Mr Chairman, I should like to continue and reply to the speeches of certain hon members to which I did not react yesterday evening. I should like to come to the hon member for Roodeplaat, who made the point that the status of the industrial court should be enhanced. My answer to him is that I agree that the industrial court plays a key role in the furthering of labour peace in South Africa. In the second place I also want to add that there is great appreciation for the vast amount of work dealt with by the court in recent times. I should also like to say that it is essential that the court should enjoy great esteem and status. People will otherwise not have confidence in the court as an instrument to negotiate labour peace. In the light of the report of the National Manpower Commission as well as the Hoexter report’s recommendations to the Government, and also in the light of the comments that have been received on these reports, the position of the industrial court will be examined in depth and after that we will make our standpoint in this regard known. I should also like to refer to the second point raised by the hon member for Roodeplaat, namely the question of population growth. Last night I referred to it in general. However, I also want to mention that the Government has instituted a comprehensive population development programme and we hope that this programme will contribute to a more orderly population growth. The hon member for Alberton also touched on the problem of unemployment. Today it is indeed one of the most constricting factors in our economy. It is one of the most serious problems we have to contend with. As I have already indicated, part of the problem of high population growth that we are experiencing is structural.

†Now I want to come to the hon member for Durban North who made the point that unemployment is the most serious problem in South Africa today. I agree with the hon member as far as that statement is concerned. The hon member asked for a conference on the question of unemployment and he added that it must be a multi-disciplinary effort to combat this whole question of unemployment. I think the suggestion of the hon member is a positive one. I should also like to add that it is not only my Department which is concerned with this problem but quite a number of other Departments as well as the private sector is very much involved in the creation of new jobs. Such a conference will have to be very carefully constructed if it is to come forward with meaningful action programmes. Perhaps we should think of a “year of employment” campaign. That may also be a good suggestion. I want to reply by saying that the National Manpower Commission and the Economic Advisory Council are monitoring progress with job creation and I shall ask these two bodies, especially the National Manpower Commission, to look into the merits of such a conference.

*The hon member for Benoni referred to the importance of training and the good progress that had been made. I agree with the hon member that training is one of the keys to a prosperous future. I should also like to mention that I am aware of the fact that the hon member made a contribution to the acquisition of additional land—especially for the erection of hostels—and the extension of the centre in Benoni. We all thank the hon member for his involvement in that regard.

The hon member Prof Olivier stressed the matter of productivity. I agree with him whole-heartedly that productivity is one of those matters that deserve our serious attention. That we are in earnest about this matter is indicated by the fact that we voted almost R4 million for the National Productivity Institute and that we are of course giving all possible support to the productivity week being envisaged for later this year. The hon member asked what had been done about high level manpower with reference to the report of the National Manpower Commission. I can only tell the hon member that the position is being monitored on a continuous basis by the National Manpower Commission as well as the National Training Board. I should also like to thank the hon member for the lance he broke for a greater appropriation of funds for this Department. The hon member was correct in saying that this Department has a wide-ranging and comprehensive task and that in the light of the developments in the labour field its responsibilities are always increasing.

The hon member for Springs made the statement that the White population was not able to provide all the high-level manpower required in future. What the hon member said is a fact. It is a fact that we shall have to attract people from other population groups to provide the high-level manpower in future.

The hon member for Brakpan said that he was worried about the interests of the workers and, as I said last night, I shall look after the interests of all workers in this country—White as well as other workers.

The hon member Mr Van Staden gave us a fine account of the historical background to this matter and he also indicated in what way our present Prime Minister had contributed to the furthering of the workers’ interests. I should like to thank the hon member for doing so and also add that we should never forget this history.

The hon member for Greytown pleaded on the one hand for greater centralization and on the other hand that we should look at matters such as capital allowances, double shifts, additional capital write-offs, etc, with the institution of double shifts, and so on. I want to tell the hon member that most of these matters only affect us indirectly and really lie within the domain of other departments. However, I can tell the hon member that the Department of Manpower and I are constantly mindful of the need for stressing the importance of the provision of employment whenever we are involved in discussions. We shall certainly keep the points raised by the hon member in mind.

The hon member for Newcastle also stressed the importance of training in the sphere of labour relations. I think the hon member raised a very important issue there. A major part of the problems being experienced in the sphere of labour today is not attributable to the system being wrong, but in most cases to a lack of knowledge regarding labour relations on the part of both parties. It will therefore lead to far greater tranquillity, not only among trade unions, but also among employers, if there are more trained and more experienced people available to settle disputes and to act in this regard. Certain guidelines and minimum standards are set in the guidelines for training and labour relations, and the department is compiling courses that can be offered by employers or trade unions. This course will be registered at the department. It will serve as guide to the Registrar of Manpower Training and the training advisers for evaluating courses and giving advice. These guidelines are at present with the Government Printer and will become available on 27 June 1984. I think the guidelines will be very useful and I want to express the hope that people will make extensive use of them.

The hon member for Stilfontein spoke about womanpower. Listening to him one feels that women today are man enough to hold their own. The hon member raised a very important point. As far as the department is concerned I can say that recently, when we experienced great problems at the Offices of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner, we made special provision for women working on a part-time basis. We even arranged transport to their homes when they worked overtime in the evenings. At the Marais Viljoen Building there is also a crèche for the children of the women who work there. It is one of the best equipped crèches we have and I think it would serve a good purpose if hon members could one day pay a visit to that crèche to see what is being done to make it possible for women to work. The hon member also mentioned the fact that women are moving up to the higher levels of management. I think it is a good development. They must just not neglect the cooking at home.

What about a female Minister?

It is not a bad idea of course. Britain made a woman Prime Minister, so I do not think that it is really a problem.

The hon member for Walmer raised a few points in connection with the small business sector and particularly in connection with the informal sector.

†I want to say to him that I agree wholeheartedly with him that the small business sector makes a considerable contribution to the creation of jobs in our country. The Government is committed to the development of this sector.

*The hon member is aware of the report brought out by the National Manpower Commission, the guidelines laid down, etc. As a matter of fact, many departments are involved in this matter. It is the official view of the Government that we should promote the small business sector.

The hon member for Carletonville referred to the training of mine-workers and to those people who do not get a second chance after leaving the training school. This whole matter is handled by the Government mining engineer and two senior officials who serve as members of the board of directors in the college of the Chamber of Mines. This entire matter actually falls under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, and therefore it will not be appropriate for me to react to the hon member’s remarks in this connection.

The hon member also referred to the question of aptitude tests for apprentices and mentioned the fact that many people who wrote the test passed and were regarded as being suitable for mining, but were then not accepted by the mine concerned. It often happens that a person does have an aptitude in a certain direction but then comes to a certain employer who has a very high standard and the person is then not accepted by that training institution or the firm in question. In this way it happens that many men do not have the opportunity to follow a career in mining because they have to compete with others who probably have a greater aptitude in that specific direction.

The hon member also raised the question of registration and made very interesting suggestions, particularly in respect of large and small trade unions. In the light of the report of the National Manpower Commission and also of the fact that the report has been published and that we now awaiting comment on it, the hon member will understand that I cannot at this stage put forward a definite standpoint. However, when we consider the matter after receiving the inputs of the institutions concerned, I shall take the points raised by the hon member in this debate well into consideration.

The hon member for Germiston stressed the importance of training and high productivity. I agree with him whole-heartedly. In fact, training and increased productivity was a recurring refrain throughout the entire debate. The hon members who raised these points were definitely touching on the most important matters.

The hon member for Maraisburg made the point that handicapped people could make a major contribution to the solution of the manpower problem. I should like to refer the hon member to the announcement I made yesterday, and add that we shall do everything in our power to assist the handicapped people in this country. They are people for whom we have a very soft spot.

The hon member for Hercules asked whether we cannot effect a compromise between the year level system and the standard system when dealing with mentally retarded children who do not go through the usual standard system. The hon member also said that because Std 7 was in most cases the entrance requirement for apprenticeship, this presented a problem for these children who had had a different training and who were not classified on the standard level. I want to set the hon member’s mind at ease by informing him that the investigation into the training of artisans and apprentices included the entire matter of pre-apprentice training and also the requirements for admission to apprenticeship and we shall receive a report on these aspects. I can also assure the hon member that I shall bring this matter to the attention of the commission of investigation and ask them to give us a definite answer in this regard.

The hon member for Brakpan raised the matter of works committees. In its report the National Manpower Commission referred to the various levels of collective bargaining and works councils, the registration of trade unions and employers’ organizations and related matters, and the industrial court, and indicated that there was a need for works councils. All the interested parties in the private sector were asked to comment on it. I do not want to anticipate the matter except to say that I have understanding for the fact that there is a need for works councils. The hon member will understand that we shall adopt a standpoint in the light of the comment we are now going to receive. Furthermore I should also like to point out that we must understand that the recommendations of the National Manpower Commission do not amount to works councils having to be seen as an alternative to trade unions or indeed as a substitute for trade unions. The recommendations of the National Manpower Commission entail that works councils should be accorded greater legal recognition as consultative bodies at work-place level. If the comment received supports this proposed role of works councils, consideration could be given to according them improved legal recognition. In terms of the freedom of association approach it will, however, be left to the parties in the private sector to use whatever system suits them best.

The hon member also raised the issue of the status of the Industrial Court. Much has been said about the status of the Industrial Court. I think the hon member and I agree that this court should enjoy the highest measure of respect. Because I first want to give the private sector every opportunity to react to the proposals of the National Manpower Commission, I am of the opinion that at this stage it would be inappropriate for me to adopt any standpoint on the Industrial Court. However, I share the view that the importance of this court is going to increase in future and that it is going to be of the utmost importance that this court should function properly and enjoy the full confidence of employer as well as employee. I want to assure the hon member that these comments will be thoroughly examined with a view to instituting the best possible dispensation for the Industrial Court. I can also mention that the recommendation of the Hoexter Commission regarding the Industrial Court will also be taken into consideration when we examine the matter.

There are still a few other points to which I shall have to react, but at this stage I should first like to content myself with what I have now said. I shall be pleased to listen further to the debate.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the hon the Minister for his remarks. I think we have all taken cognizance, with great appreciation, of the various steps he has envisaged, eg with regard to the investigation into the conference to which the hon member for Durban North referred, as well as other matters. I wish to thank him, too, for his comments on what I said yesterday. In this regard I just wish to confirm once again that I do of course have the utmost appreciation for the National Productivity Institute and its work.

I should like to elaborate briefly on the matters I touched on here yesterday and at the same time, perhaps, take this opportunity to stir things up a little.

As far as the lack of productivity is concerned, it is quite clear that at this stage South Africa compares unfavourably with other countries. Clearly there are a number of reasons for this, such as a lack of trained manpower, particularly high-level manpower, and the failure to utilize the available labour force to the full, owing to the unwillingness on the part of the managerial or supervisory corps to use all people properly. We are all acquainted with the situation in which the foreman stands around reading a story-book while the other people have to do the work. Another reason is the increase in salaries and wages, which has already been singled out as a factor in the report of the National Productivity Institute. As far as Blacks are concerned there is an obvious lack of the necessary scholastic background. The hon the Minister has just referred to this, but I should just like to quote what Dr Albert Wessels had to say in this connection with regard to his own business. He says:

I just wish to emphasize that this is an extremely important factor. The result of the low productivity is, of course, South Africa’s inability to compete on world markets. The result is further increases in the rate of inflation and the fact that our country is in fact becoming unattractive as a field of investment, and for visitors as well. We already know what has happened in terms of visitors. Some years ago South Africa was a country that attracted many visitors due to its low cost structure. This has changed fundamentally due to various factors.

Therefore there is no doubt that the lack of productivity has had a serious effect on our economic growth rate. This, in turn, has an effect on our capacity to provide jobs, our employment opportunities. In other words, it is undoubtedly, in my opinion—due to the low growth rate which it gives rise to—a tremendously strong factor in causing unemployment and in causing an inadequate increase in our national revenue with a view to the provision of the necessary finances for the provision of services, particularly in respect of the other groups, as will be required by the new dispensation.

I think that it is widely conceded that we require a growth rate of at least 6,5% if we wish to create job opportunities for our growing population. We are now exploring all kinds of avenues in an effort to find answers to some of these problems. One of these is the question of population growth. We want to restrict the population growth. It is very clear that the present growth rate is in fact going to cause us tremendous problems. This has been stated here time and again. Accordingly an on-going process of information and counselling is essential in an effort to reduce that growth rate.

However, let us state very clearly that we must have no illusions about certain matters. They are that ordinary information or counselling, important as it may be, will not achieve the desired results if it is not accompanied by socio-economic development and development in the educational sphere. World history has shown time and again that these are the factors that reduce the growth rate, not mere appeals. Give a man his own house, put him in a position in which he has to spend a steadily increasing part of his income on essential consumer goods and other luxury goods, and then he himself will consider limiting the size of his family. Accordingly the appeal we often address to the Blacks and the Coloureds, from this House and elsewhere, to take steps to limit their own rate of population increase, is meaningless. They are merely hollow sounds that do not mean a thing. Those people are not even here to listen to us. It is meaningless and pointless to appeal to groups by saying: You must limit your rate of increase because if you do not do so, then we are faced with problems. I do not think we achieve anything by persisting in making appeals of that nature.

Furthermore, I wish to say that however the rate of the population increase may be affected by information and counselling, and even by the economic and educational development of our non-White communities in particular, this is still a long-term problem. In other words, a drop in the population growth-rate will not have an immediate effect. All those children who are going to cause us problems for the next 20 years in regard to education, employment opportunities and so on, have already been born. Whatever we are able to do in the field of the population growth rate is not going to help us to deal effectively with the problems we are going to be faced with over the next 20 years.

I wish I had more time to discuss decentralization and deconcentration. I want to say here and now that I have serious misgivings about the entire policy of decentralization. I have no objection to deconcentration. I have no quarrel with development in Bloemfontein, Port Elizabeth, East London, Durban etc because in those places the infrastructure already exists. However I do have serious misgivings about our attempting, through decentralization, to solve the problem of unemployment by way of labour-intensive industry. In the first place, the hon Minister Dr Dawie de Villiers said in an interview the other day that there had been 777 applications in the first year after the policy had been put into effect, that capital expenditure of R2 460 million was being envisaged and that 65 432 additional job opportunities would be created. If one calculates what this means, it works out at R73 000 spent per job opportunity. I am not convinced that our present metropolitan areas have reached their optimum level of development. Spending of that order would not be necessary if we created job opportunities in our existing metropolitan areas. Indeed, I believe that if we had been able to use this capital to provide services to the people, we should have created a totally different situation within a few years. I am sorry that I do not have the time to elaborate further on this point, but I want to say that I think that to seek the answer by way of the development of labour-intensive industries, when such industries are basically uneconomical, would be to make matters worse in our country; it would not help us to overcome the difficulties.

Mr Chairman, in certain respects the hon member Prof Olivier made a very constructive speech here. Unfortunately I cannot share his sentiments with reference to his statements about decentralization. However, I believe that this is not the debate in which to differ with him on that score. I hope and trust that in future we may have the opportunity to debate the matter. I share his sentiment that if we compare South Africa with other Western countries, the picture is unfavourable. I also agree with what Dr Wessels said in this regard. Considering the position as a whole, I believe that we can in fact find a solution. The problem can be solved with reference to two aspects that have been raised here time and again, viz productivity and training.

I should also like to agree with my colleague, the hon member for Durban North, who made an exceptionally good contribution here yesterday. I am pleased that the hon the Minister also reacted positively to that and suggested the possibility of a so-called “employment campaign”. I should like to associate myself with the investigation which the hon the Minister and his department may launch. However I wish to put the friendly request that it will not merely be an employment campaign, but an employment and training campaign. I believe that in that way we shall solve many of our labour problems in South Africa and will also perhaps, find solutions for many of our economic problems.

I believe that the Government has done a great deal for training but we cannot do it alone. The Government can establish a broad framework, but when it comes to training the private sector is also necessary, and the private sector and the Government must be seen as partners. It is gratifying that we have been able, yesterday and today, to debate in a spirit in which race, sex and politics did not triumph. When one discusses labour, those aspects must not predominate because labour peace is something we must devote our energies to achieving.

It is regrettable that in his Budget Speech the hon the Minister of Finance had to caution certain employers who abuse certain training and manpower incentives. Unfortunately I must agree wholeheartedly with what the hon the Minister of Finance had to say, because what he cautioned against occurs in practice. I quote from the Budget Speech of the hon the Minister of Finance:

I believe that we must emphasize the words “gross abuse”. I believe that people who are guilty of this offence must take a careful look at their set-up in the interests of their country and the economy of South Africa.

An interesting periodical has appeared recently, viz South African Training. In volume 2 on page 38 there is an article written by a certain Mr Martin Westcott. He asks the following question: “Have tax concessions for training been abused?” I just want to single out certain aspects from this article. He states:

He goes on to say:

That is why I have asked, in addition to what the hon member for Durban North has asked for, for a training initiative in South Africa which will regulate our training properly.

I carefully examined, and made a study of, the report of the National Manpower Commission, report No 2 of 1984. I should like to felicitate the National Manpower Commission on an exceptionally interesting piece of work. In this report, too, one encounters the warnings to which I referred here today. Perhaps they have not been spelt out so specifically, but when one looks at this report and makes a deeper study of it one sees that things are going well with training in South Africa, but not very well. There is a great deal of room for improvement in this regard. To support this I should like to quote a few paragraphs. On page 15 the following appears:

The smallest number of trainees are reported for the highly skilled and artisan levels. I think this is obvious. On page 250 the following, inter alia, is said:

My immediate question is whether this is enough. As far as the annual report of the department is concerned, to me the most important paragraph in that report is the last one, and I quote it as follows:

Let this be our goal with training and productivity. I believe that if we did this it would go well with the economy of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Overvaal said that he did not wish to differ with the hon member Prof Olivier about decentralization today, but that they could argue the matter and conduct a debate about it later. I want to say to the hon member that these decentralization programmes about which he wants to conduct a debate later, should rather be discussed today, on this occasion.

The hon member went on to say that race, colour and politics had not played a role in this debate, but I also wish to remind the hon member that this is the last debate of its kind in which the White Parliament will be able to conduct a debate alone on labour matters in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon member for Krugersdorp is very happy about that, because his ideal has been achieved. However, I want to say to him that next year, when labour matters are discussed, he will have to take account of the partner of his party, the Rev Hendrickse, who is the leader of the Labour Party. The name of the Rev Hendrickse’s party says a great deal, and I take it that labour matters will play a very important role in the future dispensation. Next year hon members sitting here will not simply be able to discuss labour matters; they will first have to achieve consensus with the Rev Hendrickse on every facet affecting the activities of this department.

I should like to refer to the ridiculous statement made yesterday by the hon member for Boksburg. He said that in terms of the CP’s policy of separate development, all the Coloureds of Boksburg will have to be moved to a Coloured homeland, and the factories will stand empty. However, I wish to point out to the hon member that the NP states that it believes in separate development with regard to Black people. Are all the Black people of Boksburg to be moved to homelands in terms of the NP’s policy? I put this question to the hon member to show how ridiculous the statement he made here yesterday afternoon is.

The CP states that Black people must enjoy labour preference within their national states. Within the national states there must be development, and employment opportunities must be created for those Black people. The CP states that the Black peoples must be established within their own father-lands to the maximum extent and provided with job opportunities. There must be development within the national states. The ideal must be to utilize the increase in the labour force in Soweto and Potgietersrus within the national states. That is the ideal of the CP. I now want to ask hon members: Is this still the ideal of the NP?

We are realistic.

They are so realistic that they are unable to answer my question. This is the CP’s ideal for the Coloureds as well. This includes inter alia, the Coloureds of Reigerspark. We want to create the opportunity for them to be given preference within their own national state as far as labour in their area is concerned.

Where is the homeland?

One of these days the CP will be in power. This will happen as soon as this new dispensation fails, and then we shall demonstrate how it is done. I want to tell that hon member that he had better ask the hon the Minister of Manpower about that because he has a great deal of experience of homelands. Perhaps he could indicate a few borders to him. He must just tell him that he must leave Stellenbosch out of it.

The CP will not permit Khayelitsha to be built on the Cape Flats so that Black people can oust Brown people from their jobs. If Black people are given labour preference within their own national state and the Coloureds also obtain that, then surely it is the right of the Whites to be given preference in respect of every facet of labour within the borders of their own fatherland.

The CP states that every people must be established within its own territories to the maximum extent and in addition must have preference in the field of labour. Therefore the CP will fight unceasingly for the White worker, so that he is protected, his interests are looked after and he is not ousted from the labour field by people of colour.

The hon member for Hercules made a few statements here yesterday. He said that only merit should apply in labour. He said that if one suppressed ability on the basis of colour, one was looking for trouble. He added that we could not afford to allow merit to play second fiddle to colour. In other words, he states that the field of labour must be colour-blind. Surely that means that if a Black man, a Coloured or an Indian who works for Iscor is capable enough and has all the necessary qualities to become managing director of Iscor on merit, the road lies open for him. Am I correct?

You are afraid of that. I am not afraid of that.

I ask the hon member for Hercules: Does the road lie open for him? [Interjections.]

I say, Gerrie, go and say it in Warmbaths. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Springs states that a Black man may become managing director of Iscor on merit. If the hon member for Springs can say that, I want to ask the hon member Mr Van Staden whether that is separate development. I want to ask the hon member for Overvaal whether that is separate development. I also ask the hon member for Randfontein whether that is separate development. I am getting no answers. Manpower is a general affair. Those people have a poster in Potgietersrus on which it is stated that separate development is their policy. However, I now ask them whether that is their separate development. Manpower is a general affair. The Minister, the Director-General and any post in the Department of Manpower may be filled by a Coloured or an Indian, on merit. Every Act in respect of labour in South Africa must be approved by a multiracial Cabinet, a multiracial tricameral Parliament and a multiracial standing committee. The hon the Minister must first obtain consensus with the Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi in respect of every labour matter. Can the hon member for Randfontein tell me whether that is separate development? I want to ask the hon member Mr Van Staden: Is that the separate development championed by the NP?

It is separate development and you never knew it.

In the multiracial standing committee the NP must achieve consensus with Coloureds and Indians in the presence of the PFP, the NRP and the CP. The hon member for Roodeplaat, who may be the chairman of such a joint standing committee, is an authority on labour matters, and yesterday he stated his case very well. It is a pity he is not present now, but I want to ask him whether he thinks that he will achieve consensus on labour matters if the hon member Mr Van Staden states that the policy of the National Party is separate development. Does he think he will achieve consensus with the Labour Party if the hon member Mr Van Staden states that the National Party stands for separate development? If the NP state that it consistently implements separate development, they may perhaps achieve consensus with the CP, but they certainly will not achieve consensus with the PFP and with the Rev Hendrickse if they say that their policy is separate development. However, consensus is possible with Coloureds, Indians and Progs. The hon the Minister yesterday identified himself with the reform initiated by former Minister Fanie Botha and he was praised for doing so by the hon member for Pinelands. The hon member for Bryanston said that former Minister Fanie Botha had thrown the apartheid of Dr Malan, Mr Strijdom and Dr Verwoerd into the wastepaper basket. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, if one listens to the hon member for Kuruman one fully understands what happened on that day at the meeting of the head committee of the Transvaal NP when we walked out of the assembly hall and the hon member for Rissik told reporters that it was the happiest day of his life. I appreciate that now, because it must really be terrible to find oneself in the situation that one is afraid of oneself. One is afraid of the problems of the country and one is afraid of oneself. Therefore one lacks the courage of one’s convictions to face these things and to seek solutions to the problems of the country.

We also heard something about an ethnic state (volkstaat). This is very interesting. At Pienaars River, too, we heard that the CP was moving closer to the identification of that place. The hon member for Lichtenburg will probably know where the places are where the hon member for Brakpan wants to start the heartland of the Coloured homeland. They are situated approximately 80 to 85 km from Cape Town and 100 km from Durban.

I think we should leave the CP alone and rather discuss matters that are important to us and that we are seeking answers for. It is a fact that over the past number of years we have succeeded in defusing the explosive situation in the field of labour. The degree of labour peace we are experiencing is, indeed, evidence of this. I deliberately used the words “the degree of labour peace” because the potential for conflict still exists, and for various reasons the level of tension rises from time to time.

Mr Chairman, there are many reasons why this is so, and I want to refer to one which, in my opinion, is of importance, viz the process whereby the workers in this country are becoming more aware. All workers are becoming increasingly aware of their rights as workers and their rights as citizens of the country, and no one can or will prevent this, nor is there anything wrong with it whatsoever. Two very important factors that contribute to promoting this process of awareness are better communication and, secondly, exposure of the worker to organization procedures. It is true that one will be justified in pointing a finger at the Government if the labour sphere is not judiciously prepared for the new generation of workers, and if their reasonable expectations and aspirations are not satisfied. That applies to Whites and non-Whites. We must not think that it is only the people of colour who have aspirations. This Committee will concede that it is easy to regulate and discuss the training of people, but the employment of trained persons in the job opportunities that have been created is of equally great importance. This fine balance that must be struck is under a threatening cloud of unemployment, limited means and several other internal and external factors, over which the Government does not always have control, and this is something which the Government must also take into account. Fault may indeed be found if this process of increasing awareness that is being experienced by the worker is used by unscrupulous people as an instrument to derive political advantage. I say that this is unscrupulous, because what will happen if the left-wing or right-wing radicals plunge the labour sphere into chaos? Surely no one would emerge victorious from that struggle, Mr Chairman. Everyone would lose everything. Therefore we must weigh our words when we discuss labour affairs—in this debate as well—and the Government must put forward well-considered solutions and take well-considered decisions, even if they are not always popular decisions. The Whites have been experiencing this process of increasing awareness for many decades.

However, a new facet has been added now, and that is that certain minority groups feel themselves threatened by majority groups in the work situation. However important it may be to train and employ unskilled workers, it is just as necessary to allay the fears of the individual or group of workers, and convince them that they will not be replaced by lesser-skilled workers and earning lower wages. Job security is of the utmost importance to any worker and this Government realizes it. After all, there is no more soul-destroying fear than the fear that one is going to lose one’s job.

Part of this answer is that the worker will at all times have to do his best and only his best, and that employer will have to show understanding of this issue, because negation in this regard will increase tension in the work situation. Therefore we cannot emphasize enough that the social factors in industry with regard to the establishment of facilities for employees forms part of the normal labour bargaining process, and that it is therefore a matter which ought to be regulated mutually between employers and employees.

We can only remind the Committee of the clear guidelines laid down in this regard and reconfirmed once again by the present hon Minister. The circumstantial factors in the field of labour lend themselves to what are described in the Act as “unfair labour practices” and we must expect disputes in regard to this issue.

Because this has been identified as a real problem, the National Manpower Commission, having been directed to do so, issued a report on this matter and on the industrial court. This report, which is before us, is indeed interesting reading matter. It is clear, from evidence submitted that the term “unfair labour practice” will have to be better defined in order to achieve certainty in law. We are looking forward to the Government’s standpoint with regard to the report, which will be contained in a White Paper.

The industrial court was created to adjudicate on unfair labour practices and other labour disputes, and the legislation provides that the machinery for the settling of disputes will be available to any party, and I believe that this is conducive to good labour relations.

The Government’s standpoint in regard to the settlement of disputes is very clear, viz that before a conciliation or industrial council or an industrial court is approached, all efforts must be made to resolve the disputes peacefully on the following basis. Firstly, the labour practice must embody discipline. Secondly, constant attention must be given to labour relations. Thirdly, moderation, self-control and fairness must characterize the bargaining and co-operation among the interested parties, viz the State, the employer and the employee.

In practice, however, there are those who deliberately do not wish to follow the path of settlement and negotiation but, for political and other reasons, prefer to offer resistance. Then, too, other employees do not understand the method of operation of the industrial court and do not make use of their rights as workers in this connection.

Initially, for understandable reasons, there was a great deal of resistance to the establishment of the conciliation boards and the court. The report of the NMC clearly shows that a great deal of adjustment is still necessary in this regard. However, the fact is that there has been a significant increase in the number of disputes referred to the court for settlement, and these have in fact been satisfactorily resolved there. This shows that we have indeed succeeded in creating a suitable instrument for negotiation and settlement. What is very important, however, is that every dispute that is settled satisfactorily within or outside the court contributes to a contented corps of workers.

Therefore we advocate a more positive approach with regard to this court and the problem of the unfair labour practice. We address the employers and the organizations, the employees and every hon member in this Committee.

Labour peace is possible in this country if every worker and employer is contented. The Government will do everything possible to achieve this goal for the sake of everyone who has the right to work and who shows that he is in earnest in bearing his responsibility, as a worker, to the country.

Mr Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister for his reply to me in respect of works councils and that he will make a further decision about the matter after awaiting and studying the report of the National Manpower Commission. However, I just want to ask him to study the experiences of the present State President in this regard when he was Minister of Labour under the old dispensation, particularly as far as works councils abroad were concerned. When he occupied that office at that time he specially went on an overseas visit and on his return he described in glowing terms what was being achieved overseas in respect of works councils and liaison committees, and it was really as a result of that that the legislation was introduced in the seventies. We realize that the trade unions must also be consulted in respect of works councils, but taking into account the problem with which the Government party and all of us are saddled, that as greater benefits are obtained in the labour field, there will be a plea for greater political rights. In the simple industrial situation where the issue centres mainly around labour, that worker is better schooled when he is later taken up in the trade union movement to operate only for the sake of labour, and not only to want to exercise his political rights. This is a matter which deserves a great deal more attention, in our opinion.

I also want to refer to what the hon member for Pinelands said yesterday concerning interdependence in the economic sphere and in the labour sphere. It has been accepted that there is interdependence in the labour sphere.

†I want to read out to the hon member the basis of the policy of the CP in respect of manpower:

1. (a) the right of self-determination of the Whites and of other nations; and
2. (b) their separate geographic development.

*The hon the Minister said that in order to bring about labour peace in South Africa a great deal of patience is needed. However, it is wrong of the hon the Minister to say merely superficially that what is happening in the labour sphere today will not happen in the political sphere tomorrow. That is the root of the problem with which the NP has to contend. If the hon the Minister would look at the history in this regard he would see—and the hon member for Rustenburg referred to this—that the fair demands of the work and the greater consciousness of the worker that he has civil rights is going to lead to political rights, and that is what the PFP are striving for. If the hon member for Springs says that a Black person can become the managing director of Iscor, we ask why that Black person cannot come into Parliament. What is the matter with his merits? Where does merit end? Is it only in the labour field? [Interjections.]

Whilst I am referring to the report of the National Manpower Commission, I appreciate the fact that the hon the Minister and the department are awaiting comments from the private sector in respect of this report. As far as unfair labour practices are concerned, I just want to point to a few aspects that appear on pages 386 and 387 of this report. This is concerned with what the definition of an unfair labour practice should be. I just want to read the following on page 387:

The problem we experience the most at the constituency level is that the services of a person—a White—are terminated and that that post is eventually filled by a member of another population group. Furthermore, I want to add that secondary product boycotts by a trade union or employees in view of a labour dispute is another aspect of the recommendations of this report that I would like to endorse.

I should also like to refer to a few other matters. The hon the Minister has probably taken note that 31 May and 1 June are two public holidays as far as the workers are concerned and that Republic Day is one of those days the worker has striven to have declared a public holiday in particular. I want to ask the hon the Minister to make it very clear to the Chamber of Mines that unless a worker is needed for essential services he must be given the right to have those two days’ leave.

The hon member Mr Van Staden referred to the jingoes in the Conservative Party. In this regard he is in the same company as Mr Japie Basson, who said the following on 9 February 1961, and I quote from Hansard, col 1017:

That is the language of Mr Japie Basson which is being used by the hon member Mr Van Staden.

The hon member for Kuruman referred to the remarks of the hon member for Boksburg regarding the removal of Coloureds from the Boksburg district. I want to know whether the hon member for Boksburg agrees with the hon the Minister that there should be separate schools for the different communities, since the remark he made yesterday leads me to conclude that it is his opinion that if non-Whites look after White children, there is nothing wrong with their attending the same schools. [Interjections.] He must go and look at what he said and account for it.

You set up a target and shoot it down yourself.

The hon member himself said here yesterday that Black people look after our children, but that we do not want to go to school with them.

Do not want to work with them.

If that is what the hon member said he must correct his Hansard, since that is how he was reported. [Interjections.]

We are now awaiting the decisions the hon the Minister is going to take in view of the report of the National Manpower Commission. We are really looking forward to it and we appreciate the fact that when he considers this report he will take note of the inputs made by the various Opposition parties and hon members on the Government side.

Mr Chairman, the hon members of the CP are revealing themselves to be more jingoistic by the day. They do not want to share and divide anything. They are aimless people who have lost the ball and are wandering about in circles. I should like them to read the book about forestry workers entitled Kringe in ’n Bos. They are wandering about in circles in the forest because they have lost the ball and they cannot find it. I want to warn them that they are going to lose the support of Afrikaners if they have not done so already. The Afrikaner does not allow himself to be led around in circles nor does he allow himself to be taken in.

The hon member for Brakpan pleaded for immigration. But the people who were opposed to immigration are now in the CP and it is they who drew up regulations on what kind of immigrants could come to South Africa. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to the remarks of the hon member Prof Olivier. I agree with him that we are lagging behind as far as training is concerned, although it has recently received a tremendous boost. The fact of the matter is that the population explosion caught us napping. It was not foreseen. On the other hand, Afrikaner numbers declined. The Afrikaner birth-rate decreased tremendously compared with the increase in the birth-rate of people of colour. I agree with the hon member that we shall have to speed up the rate of training. If we want to survive, we shall have to train many more people in South Africa and in addition work will have to be provided for the population of South Africa.

The hon member for Kuruman objected to the labour field being thrown open to all people in South Africa. The labour field has never been closed, and there has never been a single word about race or colour in the Wage Act, which dates from 1926. The hon member is making a major production out of his claim that we are supposedly going to have the Rev Hendrickse of the Labour Party as an ally. This will not be the first Labour Party the National Party will have as ally. In 1924 the Pact Government was in power and if there was ever a government that did good things for the workers in South Africa it was that government, because English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people worked together in it.

Will the Government do good things for the workers again if the Labour Party is its ally?

No, it is not an ally in that sense. We had a Labour Party ally in the past and I have not yet referred to the Rev Hendrickse. I was referring to the Pact Government in 1924. The hon member for Lichtenburg is so eager to score a political point that he is becoming quite presumptuous. I always knew him to be a modest man, but he is no longer modest.

These matters will not all be jettisoned and that is why there are three Houses in the new Parliament. If we had wanted to, we could after all have proposed a single House in the new Parliament.

Why do you not make it one House?

Because we do not want to integrate as those hon members would like us to do. They would very much like to prescribe to us what to do. [Interjections.] Wait a minute! We are still dealing with separate development. There are three Houses in the new Parliament and the hon members were quite satisfied with three Parliaments. The basis is still the same. We still advocate co-responsibility, and because it is there we are not afraid. We are going to make a success of this dispensation because we want to. No power on earth is stronger than will power. The National Party wants to make a success of this dispensation and is going to make a success of it. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to separate development. Hon members in the CP do not understand this matter. I served on a committee that created the Coloured policy of the National Party. Mr Paul Sauer, Mr Erasmus, Dr I D du Plessis, Mrs Zerilda Steyn, Mr Botha and I served on that committee and worked out the Coloured policy. There was another committee in the Transvaal that worked out the Bantu policy. The man who interpreted this policy was the Prime Minister, Dr Malan. He never considered it to be an ideology. Apartheid is not and never has been an ideology. Dr Malan said there had to be parallel development between Coloureds and Whites. The image he used was that of a railway line whose rails never diverge.

[Inaudible.]

No, you know nothing. You were still a babe in arms. You know nothing about it. [Interjections.] Dr Malan never considered it to be an ideology and he said so repeatedly.

Dr Malan believed in separate development and not in integration. He said we must not throw open our doors.

No, of course not.

Order! I want to remind the hon member that the Manpower Vote is now under discussion.

Very well, Sir, but this does deal with it. These replies were provoked and I must refer to this history otherwise I cannot explain it. [Interjections.]

I want to repeat that separate development was never an ideology, but only a way of solving problems. It was used after the war in particular when there were uprisings. The Coloureds and the ex-servicemen were extremely rebellious. Separate development was introduced as a way of bringing about peace in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Van Staden has once again given us a review of the history of his party. There is only one point to which I would like to refer directly. If it is true that apartheid or separate development was not introduced as an ideology, but as a method to bring about peace, it has failed. It is very clear from the conflict and problems which exist in South Africa and I believe they have not been resolved but exacerbated by a stress on colour.

I would like to refer to a number of points. The hon member for Kuruman—if I can have his attention for a moment—reminded the Committee that this is the last time that the Manpower debate will take place according to the old dispensation. That is a very timely reminder. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, may I please ask for your protection.

Order!

Thank you, Sir.

The hon member reminded us that this will be the last time that we will be having this debate and that it will be the last time that only Whites will be participating in the debate. I welcome this because when one debates labour matters, it is done in a vacuum if it is only done by one small section of the population. I have already made the point that 6 million of the 9 million economically active people in South Africa happen to be Black. To consistently debate serious labour problems and seek for resolution thereof in a solely White context, simply makes no sense to me whatsoever. I am only sad that we will only be talking with Coloureds and Indians who also form a very small part of the labour force. We ought to have Black's present in our debates.

The thing which disturbs me most about the Conservative Party’s basic policy on Manpower—the hon member for Brakpan has very kindly sent me a copy of their policy on Manpower—is the stress by both the hon member for Kuruman and the hon member for Brakpan that Whites should receive preference in “hulle eie vaderland”. The only problem with that is that Indians and Coloureds have no other “vaderland” except South Africa. Secondly, a great number of Blacks born and brought up and working in this area, have no other father-land except South Africa.

The whole labour policy cannot be based on the so-called White areas. There are no more White areas in South Africa, if ever there were. We are all here together and we either sink or swim together. We have to find jobs for all our people, whether they be Black, White or Brown, otherwise we will have very real chaos in South Africa, and I therefore find it very difficult to accept the policy of a preference area. We have one really which is not working at all and I have no doubt that many hon members on that side of the House know that as well. What the CP is asking for, is to revert to job reservation. This is behind the question of whether a Black can be the general manager of Iscor if he has the merit.

Do you agree with Gerrie?

Yes, he can be. I can say to the hon member for Kuruman that you are quite prepared to have the best qualified person on a farm as your tractor driver. There was a time in South Africa when only Whites did certain jobs. Now you can go to any farm...

Mine is a citizen of Bophuthatswana.

Yes, but you do not mind using him, because he has the ability. Your focus is not on the fact that he comes from Bophuthatswana. You are not going to say to him when he climbs on the tractor: “Are you from Bophuthatswana? Fine, you can drive my tractor”. And then he “neuks” the whole thing up. [Interjections.] He destroys the whole machine. What the real question is, is whether he can drive a tractor and whether he can manage Iscor. In fact, perhaps we should have a change there so that we can get a far greater deal of profit-sharing.

The ultimate result is that they claim political rights.

Of course they are going to get political rights. Everybody agrees with that; it is just a question of how. What we are stressing to the NP, is that you cannot simply have merit in the work place and cut it off there.

Please tell them that.

We have been telling them this for a long time, but they have also come a long way, so give them time. In the next few months they may come a little further.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister a question about the use by the Department of Manpower of administration boards as agents for placing Blacks in employment. This a fairly new development; I do not think it has been touched on so far during this debate. If we could have a progress report on how it is going and whether there are any problems developing, I shall be very grateful.

The other thing that I should like to say to the hon the Minister—I did not say it at the beginning, because he was out for a minute—is that we very much appreciate the full replies he gave to a number of the matters which we raised during the debate yesterday. I want to thank him in particular for his comment and his assurance that there is going to be an examination or investigation into sheltered employment. Having looked at the facts and figures in the report and seeing how small a number of people are involved—I think it is a scant eight Blacks out of a total of almost 2 000—I do believe that there must be other people who are deserving of sheltered employment. I am not referring now to people who do not want to work; I am talking about genuine people who need sheltered employment and I think we need to look very carefully at the conditions of employment, difficult as it might be in this time of recession. I am very grateful that this is going to be done.

Mr Chairman, I should like to say something to the hon member for Brakpan about his reference to works councils and his reference to the visit of a former Minister of Manpower to Europe. It was actually in West Germany where the works councils have had the greatest success. However, the hon the Minister is quite right that one of the secrets of success in West Germany is that the works councils are not in competition with the trade unions. Not at all. Therefore, it is not going to work if you model it on the West German situation. I think the hon member was trying to say that we should start with the works councils and then move on to the more sophisticated bodies. The trouble is that the works councils in West Germany only work as well as they do, because the trade unions have accepted them. The works councils are therefore involved with the local situation, the trade union and the whole industry. This is a system on which I in fact wrote a book after a visit several years ago and if the hon member would like to receive a copy of it, I should be glad to send it to him.

Mr Chairman, I should like to raise one other matter in the few minutes remaining to me. It is a question which the Cape Employers’ Association has raised with the hon the Minister’s department, prior to his appointment as Minister. Their request to the department was for the use of unemployment insurance funds as a temporary emergency measure to enable the employers to avoid further retrenchments by working short time with unemployment insurance making up at least part of the wages lost. The department considered this and rejected it out of hand. They were very sympathetic about the problem, it being that when you have retrenchment, you very often lose key workers for a period of time and they go elsewhere and sell their labour short, as it were, or they actually move out of the area. We have many problems with the whole decentralization programme, but it is the Government’s own policy. What is happening, is that you are getting people retrenched in key industries in the Cape and because they cannot find work here, they move up to the Transvaal. They are actually going into a very densely concentrated area, because they cannot find work here and they have to meet payments, they have to live, buy food and care for their families. The idea was that, when there is a temporary lull in an industry, funds from the Unemployment Insurance Fund could be used. There is provision made for that. I shall be very glad if they could review that decision.

Mr Chairman, I am very glad that the hon member for Pine-lands categorically stated here this afternoon that all of us are agreed that everybody should have political opportunity and equality of opportunity, that we are striving for this and that we only disagree on the methods of achieving this. I think it is a very important admission.

Admission?

It is a very important statement or fact. It will bring me just now to the latter part of his first speech yesterday. In the meantime, I think the hon member for Pinelands will agree with me that trade unions should neither be used as political footballs, nor should they be politicized, if it can be avoided at all.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Germiston District mentioned in passing yesterday that Great Britain is ruled by the trade unions. I naturally do not agree with that statement and I think, referring to the Thatcher Government, that it is particularly inept at the moment. However, it is true that certain left wing trade unions did infiltrate and dominate the Labour Party executive to such an extent that the former British Prime Minister, Mr Edward Heath, was constrained to ask the question: “Who rules Britain? The Government or the trade unions?” I think it was too much stress on interaction between the political parties—the Labour Party in particular—and certain trade unions in Britain that eventually boomeranged on them and led to a reaction which caused a split in the Labour Party and redounded to the discredit of both the trade unions and the political party in question. Therefore, I think that all of us should urge trade unions, whether they be Black, White, Coloured, registered or unregistered, to learn a lesson from that and to shy away from becoming instruments of political pressure.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Prime Minister has on many occasions said that one cannot solve all the problems at once. I think that patience is also required here. It is a fact that we are all striving for equality of opportunity and that we realize that everyone has to get political rights. I think we also agree that the question of political rights of the Black people outside the national states is one of the most difficult problems to resolve. However, I think one also cannot deny that every effort is being made to find some sort of a solution to this problem. The Constitution Committee is dealing with it; the Special Cabinet Committee is dealing with it; the Commission for Co-operation and Development was extended a few years ago to deal with this problem. I think one cannot justifiably be blamed for not having found an adequate solution yet; one can only be blamed for not trying. And one is trying. Therefore, I think the fact that one has not yet found a solution is not an excuse for politicizing the trade unions. I think I want to appeal to the hon member for Pinelands to also join us in discouraging them from becoming politicized or from using the unions as a sort of substitute for political parties, because it will eventually redound to their own disadvantage, just as it happened in Great Britain. I want to warn them against that. I think one can say that the new labour dispensation has achieved a great deal in the few years since it has been brought about. I think one of the reasons for this is because it has extended the discouragement of political activities by unions to all unions, whether they are registered or not. It has brought about the same advantages and the same restraints for everybody. I think one can see that this is also recognized by the Black unions. One only needs to look at how their membership has increased. The latest figures that I have at my disposal, show that the membership of registered unions rose from 727 000 in 1979 to 1 226 000 at the end of 1982. Most of this phenomenal growth can be attributed to the membership of Black registered unions. I think it is also equally significant that the membership, as far as one can establish it, of unregistered Black unions only increased from 56 000 to more or less 100 000. I think this shows that the new labour dispensation has gone a long way towards defusing a potential explosive political situation that was developing in our labour relations at the end of the seventies. There is very little reason, given the developments that I have mentioned, for people to try and politicize the trade union movement. They should far rather concentrate on using the unions for the purposes for which they have been established—instruments for industrial bargaining, for better conditions for their workers, etc.

I agree that that is the ideal, but as long as the vacuum exists, there is going to be a problem.

Yes, but we are trying to take away the vacuum. I only want to say that even that hon member’s party will have some difficulty in resolving that kind of vacuum immediately if it were to come to power, because it would still have to deal with these people via the national convention and so forth.

Mr Chairman, at least we are trying to fill the vacuum somehow or other, like those hon members would have done if they had had their national convention. I only urge patience on unions, and I ask that hon member to join us in doing this.

There is another point: Very few unions—I think five or so—are still not meeting the requirements of the Act. The legislation to deal with that is the terms of reference of an investigation by a select committee at the moment and therefore I do not want to go into the merits of the case. However, I think that everybody should also urge these people to meet those requirements, which are not unduly harsh. They are not discriminatory in any way. That might obviate the need for using a stick, rather than the carrot. I think that much more carrot than stick has been used in the new dispensation and it was to very good effect. Patience and a bit of co-operation on their side would do no harm; it would only do them a lot of good.

Mr Chairman, naturally there are people who criticize the new labour dispensation. When we say that it has defused a situation that was potentially dangerous before 1979, they point to the number of strikes that followed immediately upon its inception. I want to say that I think most of those strikes can be attributed very largely to ignorance, a lack of experience, etc, by the new union officials. However, as time has gone by, this has been ameliorated. It is borne out by the fact that there has been a marked decline in strikes in 1983 and that the duration of the strikes has also been very short. I think that about 43% or 44% of these strikes only had a duration of one day, while 60% or 70% lasted for only three days. Therefore, I think that one cannot say that the recognition of Black trade unions is a retrogressive step as the CP tries to convey. In my view our situation is in every way infinitely better than it was towards the end of 1979.

In conclusion I want to say that I agree that there probably is room for works councils in our labour dispensation. In that respect I agree with the CP, but I want to emphasize that I agree both with the hon member for Pinelands and with the recommendations of the Manpower Commission that they should not be in competition with trade unions, but that there might very well be room for them as well as for trade unions, as one does in fact have in West Germany. The hon the Minister has already indicated that he is looking at this and that he will look at representations before taking a decision. I certainly do not think that one can go back to a situation where works councils can replace trade unions. I think that that would only create the kind of potential hostility that existed and was becoming extremely dangerous in our labour situation towards the end of the previous decade. We will not be able to do that and it is not desirable. The mere fact that we now have trade unions and that we have extended the same dispute diffusing mechanism and the same bargaining mechanism to everybody, was one of the major factors in diffusing a situation which was not only becoming dangerous in this country but was affording opportunities for exploitation by extraneous forces. It is not coincidental that at that time the Soviet Union was appointing labour attaches in Maputo.

Mr Chairman, before making a few remarks about the speeches of the hon member for Walmer and the hon member for Pinelands, I wish to dwell briefly on the hon member for Brakpan. Although, I was, unfortunately, unable to listen to his entire speech, I do not have much fault to find with what he said. Particularly as far as the industrial court is concerned, I believe we are ad idem. Unfortunately the hon member was not present when I made my speech and when I dealt at greater length with the issue of unfair labour practices. This is something which in my opinion we wish to clarify by way of evolution, but now it is evident that we shall have to achieve greater clarity by way of definition.

I did not hear the speech by the hon member for Kuruman, but I am told that it was a somewhat turbulent speech, and I probably missed something. [Interjections.] However, I want to say to the hon member for Brakpan that in recent times there has been something that has troubled me somewhat, and that is that the two Whips of the CP look at the problems of South Africa in a somewhat frivolous way. They are always smiling, grinning or laughing about them. In my opinion such an attitude is entirely inappropriate.

Mr Chairman, I must admit to the hon member for Brakpan that I do not have a detailed knowledge of the constitution of the CP. However, he quoted something from it in English for the edification of the hon member for Pinelands, in which reference is made to so-called creative withdrawal. I take it that in Afrikaans this would be “skep-pende onttrekking” or “terugtrekking”. Perhaps the hon member for Brakpan could tell me on a later occasion when this withdrawal is to begin. For example, if the CP were to become the governing party tomorrow, when would the withdrawal begin? Would a certain period be involved? I take it that that would probably be the case, because surely that is reasonable. Can the hon member also tell me where the withdrawal would be to? Mr Chairman, it is easy to ask questions such as those I have just asked, because they are questions that are not easy to answer.

But surely that is in line with your decentralization policy?

Therefore I think it is essential that we should put these questions about our own policies to one another from time to time and that we should try to determine whether we can find a solution to this issue. However, we must do so in a responsible way and not in a frivolous spirit.

I now come to the hon member for Walmer. In the course of his speech he said that when a small businessman started his business he became so entangled in all the laws, regulations and requirements that eventually he got cold feet and dropped the whole matter. Therefore, according to the hon member, the Government is indirectly responsible for the fact that more job opportunities are not being created, because there are so many Acts, regulations and requirements that make matters difficult for the small entrepreneur. With all respects, Sir, that is probably the most absurd statement I have ever heard. Surely we are striving to bring about order. We cannot permit a situation in which there are no regulations. Apart from that, the statement which the hon member made is also untrue. The hon member nodded in agreement when I said that the Government was responsible, but after all, it is this Government that abolished the old Master and Servant Acts. That may have been before the hon member came to this House, but I believe he is aware of the problems caused when those Acts were still on the Statute Book and we still had to apply them. Indeed, it was the hon the Prime Minister who said, about two years ago, that we had to get rid of superfluous legislation. I believe that the hon member for Brakpan had a share in our repealing more than 100 laws and measures, and many of them applied to the entrepreneur in South Africa. In the light of this, therefore, the hon member for Walmer is not entitled to point a finger at the Government and say that it is responsible for discouraging the creation of new job opportunities.

Have you read the report?

Yes, I read it before the hon member did. Under the previous Minister this department took the lead in regard to rationalization in South Africa, and the laws administered by the department have been reduced to such an extent that at present we have only eight labour Acts. I hope that the hon member read that in the report as well.

In a certain respect the hon member slighted the department and its officials, because I do not know of any other department in South Africa whose employees are more helpful than those of the Department of Manpower, and there is a good reason for this. The divisional inspectors of the department, in particular, deal daily with the most illiterate people but also with the most highly-trained people, eg engineers, doctors and others. They have to communicate with these people and they are very successful in this regard. Have hon members ever stopped to think that the officials of this department sometimes have to communicate with, say, a Portuguese who may have arrived from Mozambique or from Madeira the day before? The next day that man is working in some café or greengrocer, and then it is the labour inspector who has to communicate with him. Of course, it may also be a Greek, an Italian, a Xhosa or a Venda that these officials of the department have to communicate with. Accordingly I should like to congratulate these officials, because in my opinion they achieve outstanding success in performing their task.

Therefore, if some small businessman were to consult the hon member for Walmer he should say to him: I cannot explain all the laws to you, but, you know, there is the nearest office of the Department of Manpower. There are pleasant people there who will help you. They have also helped the man in the café and the man in the greengrocer on the corner.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware of all the regulations a “smous” must adhere to in order to get a “smous” licence? Such a hawker must even have a store. Has the hon member read the report of the Small Business Development Corporation? They describe the problems they have in guiding the small businessman around these regulations.

Mr Chairman, I want to concede at once that the good old days of the hawker who visited the farms is past. In those days all he had to do was attach a round plate to the side of his donkey-cart, but apart from that there were very few regulations he had to comply with. However, there are many arguments for and against the licensing of hawkers. I do not have much time to spend on this but I agree that we should not make matters too difficult for the small businessman. I now come to the hon member for Pinelands. Yesterday he said inter alia in the course of his speech that the Black people were going to use the trade unions as a political forum. I fear that that is more than just a possibility. While saying that, I do, however, also wish to point out that if that is so, there is all the more reason for doing anything in our power to prevent this, if at all possible. We must not make speeches from which it could be inferred that we are perhaps encouraging it. We should rather concentrate on teaching the Black trade union leaders, in particular, that it would entail many benefits for them if they negotiate better conditions of service for their own people, and that this could also ensure labour peace in South Africa. Apart from this, we shall also have to keep a watchful eye on the membership fees of the trade unions, on how they are utilized, because the Black people are being promised the earth to persuade them to join the trade unions, but in the mean time they do not know what becomes of the membership fees they pay. For example, we know of one case where one of the organizers of a trade union simply disappeared. The trade union in question had 100 members, and for six months the organizer collected R2 per person per month, and after that he simply disappeared. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer briefly to the points raised by hon members. In view of the time I have available I shall obviously not be able to reply to every speech in full, but shall have to content myself with certain general observations that I should like to make.

The hon member Prof Olivier said that the general level of education was too low and maintained that it was one of the reasons for the low productivity in South Africa. There is a good deal of truth in that statement and I agree with it to a great extent. However, I should like to point out to the member that this year was the first time that expenditure on the education and training of all population groups was accorded the highest priority in our Budget. It was the first time that more was spent on the education and training of all population groups than on Defence. I think this is a very strong argument and also an indication of the value which the Government attaches to training.

The hon member also said that the population growth could in fact only be controlled effectively by improving the socio-economic position and the standard of living of the population. I agree with him on this score as well, because it is after all a world-wide phenomenon.

The hon member went on to say that he did not really believe in decentralization. He agreed as far as deconcentration was concerned, but he was not in complete agreement with the policy of decentralization, and pointed out inter alia that it was an expensive policy. However, I should like to tell the hon member that the Government’s new strategy for decentralization in terms of which the number of growth points were drastically reduced and complete services are being created at each growth point, will further the whole matter of decentralization, as the present applications for decentralization consequently indicate.

Perhaps we made a mistake in the past by having wanted to decentralize to too many points without having had all the services available there. In addition the PWV area possesses such a strong centrifugal force that any area situated outside a certain parameter is simply unable to get off the ground economically. I think we were nevertheless very successful. The development at Rustenburg and Brits and in the direction of Bronkhorstspruit can also be called decentralization and I think it holds great promise for the future. With the reduction of the number of growth points we shall now have far more success with the policy of decentralization than was previously the case. The hon member for Overvaal referred here to a training campaign. I agree with the hon member that training is the key and leads to the improvement of a person’s position. I shall come to the hon member for Kuruman in a moment, but first I should like to say something in regard to the member for Rustenburg. The hon member raised a few interesting points. In particular he referred to the fears of minority groups and to their problems. The hon member also pointed out the protection being given to minority groups and what unfair labour practices could mean to them. They can appeal for protection. He also pointed out the importance of the industrial court for the protection of workers. A worker can appeal to the industrial court if he thinks he is being unfairly treated. It happens every day.

The hon member for Brakpan referred to the experiences of the present State President during his overseas visit in connection with works councils. I should like to consider this. The hon member stated that works councils would contribute or were contributing to the worker being more orientated towards his occupational interests within the work situation and not so much towards extraneous political rights. The hon member also said I was wrong in saying: What happens today in the sphere of labour will not happen tomorrow in the political sphere. I adhere to that standpoint. We have been working together in South Africa for centuries. For centuries we have been together in a work situation, working shoulder to shoulder. It has not lead to political integration. Why not? Because this Government does not advocate a policy of political integration with the Black people. That is the point. It is not our policy.

What about the Coloureds and the Indians?

The policy in regard to the Coloureds and the Indians is the same policy as the one you voted for in 1977. I shall discuss this with the hon member in a moment. The hon member for Brakpan also referred to the definition of unfair labour practices and, as I have already said, we shall look into the matter as soon as we receive further comment pertaining to the report of the National Manpower Commission. The hon member also referred to the question of a paid holiday on 1 June. I can only tell the hon member that the Basic Conditions of Employment Act was amended during the present session and 1 June has been made a holiday. Workers covered by the Act are entitled to a holiday and payment for the day. As far as the underground workers are concerned, their position is governed by the Mines and Industries Act. Naturally, representations in that connection should be addressed to a colleague of mine.

I can only tell the hon member for Overvaal that the Department of Manpower is, in co-operation with the National Training Board, organizing a big training conference, to be held in November this year in the conference hall of the CSIR. Strictly speaking, therefore, the hon member’s appeal in regard to the promotion of training has already been acceded to.

The hon member for Pinelands raised a few matters. In the first place the hon member asked me to ensure that we use the unemployment insurance fund—if I understood the hon member correctly—to keep people who were to have been paid off employed. I should just like to mention that this fund can only be used to pay unemployment insurance benefits to people who contribute to the fund. It cannot be used to keep them employed and to pay their salaries.

†For the interest of the hon member I can also mention that the payment of unemployment benefits has increased dramatically during the last three years and so has the number of beneficiaries. The benefits paid out increased from R87 million in 1981 to R189 million in 1983. The number of beneficiaries increased from 101 000 in 1981 to 148 000 in 1982 and to 200 000 in 1983. Just as a matter of interest I should also like to mention that the fund experienced cash flow problems which necessitated realization of fixed assets of R20 million prior to their date of expiry. This of course has a negative effect on interest accruing to the fund. I just want to give the hon member the following information to illustrate that one must be very careful with this fund. In the light of the prolonged recession and concern about the possible effects thereof on the structure and strength of the unemployment insurance fund an actuarial investigation was undertaken during 1983 to establish whether the level of accumulated funds was sufficient to ensure that the fund would be able to meet all benefits due by it should the recession continue. The investigation revealed that the present excess of expenditure over income should be seen as a warning signal. If unemployment benefits continue to be paid at the present rate, the fund will still be in a sound financial position at 31 December 1984. If, however, it then appears that the higher level of unemployment benefits is not likely to decrease in the foreseeable future, an increase in contributions should be considered.

*I should just like to mention that one will have to exercise care when utilizing this fund. One cannot apply it for any purpose other than those stipulated in the Act.

†The hon member also referred to the Administration Boards.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister if he would consider receiving further application on this matter bearing in mind that it refers specifically to section 46 of the Act of 1966 which does allow for employees to be retained on a short-time basis rather than being totally retrenched and instead of the 45% from the fund, which is normal with an unemployment insurance fund, being paid as part of the wage, with the employers picking up pension payments, etc. If I assure the hon the Minister that I am, firstly, well aware that we must be very careful in the use of this fund—and I take his point 100%—and, secondly, it does seem to me that this particular instance where there are more and more workers leaving one area to go to another because of loss of work, if we could find a way to get around this, would the hon the Minister not look at it again and let me know if he thinks the case is not worthwhile?

Mr Chairman, actually I am prepared to look at it. At this stage I am not prepared to commit myself. I appreciate the problem the hon member is raising here. I am prepared to look at it again.

*The hon member also referred to the use of Administration Boards as agents of the department. I can only mention that the department intends to fulfil many of these functions itself. We have a five-year programme for the extension of our offices, but at present it is being done by the Administration Boards. They have offices throughout the country. Our department does not have that infrastructure and therefore they perform this service for us on an agency basis. The hon member is probably aware of the fact that the Administration Boards are being converted into development boards and attention will of course be given to their functions as well.

I should like to thank the hon member for Langlaagte for the very sensible way in which he spoke here and in which he pointed out certain matters. I should also like to thank the hon member for Langlaagte for his personal congratulations. The hon member’s argument was that one of our dilemmas in South Africa was that when one had to defend South Africa abroad, one was dealing with people who did not always have the necessary knowledge, the necessary understanding, of the background and history and of the population structure of South Africa. It is also true that many South African customs are incomprehensible and inexplicable to people in the outside world. It is difficult for them to understand why we do certain things in South Africa. If one were to examine this matter in depth one would see that our way of doing things, our way of life in South Africa is the result of the historical course of events in this country and that it resulted in certain practices. Today we have a dilemma. The slogans of the world of “one man, one vote” and a unitary state are surely not a solution to the problems of South Africa. Completely ignoring the differences that exist between the people of South Africa will only cause problems for this country. Surely we cannot ignore the historical and other differences that exist between the peoples of this country. I want to repeat what I said yesterday: Anyone who ignores the population differences and tries to eradicate those differences by force is really looking for trouble in South Africa. It is not the policy of the National Party. I am sorry that there were hon members who tried hard to politicize the matter of labour and manpower. I want to repeat: It is easy to stand on the sidelines and make all kinds of emotional and blood-curdling appeals to people and to batten on people’s prejudices and fears and make an appeal to the blood, but it is a different matter if one has to bear the responsibility for labour peace in South Africa, if one has to bear the responsibility for 8 million people having to work together in peace in this country—and work is the one thing we do every day of our lives. We have to decide what is most important, labour peace that will give this country stability and bring prosperity and ensure our survival, or, on the other hand, exploiting the labour situation. For what purpose? To score a few political points for political gain. If one does that, one is putting party interests above national interests, which should be paramount. One is then exploiting a matter, that affects all of us, for party political gain.

This afternoon I am unfortunately in the position that I cannot keep quiet. Without wanting it this way, I have unfortunately been placed in the position that I shall have to make certain statements and I shall do so because I do not have a choice. I hope hon members understand that I shall have to reply to certain questions.

What about the White worker? It is being suggested that we have now sold out the White worker, that we have left him unprotected. I shall now spell out what we are doing for the White worker. We say that we put South Africa first in the sphere of manpower, just as we do in the broad economic sphere. In that way we keep the reality of the country’s circumstances in mind. We are not afraid to make adjustments, meaningful adjustments that can only help to benefit the various population groups and the people of South Africa and the workers in particular. But we not only allow ourselves to be guided by these realities in the sphere of manpower, we also have discussions with all interested parties, all affected parties, workers, employees, the people who are practitioners and have dealings with one another every day, who have to keep the wheels rolling and bring prosperity to South Africa. It would be an irresponsible Government and an irresponsible party who would misuse the interest of the workers for political gain, in order to make capital for party political purposes. For that reason we have always been committed to labour peace. We committed ourselves to the training and the retraining of the South African worker, to enhancing productivity, to protecting the rights of the individual worker as well as the employer, and also the rights of the group to which that worker or employer belongs. But we have done more than that. We created a structure, a legal framework, institutions in the form of an industrial court, a national manpower commission and a national training board, and action programmes were introduced in order to attain certain objectives.

I should now like to spell out how the rights and the interests of the White worker in South Africa are being protected. They are being protected by a statutory framework that is continuously being adjusted in consultation with employers and employees to meet the requirements of the day and to give each worker or group of workers the maximum opportunity for self-determination. This is what the system offers: Maximum opportunity for self-realization. There is also the right to establish autonomous and officially recognized unions of their own choice. Every worker in South Africa can do this. He can establish a trade union, administered by himself, that can act for him and represent his interest in labour matters by way of collective bargaining. The White worker can establish his own trade union in order to protect the interests of his own group. An industrial council and conciliation board system was created to conclude legally binding contracts with employers, official machinery to settle disputes consisting of industrial councils, conciliation boards, intermediaries and arbitrators and adjudicators. But what is more: In the case of an alleged unfair labour practice every worker has access to the industrial court. Every White worker has access to the registrar of industries and the Minister of Manpower. The White worker is even entitled to make legal use of the strike weapon, after compliance with the prescribed procedure. There is legal protection against victimization on our Statute Book. Trade union federations are continually consulted on the highest level about matters of policy in order to look after the interests of the White worker. A Wage Board investigates conditions of employment. There is protection against unemployment; there is an Unemployment Insurance Fund. There is protection against injuries while on duty and against occupational diseases. The worker has that protection. There is the assurance of safe work-places and working conditions. There is access to the industrial court for reinstatement of employees and to obtain an order for restoration of terms and conditions of employment. There is free provision of employment and vocational guidance services. There is protection against exploitation by private employment offices; the right of the worker to negotiate closed shop agreements; the maintenance of standards in the training process and for trade tests. The maintenance of standards is one of the best protection measures for a worker. An artisan can help ensure the maintenance of higher standards through his trade union and by having a say on training committees. A further protection measure is the maintenance of the policy of the wage-for-the-job. In other words, artisans can protect their position through their trade unions and industrial councils by guarding against fragmentation and the downgrading of artisanship.

This is the protection we offer the White worker and it is my answer to what we are doing for the White worker. I should like to add that in this country one cannot accomplish something and maintain it if it is based only on taking and depriving but not also on giving. Each of these protective measures which I have mentioned is available for any worker irrespective of his colour, language, religion or culture.

Pietie, we believe you, but they do not.

Never mind, that hon member believes me, but their turn will come.

I said yesterday and I should like to repeat that any minority group workers who feel threatened can come to see me as long as I hold this portfolio. That is why I am there and my door is open. The hon member for Langlaagte said he was worried about certain workers. He said in every people there was a certain percentage of individuals—he quoted the figure of 16%, but it could be anything—that are below average. The hon member then argued that if we say there is no discrimination in the labour structure, what about the White worker who is below average? Do we then leave him to a terrible fate in that he will then have to compete with people of other races whose ability is greater than his? This is the question that the hon member for Langlaagte asked, and with every right. The hon member told me in a very nice way that we must obtain a solution for those people. If one examines the labour situation and the employment opportunities in their correct perspective and suppose we were to say it was the policy that no White worker may do work that is inferior to the work done by someone of different race, it means that we must start at the lowest category of worker and then appoint all Black people below him. Surely that is unrealistic. The fact is that there is a wide range of employment opportunities and after one has accommodated all the White workers, each according to his abilities, many employment opportunities are left, alongside those Whites, for people with different abilities. That is why we say that in order to maintain growth—we need not argue about how essential it is to grow—to bring prosperity for the largest possible number of people in South Africa, to create opportunities for them, we must give those people the opportunity to develop. A man who is satisfied in his work is naturally a satisfied person. Surely one cannot take a brilliant man and say: Just because you are Black you may not make progress. That is not tenable. In any case, it is not fair. That is why I say we are giving the Black man an opportunity to work in this country of ours.

They go further and say that this Government has completely abandoned the policy of separate development. But surely this is not true. I say here today that separate development is the policy of the Government and, furthermore, if there is one Government that has applied separate development successfully, it is this Government.

What is our policy in respect of the Black people? We have national states. Are a few of them not already independent? Are many of them not self-governing and is it not true that those people enjoy complete independent sovereignty? The Transkei, Ciskei and Bophuthatswana are monuments to the successful course followed by this Government. Of course it is a fact. The hon member for Pinelands need not shake his head, because it is a fact.

I am just wondering about the evidence.

Let us go further and come to the Blacks in White areas. If we did not have a policy of separate development, why are there Black residential areas? Why did Blacks receive local government powers? We led them to local government powers. In any event, we gave every Black person in this country the right to vote, which he can exercise within his national state. If it is being suggested that because we are applying a certain policy in the labour sphere that is not discriminatory, it does not follow that we want to throw open all schools and residential areas and want to abolish all dividing lines in South Africa. It is one of the cornerstones of the policy of this Government of which I am a member, and we shall adhere to it.

We must bear the realities of South Africa in mind. What is dangerous for us in this country? Large numbers of unemployed people but, furthermore, large numbers of people who are frustrated in their work. That is where danger lies. If one does not afford a person an opportunity to channel his abilities and initiative and you put a lid on him, it is just like keeping a pressure cooker tightly closed and waiting for the explosion.

What about the mining industry?

The hon member is now referring to the mining industry, but I should like to say again that that is not my responsibility.

I accept that.

I should like to tell the hon member again that change, adjustment, can only occur in an atmosphere of confidence, because we say the change must take place with the consent of the relevant workers, otherwise the people cannot have confidence. That is why we say let the people talk and let us continue to talk to one another, because talking and exchanging ideas is beneficial and useful, things emerge from the process. I should like to repeat: We have grown and developed in South Africa; we have labour peace; we have confidence and we are attracting investors. Why? Because this party has changed and accepted sensible changes and applied them. If we had continued to adhere to the 1948 motto, the 1948 motto of White domination only, and we had not changed it to development and had not given shape to it, we would have become fossilized and then the same fate would have awaited us as is awaiting the hon member for Rissik.

Dr Malan never asked for White domination.

Political calcification, an inglorious end in a nameless grave. I want to repeat: Let us remain sensible. Nobody wants to bring about changes in the sphere of labour for the mere sake of change. We bring about changes for the sake of security, for the sake of stability, for the sake of confidence in South Africa.

Now I should like to make an appeal to all hon members. In my replies I tried to deal gently with hon members, but I also had to give a reply that set out in the policy of the Government. I want to appeal to hon members not to exploit this workers’ situation for political purposes. If we look at the work force in South Africa and if we look at its potential for conflict, if we look at the conflict that could be generated if this matter is not handled sensibly, there is a grave responsibility resting on each one of us to rather count to ten before we speak, to rather think twice and also adopt the standpoint of: Let me hear what the other man’s point of view is; does he not perhaps have a point? If one proceeds from that standpoint, adopting the premise of being sensible and reasonable and fair, I think that this country is big enough and rich enough and has enough natural resources to offer enough opportunities for all its people to live in prosperity and peace and in safety with one another in future.

In conclusion I should once again like to thank all hon members sincerely for their contribution to the debate. I want to say again—and this applies to all hon members, although I should perhaps in certain cases say to a lesser extent—that hon members approached this debate in a very responsible way. I thank them for doing so.

Vote agreed to.