this kind, we give ample time for all parties concerned to investigate the position in co-operation with the department. If need be it could, I hope, be introduced next year, but there is no indication that legislation of this kind could be completed during the course of this year.

*He wanted to know whether unemployment insurance funds had been established in the national States. The fact is that we hoped that funds of this nature would be established in the various national States. We told them that we would help them to establish such funds and to prepare and train their people. I understand that legislation in this connection has already been introduced by three national States, while in the case of a fourth one it is being drafted. The idea is that the funds will be established within the foreseeable future. Attention is being given to the matter by myself as well as by departmental officials, and we are also in contact with the various countries, for after all, we are just as anxious to ensure that they will be a success. After all, some of the funds spent there are earned in South Africa. Therefore it would in the interests of South Africa as well if the funds could be used in a meaningful way and if they could be a success in those States.

Alex, my friend, it seems to me that you talked sense.

Of course. I always do.

The hon. member also asked me whether the Unemployment Insurance Fund will allocate money to unemployment schemes and what the position of the fund is at the moment. He also inquired about the improvement of benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Board on which employers and employees are represented, as the hon. member will know, meets monthly and considers proposals for schemes on merit, provided they relate to contributors. Details about the fund can be found on page 11 of the department’s memorandum. The balance in the Fund is R273 million. The Unemployment Insurance Board and the actuary are looking into the whole question of the improvement of benefits.

The hon. member for Durban North inquired about the delays in respect of unemployment insurance claims. I think I have replied to the hon. member’s question in part, but I want to add that the Unemployment Insurance Board is at present considering the payment of benefits to females who adopt babies. A recommendation in this regard will be forthcoming shortly. As I have indicated to the hon. member, the position has normalized as far as the backlog is concerned. I hope that we will hear no more about a backlog in future.

The hon. member for Greytown raised the subject of job sharing and asked whether this concept should not be promoted. As the hon. member will know, a great deal of job sharing is already taking place. The National Manpower Commission has conducted a study into work creation programmes in conjunction with the Department of Manpower and the Economic Advisory Council. A variety of measures are under consideration.

*The hon. member for Kuruman also asked me a few questions. He spoke about trade union rights in the homelands. In this connection there is something which I cannot quite understand, and perhaps the hon. member can help me. He says that Black people should exercise their trade union rights in the homelands. The problem, however, is that a Black man helps to assemble cars at Sigma in Pretoria, for example. That man wants to talk about his salary and conditions of employment at Sigma in Pretoria. He wants to know there what his conditions of employment are—when he starts and what the hours are. What is he to do, however, if he cannot talk to his boss there? Does the hon. member mean that that employer should travel with that Black man to his homeland and negotiate with him there? We have 37 000 factories in South Africa and three million Black workers. A trade union is an instrument for negotiating about employment benefits and conditions of employment. However, the hon. member says that the Black man cannot discuss these things here, but has to go to his homeland. How would such a system work? This kind of folly leads to all sorts of extremes. The hon. member has no idea of what it is all about. I believe that the hon. member does not understand the whole matter at all. If the hon. member likes, he may come to my department and they can teach him something about the subject. Then he will know what a trade union is and how a trade union works. However, it is absolute folly to say that the three million Black people of South Africa should go to the homelands to exercise their trade union rights there.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

The hon. member must remain seated. I am not interested in his questions.

I challenge you to stand against me in Langlaagte.

That hon. member does not know what it is all about. It is a rather twisted philosophy which he has developed. The fact is that we are dealing with material things; that is what we are concerned with. Therefore I want to come back to the hon. member for Rustenburg, who spoke about the realities of South Africa. We have realities in South Africa. Some things are located in a particular area. A mine cannot be moved to a homeland. The gold is in Johannesburg; the mine worker works in Johannesburg, and that is where he wants to be paid. Farmers do not move their farms and there are farmers with thousands of workers.

And his political rights?

Oh! The hon. member has political rights on his brain. This has nothing to do with political rights. What is more, the Blacks have not started working in these areas only recently. They have been working on farms in South Africa for the past century, and they work on all farms. They work on that hon. member’s farm too, they pick his oranges along the Letaba. [Interjections.] The hon. member does not go to Gazankulu to talk to them there. He talks to them on his farm about the price he will pay them.

Are you going to allow trade unions on the farms?

We have been saying quite clearly for a long time that because of their particular circumstances, trade unions are not applicable to farm labourers. [Interjections.] But of course not! It is not a question of whether a person is a farm labourer; it is a question of practicability. This has been stated quite clearly, and here I agree with the S.A. Agricultural Union. The circumstances are not homogeneous. Circumstances vary from one farm to another and from one place to another, and for that reason it would not be suitable in this sphere. It is different from a factory. There is a second reason, and that is the fact that remuneration takes many different forms. We have expressly said so, and in this regard we agree with the S.A. Agricultural Union. The ways in which labourers are remunerated on different farms are completely different. One farmer may pay a salary; another farmer may pay his labourer partly in cash and partly in kind. Another farmer may give him a part of the crop. In this way it varies from one place to another. The practices are completely different. Therefore it would be nonsensical to talk about trade unions on farms. It would not work. That is the reason. Hon. members are talking about matters which they know nothing about. Now I want to ask that hon. member a very simple question: If a trade union is an organization which talks to a man about his conditions of employment, about his income and his wages from day to day, how is one to talk to him if he is working in Pretoria, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town and one tells him that he is not allowed to be here; that one will go and talk to him in his homeland? Surely this would be folly. It is unrealistic, and the hon. member for Rustenburg was right when he referred to the realities with which we are faced. What he meant was that one’s point of departure should be the realities of South Africa. Only then can one produce a solution. What we are trying to do in this very difficult task, the task of maintaining peace on the shop floors of South Africa, is to take account of the realities of South Africa and then to try to achieve something. However, those hon. members have no conception of what it is all about.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

First of all, I should like to take this opportunity of conveying to you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Council of the University of Port Elizabeth, our sincere thanks and appreciation for the permission granted us to have this Bill dealt with as a public measure.

Since the proposed legislation is a further milestone in the history of the development of the University of Port Elizabeth, we wish to refer briefly to certain matters.

In terms of the principal Act, Act No. 1 of 1964, which is to be amended in terms of this measure, the University of Port Elizabeth was established on 31 January 1964, and has therefore been in existence for a little longer than 19 years. The University of Port Elizabeth is the only residential university in the country at which the media of instruction are both Afrikaans and English, and through the years a healthy balance has been maintained between Afrikaans and English-speaking students at that university. From a humble beginning on 1 March 1965, when 320 students were received on a temporary campus for the first time, the university has grown over the past 19 years into a vital institution with probably one of the most beautiful campuses in the country, and the student numbers have grown to 3 159, which represents a growth rate of 16,4%, calculated on the basis of the number of first-year students in 1982.

The University of Port Elizabeth makes a contribution in many spheres, and I shall refer briefly to only a few of these. In the first place, I want to refer to the rendering of community service. In this way, for example, in-service training and adult education are provided by the university’s centre for continued education. Problems such as those relating to labour turnover, labour unrest, labour law, etc., are researched and studied in a way which benefits the national economy.

In the cultural sphere, the university makes important contributions through its department of music and the music centre, which is operated in co-operation with the Education Department of the Cape Province.

Public health is promoted by courses which are arranged for the public and for school-children in particular. In the social sphere, the university makes its contribution by researching and suggesting solutions to local problems. One particular research project, for example, dealt with the leisure activities of the school-going population, and facilities which should be made available. Students at the university are actively involved in the care of the aged in old age homes and the students at the university are naturally not indifferent to the needs of the community.

The university rag will probably produce the fine amount of R50 000 in 1983 for distribution among welfare organizations in the Eastern Cape.

In the second place, I want to refer to the university’s research projects. During 1982, 435 research projects were registered by lecturers at the University of Port Elizabeth, and the results are as follows: In all, 285 research publications appeared in scientific journals; 59 papers and dissertations were published; 24 books, 8 programme systems, 124 research papers for congresses dealing with specific subjects and 285 general papers were published. For the continuation of research, an amount of R1 023 251 was made available to the particular departments and individual researchers at the University of Port Elizabeth by several outside organizations. In addition, post-graduate bursaries amounting to R102 700 were awarded to students for the continuation of their post-graduate studies by research organizations.

In the third place, I want to refer to diplomas and degrees conferred by the University of Port Elizabeth. During 1982, 20 doctorates and 593 other degrees were conferred, while 140 diplomas and certificates were conferred on students.

Since 1966, on the occasion of the first graduation ceremony, up to the present date a total of 8 031 degrees and diplomas have been conferred by the university, of which 402 were master’s degrees and 173 were doctorates.

Finally, I want to refer to sporting matters. In the field of sport, the University of Port Elizabeth has proudly taken its place among the South African universities. It has already produced achievements of world standard. In its short history, this young university has produced 21 Springboks. The contribution made by the sport administrators of the University of Port Elizabeth to the development of sport in the Eastern Cape is highly regarded. The training courses, sport schools and coaching projects of the sport bureau of this university are universally praised. The sport facilities of the university are also utilized by all sportsmen and women in the Eastern Cape community.

As is evident from the preamble to the Bill, we are actually dealing here with three main provisions. Firstly, provision is being made in clauses 1, 3, 4 and 5 for the removal of the obligation resting on the council to appoint a vice-principal or vice-principals. Of all the relevant sections of the Act, section 5(b)bis contains the strongest indication that the appointment of a vice-principal is obligatory. For example, the vice-principal is regarded as a constituent part of the university, along with the chancellor, the principal, the vice-chancellor and others, under the heading “Constitution of the University”. Therefore an amendment to the Act is being proposed. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the council of the university will not be obliged in terms of the Act to nominate a successor to the vice-principal if the office were to fall vacant. However, it will be free to appoint a vice-principal or vice-principals if it so wishes.

Secondly, in clause 2 the provision in section 8 of the principal Act in terms of which the appointment of the principal is subject to the approval of the Minister of National Education. It is being proposed in clause 2 that this provision be withdrawn, is deleted. Of all the White residential universities in the country, the University of Port Elizabeth is the only one whose Act still requires ministerial approval for the appointment of the principal. The purpose of this amendment is therefore to change the procedure for the appointment of the principal to bring it into line with the procedure which is already being followed at the other universities.

Finally, the insertion of a new section 17A is being proposed in clause 6. In terms of this it will be possible, subject to the approval of the Minister of National Education, to enter into an agreement with a technikon or other institution providing higher education for students, with a view to the joint training of students. The proposed new section 17A arises from the prescribed joint training of pharmacists by the University of Port Elizabeth and the Port Elizabeth Technikon, joint training to which the hon. the Minister has already agreed.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members on this side of the House would like to associate themselves with the sentiments that have been expressed by the hon. member for Newton Park in regard to the University of Port Elizabeth. I think all of us here will have witnessed with great appreciation the expansion and development that have taken place at that university over the last decade. I think hon. members will be interested to know that a certain political party in fact held its provincial congress at that university last year. I must say that we were very impressed with the hospitality we received and also with the general efficiency of all the facilities at that university. I think the wind blows a little strongly in those parts but, that apart…

Well, they have got “windpompe” there; so it is all right.

… the campus is in fact a delight to the eye.

One of the interesting aspects of this measure is that it recognizes the need for all our universities now to have a proper relationship with technikons. This is a recent development and we on this side of the House welcome it. I have great pleasure in associating the official Opposition with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank the hon. member for Groote Schuur on behalf of this side of the House for supporting this legislation. It is also a special honour for me to participate in the debate together with my benchmate, the hon. member for Newton Park, and to congratulate him on the introduction of this private Bill. If anyone had any doubt about the calibre and quality of work done at the University of Port Elizabeth, I think that after this concise and interesting speech by the hon. member for Newton Park, that doubt will have been eliminated. It is a pleasant and interesting experience to visit the campus of the University of Port Elizabeth. It has been my exceptional privilege to have been able to pay a visit there. One is particularly struck by the modern facilities and the overall quality of what takes place on the campus.

The University of Port Elizabeth has already proved itself beyond all doubt to be a full-fledged and autonomous university capable of taking its place with universities that have been rendering service for many years. I want to congratulate the University of Port Elizabeth on the achievements it has to its credit in so many different fields after a period of a mere 19 years, as the hon. member for Newton Park has already indicated. The early years of this university were sound and successful and I have no doubt that its future, too, is bright.

The amendments being effected are in my opinion fully justified. It is certainly appropriate that a university of the calibre and stature of this university should be able to decide for itself on the appointment or otherwise of a vice-principal or vice-principals and to decide for itself, without the approval of the Minister of National Education on the appointment of a principal. The council of that university will also be able to decide for itself to liaise with the board of a technikon or other institution and enter into agreements with regard to the training of students of the University of Port Elizabeth.

In conclusion I want to convey my congratulations once again to the hon. member for Newton Park and to the university. We on this side of the House wholeheartedly support this amending legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I associate myself wholeheartedly with what the hon. members for Virginia and Newton Park have said in regard to the statutory amendment before us. I want to thank the hon. member for Newton Park for the very interesting historical survey he has given us in connection with the growth of this important university over the past decade. In addition, we want to place on record our special appreciation of the survey he presented to us of the academic achievements and activities of this university. It is a pleasure to congratulate the University of Port Elizabeth on passing this special milestone. Therefore it is a pleasure for us on this side of the House to support this statutory amendment.

Clauses 1, 3, 4 and 5, as the hon. member for Newton Park indicated, are in fact enabling clauses in that they allow the university to decide for itself in future whether it wishes to appoint a vice-principal or vice-principals. Clause 2 puts this university on the same level as other universities. Clause 6 deals with the whole issue of co-operation with technikons. This is also valid in respect of other universities and I believe that it is a very important development at the tertiary level.

It is a pleasure to support the legislation on behalf of the CP.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NRP may I say to the hon. member for Newton Park: Well done with your Second Reading speech and the introduction of the University of Port Elizabeth (Private) Amendment Bill.

As other hon. members have already said, it was most interesting to listen to the hon. member for Newton Park to get some idea of the developments over the past 19 years. Some of the aspects which the hon. member highlighted are of particular interest. The University of Port Elizabeth is amongst the junior universities, but it has developed some extremely high prestige faculties that lave done excellent work in South Africa. From my own experience I know that their department of industrial psychology has in a datively short time become a leader in that field. That does not mean that they have outdone the other universities but they certainly have made remarkable progress in the relatively short time that they have been in operation.

Of particular interest to the NRP is the fact that this amending Bill indicates to a very large extent that the emancipation process of the University of Port Elizabeth is going very well. Not so many years ago the hon. the Minister’s permission was required for a number of senior appointments for all universities and today we find that one of the youngest universities is, in fact, being accorded the new discretion as far as appointments are concerned.

As far as the proposed new section 17(A) is concerned we wish to say that this association with the technikons is of paramount importance to us in South Africa if we want to make the best possible use of the academic talent which is available to us both through technikons and universities. Our appeal in the past is supported by this Bill in as much as we believe that there should be an integral system of tertiary education so that the universities and the technikons can work more closely together in maximizing the academic and technical potential which we have in our youth of today.

In conclusion may I say that we wish the University of Port Elizabeth well and all success for the future. May they continue for a very long time to provide the excellent academic facilities which they have provided to date.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of associating myself with previous speakers by conveying my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Newton Park. It is a long time since I have heard as neat a cameo sketch of a great many achievements won by an institution, summarized and presented as briefly and concisely as the hon. member did in presenting the latest achievements of this university to us here. I am particularly pleased to associate myself with this motion, because while occupying a previous post I myself owed a great deal to the pioneering work done in the sixties in regard to the launching of the University of Port Elizabeth by its then principal, the work of renewal he performed then and the new trails he blazed which I myself was privileged to follow, in the work I did a few years later.

The achievements in various fields of the University of Port Elizabeth have been presented here this evening. I should like to refer, too, to the special significance this university has for the socio-economic development of the Eastern Cape. I think hon. members will be aware that the rate of development of that part of our country has not been as rapid and dramatic as one would have liked it to be. I wish to contend here this evening that the presence of the University of Port Elizabeth and the contribution made by that institution and the manpower it attracts there, the training and research it does and the stimulus of ideas emanating from it, exercises a very important influence—I would even say a determining influence—in promoting the growth and development of that part of our country. From the broad viewpoint of the government’s policy of decentralized development, this university, situated where it is, is a point of key importance, and this evening we should like to express our appreciation for what that university is doing in that regard.

I should also like to associate myself with the remark made by the hon. member in moving this Bill when he stressed that this was the only truly bilingual university in the country. I have said on occasion—and hon. members must not take it amiss of me if I repeat it this evening—that there would perhaps have been more bilingual universities if, in the twenties and thirties, the language group to which I do not belong had been more tolerant as regards the insistence of the Afrikaans-speaking people at the time not to have universities teaching in the mother tongue only, but to have bilingual universities. It is remarkable that in a country in which education has traditionally been so strongly divided on the basis of language, the University of Port Elizabeth has succeeded in causing bilingualism to work. It is remarkable that support for this university has apparently come from both Afrikaans-and English-speaking in virtually equal measure. One might have expected a preponderance of one of these two groups, but the fact that the university meets a specific need in this respect is indicated by the very fact that the proportions of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking persons supporting this university are very well balanced.

I should also like to refer to the specific matter of co-operation with the technikons. Some of the other private Bills will also touch on this matter. This is undoubtedly a very major and important development—this scope for co-operation at the tertiary level that is being created in our university legislation. Hon. members have in the past pointed out in this House that there is insufficient horizontal mobility among institutions at the tertiary level; that once one has chosen the university or technikon, it is very difficult for one to transfer to the other one if one’s desired vocation or one’s experience of the specific training one is undergoing, suggests the appropriateness of such a change. I want to express the hope that these possibilities for co-operation between the university and the technikon in respect of specific professional training will also promote the climate for a greater degree of horizontal mobility between these two institutions for students who would like to transfer from one to the other.

Finally, I must say that history inevitably comes to mind when I read in this Bill that it is proposed that the Minister’s approval which at this, the last of the autonomous South African universities, was required in regard to the appointment of the principal, should now be dispensed with. I recall from my own years as a student in 1947 and 1948 the extremely unedifying struggle for the post of rector which raged at the University of Pretoria at the time and which led to a series of very interesting court cases in the Supreme Court concerning the precise interpretation of what was meant in the incorporating Act of that university at the time by the provision that the nomination of the rector would be subject to the Minister’s approval. After this struggle for the post of rector had ended in 1948, the university amended its Act. It is of interest that there was almost a tradition that there should be a struggle for the post of rector at that university in the thirties and forties, a struggle which took place at every nomination of a new rector. However, the moment the university’a full autonomy was established and there was no longer any interference by the Minister as an influence in the nomination of a rector, even in the background, that university succeeded in establishing a tradition of very successful and extended terms of office of rectors, because it was then able to exercise its choice as a fully autonomous body.

While we are discussing the principal of the University of Port Elizabeth, I should also like to pay tribute here to the first principal, for the exceptional initiative displayed by him—as I mentioned at the start of my speech—with regard to university renewal in South Africa. I also wish to refer to the present principal, and from the point of view of my department convey appreciation for the success with which he stabilized the—at one stage difficult—financial position of the University of Port Elizabeth by way of very efficient management and administration.

I should very much like to associate myself with the remarks of other hon. members and once again convey to the hon. member for Newton Park our appreciation and congratulations and extend our best wishes to this university for the service it is rendering to South Africa, and in particular the region in which it is situated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, firstly, to take this opportunity to extend my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister of National Education, on behalf of the university, for his very kind words of praise. Thanks are due to him not only for that, but for everything which he, as Minister of National Education, has meant to the university in the field of national education in South Africa.

I should also like to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. members for Groote Schuur, Virginia, Koedoespoort and Durban North for their friendly words and encouragement, and assure them that we greatly appreciate what they have said.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is both a privilege and a pleasure for me to introduce this Bill tonight. Not only did I have the privilege of studying at Rhodes University, but it is also situated in the heart of my constituency. It is, I believe, one of the finest of all the smaller universities in the country.

It is certainly one of the most beautiful. Interestingly enough, there is quite a close tie between Rhodes University and this Parliament. The architect of the main buildings on the campus of the university was Sir Herbert Baker, who was also responsible for designing Groote Schuur as well as the union Buildings in Pretoria. The buildings on the campus at Grahamstown provide a major tourist attraction in the city.

The university came into existence in 1904 as the then Rhodes University College. It attained full university status in 1949 with the passing of the principal Act which the Bill seeks to amend. For many years Fort Hare University also formed part of the extended campus of Rhodes University. This ceased in 1959.

I believe it is fair for me to say that the university was the mother—perhaps I should say the father—of the University of Port Elizabeth about which the hon. member for Newton Park has just been speaking. The university has also started a satellite campus in East London. This branch has met with great success and the number of the small fledgling branch there is already upwards of 100 students.

The growth of Rhodes University has been a little short of remarkable for a university situated in a somewhat isolated platteland city. This year for the first time student numbers have passed the 3 000 mark. What makes this figure more remarkable is the fact that the majority of these students are in residence at the university. This means that the campus atmosphere of the university is very strong. The corporate spirit of the university is, I believe, unique. I believe that this is important in an age of vast hyper-universities where the average student has very little chance of getting to know any more than a very small proportion of his fellow students on campus during his years as a student.

Rhodes University has a distinguished academic record and has provided many fine scholars. This search for knowledge continues as the burgeoning growth of the university’s post-graduate school indicates.

In passing, one further item which might be of interest to the House is that a former Prime Minister of one of our neighbouring States, Mr. Ian Smith, was a student of Rhodes University during the 1950s. I know of at least one fellow-graduate of Rhodes University in this House and I hope that he will also be speaking later in this debate.

It is because of the university’s desire to strengthen its post-graduate school that this Bill is being introduced. The Bill before us seeks to amend the Rhodes University (Private) Act, 1949. It seeks to broaden the intake of post-graduate students to the university by making further provision for the acceptance by the university of honours students and post-graduate diploma students. Under the principal Act, the university can only accept as candidates for post-graduate studies such students from certain recognized universities who already have an honours degree and who wish to study for a master’s or doctor’s degree. No provision is made for post-graduate diploma students. The amendment to section 15(b) of the principal Act will give effect to the desire of the university to broaden its post-graduate intake giving the University greater discretion in its acceptance of post-graduate students.

It is for these reasons that I have pleasure in commending this Bill to the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to express the support of this side of the House for the Bill. As explained by the hon. member for Albany, the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the internal academic working of the university and to overcome an existing shortcoming in the principal Act.

Rhodes University is a proud and fine institution that has served the Border and Eastern Cape area very well indeed since its establishment on 31 May 1904 as the Rhodes University College. It has certainly in this time lived up to its motto, which is vis virtus veritas—strength, courage, truth.

As mentioned by the hon. member for Albany, the university now has a branch functioning in East London, where it is fulfilling a very long-felt need for localised tertiary education. One can only trust that this East London campus will grow rapidly to become an independent campus providing full facilities on both a part-time and a full-time basis, and also preferably on a dual-medium, bilingual basis. This will serve not only to provide much needed educational opportunities to help overcome the serious trained manpower shortage but also to stem the tide of the loss of our young people to other areas.

There has of late also been considerable pressure for the establishment of a veterinary science faculty in the Eastern Cape area. In view of the unique agricultural character of the area and the existing need, one must certainly support these pleas and express the hope that we will also see the establishment of such a facility at Rhodes University in the very near future.

It is with pleasure that I support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon. member for East London City on this private Bill. I should also like to thank the hon. member for Albany for the interesting historical survey which he gave us in connection with the growth and development of this university and the university’s academic achievements to date.

For us on this side of the House it is a pleasure to support this Bill. It is primarily concerned with affording this university the opportunity to attract more post-graduate students, for it is now being provided that undergraduates who comply with certain requirements may now enrol for post-graduate study and in particular for a post-graduate diploma.

We also wish to convey our congratulations to this university for the exceptional growth and development which it has undergone during the past few years. We wish the university everything of the best in its future development and express the hope that it will continue to grow and make an important contribution in the sphere of tertiary education. We also convey our sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Albany who is piloting this Bill through this House.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me this evening to support this measure because, as the hon. member for Albany and the hon. member for East London City have pointed out, Rhodes University College was so called between 1904 and 1949 and I think that I can claim not as the hon. member for Albany does to be a graduate at Rhodes University but certainly to have been a student there when it was Rhodes University College. I was there before the principal Act came into being, i.e. before 1949. I was there in 1945 and 1946. Although I might not have graduated at Rhodes I concur wholeheartedly with what the hon. member had said about its being situated as it is in one of the most beautiful cities, a cathedral city, of our country, the City of Saints, as it is called. I remember that it was often said that Grahamstown was the home of 52 churches. It had a church for every week of the year. It is certainly the home of some very fine educational institutions, wonderful schools, a training college that sadly, I believe, has since closed, and this rather remarkable organization or institution that is Rhodes University today. It is remarkable because it has been unique in that it has always, including the years that I was there, managed to top 1 000 students, one-third of what it accommodates at present. It has always gone for what one might call the dormitory system. It has always tried to house its students within its own residences. It has some wonderful residential establishments, if one can call them that, are attached to the university, and they have marvellous traditions. I remember that I was in residence in Botha House, which is one of the oldest houses on the campus, and I had the privilege of sharing that residence with some people who come to mind, namely Herbert Kretchmer, Murray Hofmeyr, Anton Murray, Eric Norton and Rex Pennington. These are names that I think are almost household names in South Africa, and these are but a few of the men whom I was able to call to mind as I was sitting here in my bench listening to the hon. member for Albany.

I can also remember that in those days traffic was not what it is today. In the immediate post-war period one did not have the petrol that we have today so there were not the number of vehicles running up and down Grahamstown High Street. As a first year student part of one’s education was to measure the distance from the Drostdy Arch to the doorway of the cathedral using a Vienna sausage. It is for that reason that I have not been partial to Vienna sausages since. Furthermore, another great tradition was, of course, to send a young first year student with a wheelbarrow that had seen better days down to a cafe, well known as Ramonas—I think it is still in existence—to buy a box of matches. The student was admonished not to bring the change and the matches back in one wheelbarrow because that was far too much for a first year student to understand. The student had to make two trips, one with the matches and another with the change.

However, having said all that, it remains for me to say on a more serious note that to me it is remarkable to have watched the growth of this little university because by standards of our other universities it is indeed a little university. It is remarkable to see that it has retained its traditions and its own particular stamp. It is Rhodes and I do not believe that there can be any other institution or university quite like Rhodes in South Africa. It is good to see that here is something that is going to broaden its postgraduate intake. We have before us an amending measure that seeks to improve and does in fact improve the situation at Rhodes University.

With those words I should like to say that I personally on behalf of the NRP wholeheartedly support this measure and will always be anxious to support any measure that will do anything to improve what to my mind is already a fine and wonderful institution.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with other hon. members who have spoken in support of this measure introduced by the hon. member for Albany. It seems as though the Eastern Province is placing this House under a veritable siege of academic numbers this evening. I am sure though that we will be able to survive it.

I have noticed with particular interest the nature of the amendment envisaged by this Bill, namely to grant freer access to students with a view to post-graduate studies. It appears that the object of this amendment is to open a different avenue from the formal one of people who have taken the formal degrees that are prerequisites for being allowed to proceed with post-graduate studies, and to enable the university in its own discretion to recognize also other qualifications which are not part of the normal prerequisites granting access to post-graduate studies, and thus to grant special admission to post-graduate studies. I think this is a correct approach. It is indeed an approach which has already been incorporated in the statutes of other universities. Post-graduate studies should be made accessible on merit and pure formalities should not be given too much weight in assessing the acceptability of a candidate for post-graduate studies. I should like to express the hope that this amendment will afford the university the opportunity of expanding further its already important postgraduate programmes.

When speaking about Rhodes University I inevitably recall the fact that together with its then vice-chancellor, Dr. Hyslop, I was one of the lone voices heard in evidence by the Van Wyk de Vries Commission on university education in the early seventies, when both of us pleaded that in a university subsidy formula provision should be made for universities to remain financially viable in spite of the fact that they did not take part in the rat race of ever-increasing student numbers. Dr. Hyslop pleaded at the time for adjustments to the university subsidy formula in order to make it possible for a university wishing to do so to limit or even stabilize its student numbers.

Rhodes University has been prepared all along to limit its student numbers and to remain a small and intimate university, thereby maintaining its particular traditions. I am very pleased, as I already announced during the discussion of the National Education Vote, that a new subsidy formula for universities has been recommended by the Universities Advisory Council, which would place less emphasis on growth in student numbers and on the mere numerical factor of student enrolment as a basis for calculating the financial support to be given to universities. I sincerely trust that this adjustment in the university subsidy formula will assist in particular the authorities of Rhodes University to maintain its policy of remaining a relatively small and intimate university. As hon. members have already pointed out, this university has succeeded in maintaining a town atmosphere while most of other universities in South Africa have become fairly big city universities. It has all along emphasized the importance of the residential factor in university life. It has been able to maintain, I believe, in contrast to much of the modern university social idiom a large degree of style and dignity in its university life, both student wise and staff wise. The fact, as has been mentioned, that it is situated in the city of saints, has, as I know from my personal acquaintance with the present vice-chancellor, also ensured that the religious aspect plays a serious and a real part in the life of students and staff at this university.

I should like to underline a fact that has been mentioned by the hon. member for Albany, namely that Rhodes University, although it is small and is situated in a relatively small town, has nevertheless been responsible for what one might call fertile academic transplants: It assisted the University of Fort Hare with its growth and development; it played a role in the circumstances which led to the establishment of the University of Port Elizabeth; and it has a satellite campus in East London. I should like to wish Rhodes University well with regard to the academic training it is providing in the city of East London.

I should also like to refer to certain unique fields of study and research characterizing the academic programme of Rhodes University. For many years Rhodes University and Potchefstroom University have been the only two universities providing training in pharmacy. Rhodes was particularly successful in setting up an internationally recognized research programme in its School of Pharmacy. Rhodes University is also, I believe, the only English-medium university which has been offering a post-graduate diploma in journalism. I am not sure whether the effect of this course has been positive or negative in the field of that sector of the Press which would probably be recruiting the alumni of this School of Journalism, but I think it is an important fact that this university has identified journalism as an area in which we need well trained and well oriented professional people in our public life. I believe that Rhodes University was also in the forefront in introducing a postgraduate diploma for translators, which is an area in the public life of South Africa calling for a specific knowledge ability, which has been well identified, I believe, by this university.

During a recent visit to the university as a guest of the vice-chancellor, I was also impressed by the very important work being done by its Sport Research Institute. The institute is studying physiological processes affecting performance of sportsmen and it has made very valuable, interesting and practical research results available for the promotion of sport in South Africa.

It is also well known that Rhodes’ physics department under the leadership of Prof. Gledhill has produced internationally recognized research results, especially regarding the physics of the upper atmosphere. I should also like to refer to important research work which has been done by Rhodes’ history department. This has contributed to a better evaluation and understanding of the important role English-speaking South Africans have played in the development and growth of this country, its culture, its economics and also its political development. It is also very interesting, and perhaps at the same time indirectly a criticism of the Afrikaans-medium universities of the Cape, that the standard work on the Afrikanerbond—I am referring here to the Afrikanerbond of the 19th century led by the late Onse Jan Hofmeyr—is a study done by a professor of history at Rhodes, Prof. Davenport. It is a very important and fascinating study. Afrikaner historians should perhaps ask themselves why they allowed an English speaking colleague to outstrip them in producing this very important study of 19th century Afrikaner cultural political history in the Cape.

It is therefore a great pleasure and privilege to be able to associate myself with other hon. members in supporting the hon. member for Albany in moving this amending legislation. We wish Rhodes University success, especially in the further expansion of its post-graduate programmes.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members who have supported this Bill. In particular I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his words and for the further interesting facts concerning the University which he outlined in his speech.

I should also like to thank the hon. member for East London City, the hon. member for Koedoespoort and the hon. member for Umhlanga for their support. It is much appreciated.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is my great pleasure to move the Second Reading of this amending Bill. As is traditional, I am sure I shall be allowed a few minutes to say something about the university itself, which is in my constituency and which I attended in a very humble capacity for a short while many years ago.

I suppose one of the strongest loyalties a person who has had the privilege of being at university has, is a loyalty to that university. Wherever university people are gathered together one will hear a whole host of anecdotes and one will realize that one has made lasting friendships at that place and, much more important, that it was also there that one acquired the mental skills for later life. I am always reminded of the phrase “salad days”. They really were the “salad days” of one’s life that one spent at a university. I hardly know a person who does not speak of his university with very great affection and nostalgia. Of all the universities that I have known or read about the University of Cape Town is truly one of the great universities, by any standards.

It was through the inspiration of the genius of the architect Mr. J. M. Solomon who was taken as a protege by the Phillips family and later sent overseas to work out a concept for a university of Cape Town, that it was placed on the slopes of Table Mountain, in a classic Mediterranean style and with its axis from Devil’s Peak down through the Summer House to Rustenburg. He achieved a quite miraculous blend of architecture and natural landscaping. In fact, I have heard people who have been all over the world say that in its grandeur of site and aspect it is perhaps equalled in the world only by McGill University in Montreal.

However, much more important is that it is also pre-eminent in its achievements. Allow me to mention just a few of these during last year, 1982. In that year alone this great university did among many other things, the following: It enrolled 11 500 students, which is almost double the number that it enrolled in 1962, exactly 20 years before. In one year it established six new professorial chairs, viz. two in mathematics, one in social work, one in political studies, one in cancer research and one in bio-medical engineering. Last year, a UCT graduate, Dr. Klug, was awarded the 1982 Nobel prize for chemistry. Last year it planned for the introduction this year of two new degree programmes in materials science and pharmacy and a new undergraduate course in Portuguese. Last year it awarded 2 776 degrees, diplomas and certificates. The annual Student Rag raised over R250 000 for charity.

They can’t play rugby.

I am coming to that in a moment. Last year 6 500 adults attended the summer school and other extramural classes. At the Baxter Theatre, which is a university institution, 342 000 people attended an average of three performances per day. Reunions were held in all the major cities of South Africa and in cities on every continent in the world. Planning continued for a new conception which will give an added dimension to the Solomon axis down through the Summer House. There will be a middle campus, which is a magnificent idea. It will swing a line of buildings away from the original axis to join the Summer House with the Cricket Oval.

In sport, the hon. member for Bryanston will be pleased to hear, whatever the achievements of the rugby team were, and they were considerable, 1982 was the centenary of the University of Cape Town Rugby Football Club. [Interjections.] We have therefore been playing rugby in the Varsity spirit for a hundred years. I think it is worth recording that the university yacht which belongs to the university and which was crewed by five university students in fact came fourth in the Cape to Uruguay race last year.

Dr. Stuart Saunders, the Vice-Chancellor, said recently—

I think that I can place it on record this evening that it is in fact succeeding spectacularly in both these ambitions.

The present Bill is, I hope non-contentious. It is technical in its nature and it deals with university life. Allow me to go through its main provisions. The principal Act of 1959 mentions statutes of the university. That is in fact incorrect because there is only one statute. Therefore, the principal Act is being amended throughout where the word “statutes” is used.

It is becoming customary in South Africa—certainly in some parts—to designate the head of a university as vice-chancellor instead of principal. Similarly, deputy heads are designated deputy vice-chancellors. This shifting emphasis of designation is now being given statutory form in various places in the principal Act.

There are also provisions dealing with the composition, powers and functions of the senate. I do not believe it is necessary to go through them in any great detail. They have been approved as, in fact, have been the other provisions, by the hon. the Minister and his department.

Clause 7 amends section 8A of the principal Act. There are at present a number of joint standing committees of council and senate on which it is desirable that some persons who are neither members of council nor senate should serve.

Clause 8 of the Bill is purely consequential.

There is an interesting provision in clause 9 which amends section 10 of the principal Act. The departments of anthropology, philosophy, political science and religious studies have recently been transferred from the Faculty of Arts to the Faculty of Social Science. The Afrikaans equivalent of “Faculty of Arts” is “Fakulteit Lettere en Wysbegeerte” but in view of the changed composition of the faculty the university believes that it will be inappropriate to retain the words “en Wysbegeerte” in the name of a faculty that no longer includes the philosophical disciplines.

The next provision I wish to deal with involves the hon. the Minister. Clause 10 of the Bill repeals subsection (2) of section 11 of the principal Act. This subsection requires that notice of every appointment to the academic staff be given to the Minister. Apparently, over the years, various Ministers have not insisted upon this statutory requirement. In fact, it has not been observed and it is now being formally repealed. If this is a sign that our Ministers are now giving full autonomy to our universities, it is obviously a healthy sign and it is greatly appreciated.

As far as clause 11 which amends section 15 of the principal Act is concerned, it is impractical for all regulations and rules and instructions relating to examinations to be prescribed by statute, as required by the principal Act. It is therefore proposed that these matters be provided for in rules made by the senate.

The next provision deals with the question of technikons, which is very interesting. Section 18B(1) empowers the university to—

The university has entered into an agreement with the Cape Technikon, in terms whereof certain training is given at the technikon and is recognized for degree purposes. It would appear, however, that it is superfluous and impractical for the conditions of such recognition to be prescribed by statute since they can more conveniently be embodied in the specific agreement itself. The nature of such conditions does not in any case justify statutory authority since they are of interest only to the institutions concerned.

The provisions of clauses 13 and 14 and consequential.

These are the main provisions of this amending Bill which I commend to this House for its consideration.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this amendment Bill. The amendments in this Bill are mainly of a technical nature. To a major extent they concern the autonomy of the university. I was not a student at this university, but I am aware of the wonderful work being done there in many spheres. Please allow me, therefore, to say a few words about this.

When we express our appreciation to this university, its students and its community, I just want to point out that we should not obsessively focus on the behaviour of a certain group of students who periodically make a fuss there. Over the years this university has had a colourful variety of students. As an example I want to mention that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is an alumnus of that university.

We cannot blame the university for that! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bryanston who made that interjection was certainly not a student there, because the medical school would definitely have made a plan to shut that big mouth of his.

The hon. the Minister is on our side of the House and does excellent work for the Government. In contrast, the hon. member for Waterberg was also affiliated to the university and just look where he is.

In referring to two specific fields of this famous university, Ikeys, as it is generally known in the vernacular, I first want to mention the Medical Faculty, the Medical School of the university. I believe that one can say, without any fear of contradiction—the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare is sitting here in our midst—that the Faculty of Medicine of this university is one of our most famous university faculties. The standard and quality of that faculty compares favourably with the best in the world. What we have particular appreciation for is the fact that this faculty, with its staff and students, displays such daring in the field of research. Here one can refer to the work done by the now famous Prof. Chris Barnard and his brother, the hon. member for Parktown. [Interjections.] Brilliant work has been done by this medical school by way of the initiative it has displayed in the field of research.

As far as a second aspect of research is concerned, one can refer to the water research being done by a unit there, research in connection with the desalination of sea water. There is also research on the reclamation of pure water from sewage. Experiments are being done in collaboration with the Water Research Institute. This is brilliant, original work being done for our country at a time when we are experiencing lengthy shortages of water.

It must have been a privilege for the hon. member for Groote Schuur, as an alumnus of the University of Cape Town, to introduce this Bill, enhancing as it does the autonomy of the university. I should like to express the wish that the vice-chancellor, his staff, his students and the university council will, in that university, serve science with enthusiasm and a spirit of enterprise. There is a further appeal we want to make: May these people, with their wonderful abilities, serve our country in the fullest sense of the word. The University of Cape Town is a jewel among the universities of the RSA.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Standerton in the discussion of this Bill. We on this side of the House do not begrudge the hon. member for Groote Schuur his praise of the University of Cape Town’s location, history, academic achievements and the like. We believe that it is richly deserved. As a former Tukkie I do want to say that I believe that since the Fry brothers left the University of Cape Town, the rugby at that university has steadily deteriorated and that today they no longer have a prestige team that furnishes us with Springboks. Fortunately the sporting achievements of a university are not the only things that add lustre to that university.

When one looks at statistics in connection with this university, it is clear that during the past decade it has had a gradual growth of approximately 3 500 students and one trusts that the university will experience further growth in this regard and that it will be host to even greater achievements than in the past.

I want to join the hon. member for Standerton in pointing out that according to a report I examined, last year the University of Cape Town’s Medical Faculty had the third highest number of students of all faculties at that university, while the number of postgraduate students in the Medical Faculty was the second highest of all the faculties. This indicates what an important place the Medical Faculty of this university occupies in this country. I want to congratulate the hon. member, and this university in particular, on the achievements in the field of medicine.

I also want to join the hon. member for Standerton in congratulating the university on its achievements in the field of research. I believe that the work being done there is of vital importance to our country.

This amendment Bill entails certain amendments in connection with the functioning of the university. They are merely of a technical nature, and we on this side of the House want to give our support to them. I want to refer in particular to clause 9 in terms of which Philosophy and Arts are being separated. I just want to say that I believe that one of the best students this university ever had at post-gradulate level in its Philosophy Faculty was the hon. member for Waterberg. If the university can continue producing such students in that faculty, it will add great lustre to that institution. I want to congratulate the university on the calibre of a student such as the hon. member for Waterberg.

Mr. Speaker, with these few words we want to give our wholehearted support to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Groote Schuur for the very detailed and competent manner in which he introduced the Second Reading of this Bill. It was certainly most interesting to learn of the historical background and the foundations of this university. It has become world renowned, not only because of the work of certain eminent scientists in the medical field but also because of the work done in many of the different faculties.

I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Groote Schuur when he said that when they had their alumni club gatherings, they were to be found in all the cities of the major continents on earth. With an enrolment of 11 500 students per year the fame and the fortune of the university will certainly find its way to the four corners of the earth to a greater extent in future years.

Of particular interest too were the academic and sporting achievements of the university, something which indicates a very healthy and holistic approach to the education of the youth of South Africa. I think a university is not only an academic institution to provide students with the opportunity for the enrichment of their psychological or mental capacity but serves also to enhance their social and physical skills as well. In this field, if one looks through the history books and the annals and records, one will find many a fine sportsman who started his career at the University of Cape Town known as Ikeys.

I would also like to focus attention on the very excellent innovative work which is done by the University of Cape Town’s administration school. It has produced some very fine faculty leaders as well as some very fine businessmen through South Africa. This Graduate School of Business has done a lot of pioneering work in the academic field in South Africa. This is a field of study which we inherited to a large extent from universities such as Harvard and Yale in the United States. What I think will be of particular interest to all politicians and members of Parliament, is the research work which was done by the Graduate School of Business in 1979 by Prof. John Simpson into the attitudes and aspirations of literate Blacks in Soweto and other parts of South Africa. For any politician who wishes to contribute to the design of a new political dispensation for non-homeland Blacks in South Africa, I believe that Prof. John Simpson’s research work should be prescribed reading. I would like to wish that professor and his school every success. We hope to see far more research coming from that particular source.

As the hon. member for Groote Schuur has indicated, the Bill contains academic and technical changes of particular benefit to the university. They are certainly going to receive unanimous support here this evening, including the support of the NRP.

Mr. Speaker, owing to a lack of time I just want to associate myself, in a few sentences, with what hon. members said in support of the proposal of the hon. member for Groote Schuur. It is significant that the amendments proposed in this amendment Bill are to a major extent relate to remnants of a fairly outdated structure of control and of a fairly rigid system in the university’s statutes. If one looks at the details of the amendments, it is clear that they relate to remnants of a long history, remnants of a tradition of university management which goes back much further than those of the younger universities in our country. When one is thus reminded of the fact that we are here dealing with the oldest university in our country, it is nevertheless gratifying as some hon. members have remarked, that this oldest of universities is in many respects also still a university of renewal. Reference was made to its work in various fields. Reference was also made to the programmes which are not only famous in our country, but also abroad, to the summer school of the University of Cape Town, programmes in which the dividing line between the academic and political fields is, in my opinion, sometimes very slight. They are nevertheless interesting programmes. Reference was also made to the unique productions in the Baxter theatre and to the recent trip of its ocean-going yacht to Uruguay.

I should also like to join hon. members in referring, with appreciation, to the quality of the research work done by this university. True university tradition is in my opinion not actually determined by the number of students one trains or the number of people one equips for various professions. The real difference between a university which will go down in history and other universities is the degree of excellence which comes to fore in its research work, which is what distinguishes an average university from an internationally important university. In the case of the University of Cape Town we as South Africans can take great pride in the large number of fields in which this university really excels in our country, and throughout the world, when it comes to research work.

I remember the academic visits I made to America and how frequently I was struck by how many scholars, with academic ties rooted in the University of Cape Town were to be found in many of the cities and at many of the universities on that continent.

I should very much like to associate myself with the hon. member’s motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful to hon. members who have supported this Bill and, of course, also the hon. the Minister. What they have said has stirred a great deal of nostalgia in my mind and I only wish I had half an hour at my disposal to react to some of the things they have said. But I dare not do that at this particular time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.