Mr. Speaker, I move—

Sir, in the course of the discussion of the Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation Bill at the Second Reading and at the Committee Stage, the hon. the Minister answered a large number of questions, and it became very apparent that the administration of the Railways and Harbours was in a difficult and precarious state. The reasons for that are quite clear, and we have accepted that under the existing economic conditions such problems, such increased expenses, must be accepted. Sir, I shall be very brief. I wish to put a simple question. In quite a number of answers the hon. the Minister explained that the increased costs were attributable to devaluation, to the increased prices that had to be paid for the importation of goods from overseas. In the discussion of this Bill at the Committee Stage, it was not possible to infer from the specific items to what extent the increased request for R142 million could be ascribed to devaluation as such. I would appreciate it very much if the Minister would indicate to us, by way of percentage or amount, how much of that amount of R142 million is attributable to devaluation; in other words, how much is attributable to the effects of devaluation on the prices paid by the Railways and Harbours Administration for imported goods.

I regret that it is impossible to make that analysis, because much of the stock, rolling stock and other requirements which are bought, are manufactured in South Africa. Apart from devaluation there was a tremendou rise in prices. It is impossible to calculate what part of the additional costs is attributable to devaluation and what part is attributable to increased prices.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make my position clear at the outset. I intend to object to every clause at the Committee Stage of this Bill. I do not intend arguing them, Sir; I just intend to vote against every clause, because in principle I am against the introduction of this Bill into the House, more particularly at this time but for other reasons as well. I therefore wish to record my objection to this clause and all others.

Clause agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

The amendment means in effect that we on this side of the House shall vote against the subsection, and if we cannot select a portion like that, we shall vote against the whole clause. The position here is that in defining the boundaries of the so-called homelands in South-West Africa, the State President in this clause is being authorized to do so by proclamation. He can amend those definitions. The lands referred to are set out in the preceding subsection, in paragraphs (a) to (f), which I do not want to read out. From this side of the House we believe that this question of the defining of the boundaries of the homelands is a matter which should come before Parliament. We do not believe that it should be a matter for proclamation by the State President, which means either the Minister or the Cabinet taking a decision. The disposal of land and the definition of the boundaries—I prefer the word “defining” to “definition”—is, in our opinion, a matter for Parliament and we object to Parliament being shouldered out of the picture completely. The passing of a clause like this gives the powers to the State President by proclamation to deprive Parliament of any opportunity to discuss the merits and the conditions under which the boundaries of a Bantustan are defined. The defining is something in which we have no part and we believe that that is quite wrong. I may say in passing that in so far as subsection (3) is concerned, which deals with a certain piece of land in South-West Africa, where there is a small narrow strip which was inadvertently omitted from the previous legislation, the procedure here being followed of bringing it before Parliament, means that if this clause is passed Parliament has approved of that piece of land being deleted from the area concerned. That is the way it should be done. But we object to the giving of powers to the State President and we shall vote against this clause.

As so often happens in legislature of this nature, this hon. Minister is once again asking Parliament to renounce its rights and duties and to evade its responsibilities when it comes to matters of consolidation. As has been said in another context, Parliament would, if this sort of legislation were to go through, be washing its hands of the consequences of this Government’s policy. Now, Sir, there is, as we all know, a history behind the consolidation in South-West Africa. Many years ago the Odendaal Commission made a thorough study of the situation in the entire Territory and reached definite conclusions, which were published. The Government, in turn, bought up large tracts of land for the consolidation of the Native homelands, and a good deal more than R25 million was spent in buying up White farmlands to create the new Native homelands. Now this hon. Minister in this clause is proposing to take away from Parliament all further say in what might be done to enlarge these homelands or to alter their boundaries. Surely this is precisely what Parliament is for. This is not a trivial matter. It places immense power in the hands of this hon. Minister because, after all, he is the person who is going to make recommendations to the State President, and his recommendations presumably will be followed. We believe this is yet another move on the part of this hon. Minister to circumvent the authority of this Parliament and to persuade it to abdicate its responsibilities. Surely, at this late stage the boundaries of these Native homelands in South-West Africa should be known and, if they are not known, Parliament should know why. If there is any good reason to change these boundaries, we should be the first to know about it. One might ask whether this provision means that South-West Africa is due for another period of uncertainty, the sort of uncertainty that it knew at the time of the Odendaal Commission? In the cases of Damaraland, Hereroland, Kaokoland, Okavango, the Eastern Caprivi and Owambo we think we know—we should know by now—precisely what the boundaries are, for these boundaries have already been defined. If there is any good reason to change them, we should know. Here, of course, we have another element that has come into the picture. I refer to the provision which is being sought for the State President to define “such other land or area as may after the commencement of this Act be reserved and set apart for the exclusive use of and occupation by natives and recognized by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette as an area for members of any native nation”. The use of the word “native” in the peculiar nature of this amendment seems to imply that this hon. Minister wants to create some sort of mixed ethnic area, perhaps of the sort that we have already seen develop in the so-called “gemeente” in Katutura township in Windhoek. If it is the intention of this hon. Minister to make provision for a heterogeneous Native population in any one group, as this seems to suggest, it will introduce an entirely new principle into the Government’s plans. It would be an entirely new element for South-West Africa as indeed it would be a new element for the Republic itself.

The hon. the Minister owes us two explanations. The first one is why he feels it necessary at this late stage to arm himself with powers to by-pass Parliament and acquire land by proclamation; the second one is why provision is now being made for a mixed area, or for what seems to be a mixed area, in South-West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Kensington I should like to give the same assurance which I have so often given before in respect of similar legislation that there is no intention of circumventing Parliament as was alleged by the hon. member. It is a question of expedient administration. That is what it is. I think the hon. member must realize and remember that all these proclamations must come back to Parliament later. In other words, Parliament will be in a position to know what the Minister has done, or what the State President has done on the advice of the Minister. We always have the sword of Damocles over us because we know that if we act irresponsibly, Parliament can later undo what we have done.

How do you undo boundaries?

That is so. It comes back to Parliament and Parliament can undo the proclamation of the State President. It can do it. That is being dealt with in another provision of the law. Now, in regard to the hon. member for South Coast who moved this amendment, I must point out that subsection (2) of clause 2 must be read in conjunction and together with subsection (1). Subsection (1) gives a description of the areas which form the various regions, the various areas of these governments, and subsection (2) only lays down that if there comes in the course of time an amendment which will have to be done in terms of the proclamation of districts, that is subsection (1), some adaptation may be necessary with regard to the laws applicable to the area which will then be included or excluded from the new district as defined in subsection (1). Therefore in subsection (2) it is necessary to make provision for any adaptation which may be necessary from time to time. Therefore, if subsection (2) is to be deleted, as is proposed by the hon. member, there will be a sort of vacuum which may cause that there may be conditions which we cannot handle. I am sorry that we cannot delete subsection (2), because in specific cases, which we cannot foresee today, it may cause problems, and without subsection (2) we will not be able to solve those problems. It is necessary to make adaptations which may be caused by changes which are to be brought about by the shifting of districts, and the districts again form various regions.

Mr. Chairman, may I point out that a fourth provision has been made to provide for any alterations hereafter. The hon. the Minister also overlooks paragraph (g).

Which one?

Section 2(l)(g) as amended by clause 2. The hon. the Minister referred me to the new section 2(1). In section 2 (1) as inserted by clause 2, reference is made to the various homelands in paragraphs (a) to (f), but (g) is omitted because it already provides for the State President to issue a proclamation for any odd bits of land which may be here, there or anywhere from time to time. That is why it is permitted. So the position is that under paragraph (g) you still have a free hand, because the Minister still has a free hand since he is advising the State President. Of course, the hon. the Minister’s difficulty is one of his own making, if I may say so. It is easy for him if he finds himself in difficulties to give us an assurance that in the Other Place he will move an amendment to allow Parliament to define the boundaries. Then the issue will be settled, and we will have no more trouble after that. That is all that we are asking. We are asking that Parliament shall define the boundaries and then he can keep his powers under paragraph (g) for variation, because that is the power he has under (g), powers to vary and powers to add at random odd portions of land. If the hon. the Minister will just give us the assurance that in the Other Place he will make provision for Parliament to define the boundaries, the issue is settled. Then we can pass my resolution, or I can withdraw it and he can go ahead to the Other Place where he can get them to accept the necessary amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast presents this matter in a rather queer way. I must say to him …

I want to help you out of a difficulty.

There is no difficulty; the hon. member is in a difficulty owing to a misunderstanding on his side. May I put it clearly again for the hon. member that subsection (1) up to and including paragraph (f), all those paragraphs, describes the various areas. Paragraph (g) makes provision for the addition of new tracts of land to the areas.

Random areas?

Yes. In other words, up to the proposed new paragraph 2(l)(g) we have paragraphs which deal with the defining of areas and their boundaries. However, in the proposed new section 2(2) it is not a matter of the boundaries being defined; in the proposed new subsection (2), which is now moved to be deleted, we are dealing with adaptations of legislation which may be necessary as a result of changes brought about by the new paragraphs (a) to (f) and also with regard to a possible application of paragraph (g). Therefore the proposed new subsection (2) is not directly concerned with the definition of the boundaries of areas; it is concerned with legislation, proclamations, ordinances, etc., which may apply to certain areas which will now be affected by the change in the boundaries. So, two different matters are being confused here.

It deals with boundaries.

Unfortunately we cannot accept the amendment because it creates a vacuum in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but the hon. the Minister has not explained the position clearly at all. The proposed new subsection (2) says—

The hon. the Minister says that this has nothing to do with boundaries. Well, if he can alter the definition of an area, what on earth does that mean? It seems to me to be perfectly plain English.

As far as talking about having to operate in a vacuum is concerned, I suggest that he will not have to operate in a vacuum. After all, if he wants to alter the definition of any area, why cannot he come to Parliament? That is what we are asking him in the first place. Could I just have the hon. the Minister’s attention for a moment? He seems to be too busy talking to someone else. I suggest that this is the place to come to if he wants to define any areas or re-define any areas. What does he mean when he says that amending the definition of an area has nothing to do with the area’s boundaries? There seems to be a contradiction here.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I did not state it clearly to everyone on the opposite side. The proposed new subsection (2) is expressly intended for adaptions concerning boundaries. Naturally something concerning boundaries can also be read into subsection (2), but not independently of what has already been done in terms of subsection (1). It should be confirmed to amendments in respect of subsection (1). Subsection (2) should confirm those amendments and should adapt then to consequential adaptions in legislation. Therefore, subsection (2) cannot be deleted if subsection (1) is retained; that is the point I wish to make.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. the Minister now concedes that it does have to do with boundaries; he now says it has partly to do with boundaries. If he wants to alter boundaries, let us look at this in its context. We are not dealing with a new situation. South-West Africa has been in the melting pot since before the time of the Odendaal Commission. Surely, at this late stage if the hon. the Minister wants to alter any boundaries, Parliament is the place to come to. It is simple enough.

Question put: That subsection (2) of the proposed section 2 stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—97: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. L; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J. Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Otto, L. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebush, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.;

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

NOES—43: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hope-well, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.;

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and W. M. Sutton.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clauses Three and Four agreed to (Mrs.

H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

Here once again we have an example of this hon. Minister taking powers which rightly belong in this Parliament. He wants to by-pass Parliament in what to us, and I am sure also to hon. members on that side of the House, is a most important issue, namely the language question. Language issues in this country have always been touchy ones and I suggest that in South-West Africa, too, they are capable of being quite explosive issues. You see, Sir, the hon. the Minister is asking for powers to proclaim, through the State President, one official Native language in addition to English and Afrikaans for any of the Native homelands. It is quite conceivable that such a proclamation would not command the support of very many people in some of the homelands. One has only to look at the case of Owambo, for instance, where there are two fairly well developed languages, both having reached the stage of being written languages. In Kavango there are two languages, one used by your tribes of the territory while one tribe uses a language all of its own. I need only remind the hon. the Minister that when the Kavango legislative council was opened last year, we had the opening speech in Afrikaans translated by four translators into four other languages, three of them admittedly dialectical variations. If we are going to have official languages, let us debate them here. We are asking something else. We are asking that the legislative council of each homeland should debate this and formulate a resolution. In other words, before the issue comes to Parliament we should know exactly what has been said for or against the use of one or more official languages. I think this is a very important principle, and it is the same sort of principle that we see this Minister throwing overboard every time. We are opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I wish briefly to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington. This amendment will give greater flexibility in the matter of language. It would make it possible for more than one of the Native languages to become an official language, and this I think could be valuable. Secondly, it states specifically that the request should come also from the legislative councils so that their views may be crisply known in the matter. Lastly, the portion of the amendment which seeks to bring the matter before Parliament is important. As the hon. member for Kensington has said, this question of language is an important one; it is not one which should be decided by the Minister without reference to Parliament. As the clause stands the Minister will, in a virtually single-handed fashion and certainly without reference to Parliament, be enabled to decide the whole question of an official Native language there. This we feel gives him undue power, and is not appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, in support of this amendment I should like to bring the following matter pointedly to the Minister’s notice. This is that he should consider this in the light of the proviso included in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington. The proviso provides that such a request should first be made by the legislative councils themselves. In other words, regarding language and the use of language the initiative should in the first place come from the people in that territory. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that we are here dealing with heterogeneous communities. In fact, this is also reflected in the legislation, and that is exactly why provision is made for additional languages in this territory. When one is dealing with heterogeneous communities it always means that one has minority groups within that community. It is especially in this regard that I believe that it will be much better if the initiative comes from the people themselves instead of this simply coming about by proclamation. I therefore support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, without being aware of it, the last speaker actually confirmed my standpoint, and just by not continuing for one further sentence. He said that in such heterogeneous communities as those there were several languages, and then he said that the initiative should not rest with them, but that the Minister should, by way of Parliament, have the power to determine …

No, it is the other way round.

Sir, the point is that it does not only concern initiative. The whole basis of the legislation, the whole basis of the administration in South-West, is that the people there must be able to exercise their right to self-determination. Should we in this Parliament now decide which languages they should speak there, or should they rather decide it for themselves? After all, it is their language. I think that in this Parliament there is perhaps no one who knows as much about those languages as they know about them. I do not know whether there is anybody here who understands a single one of those languages. Mr. Chairman, what is the position? The position here is quite clear; the two official languages are official languages plus one other language as stipulated in this clause of the Bill, which will then be confirmed by proclamation. The hon. member will understand why the languages could not be mentioned here; we would then have had to write in all the different languages here and that, after all, we could not do. That is why it is laid down in this permissive provision that the populations in the various regions will decide that, in addition to Afrikaans and English, they will have one language in this region and another language in another region. That is what they must decide. After all, we cannot tell them: “No, you have decided on the wrong language.” What do we know about it here in Parliament in Cape Town? It is they who know best, and it is they who must satisfy their own wishes. They must therefore choose an indigenous language which is to serve as an official language next to the languages of the two White groups, and that language will then be confirmed by proclamation by the State President. Here it once again boils down to the argument which was advanced by the hon. member for Kensington and which was also advanced in the discussion on the earlier clause that this allegedly is another attempt to by-pass Parliament. It is not at all the intention to by-pass Parliament. It is simply a question of effective administration. These people there may decide on their official language in June, and now they cannot use that language until June the next year when the matter has first been through this Parliament and has been embodied in legislation in the usual manner, while ultimately it has nothing to do with us whether they want to use their language A or their language B as the official language. Therefore I say that we should let them choose the third official language that they want and that the State President should then confirm it by proclamation. After all, as I said just now, that proclamation does come back to this Parliament afterwards and can still be undone.

Sir, the hon. member for Kensington also referred to the various languages there and that this Parliament should know what those people have to say about the matter. If this is all that this Parliament of ours has to know, it is quite sufficient for Parliament to know it by being notified of the proclamation, as hon. members will be in due course. The hon. member for Durban Central said a little more about it. He wants this Parliament to decide about it.

No.

I say: No, it is a matter which should be decided by those people, because it is their own language that they must choose. The hon. member for Kensington also mentioned the fact that on various occasions there were translations into various languages. That is correct; that was so, but this Bill is not being presented here in vacuo. These particular matters have been discussed with the various populations in the various regions there, and they realize that the way we have phrased it here is best, i.e. that one of their languages be raised to a third official language if there is more than one language in one area. They realize that only one of those languages must be used as a third official language; they seemed to realize very well that one cannot make a number of these languages third, fourth and fifth official languages, because there would then be a wide variety of languages and because it would be impractical and might also entail additional expense. But provision is in fact made for those members of those populations who cannot, in the daily administration, use Afrikaans or English or the indigenous language declared on official language, to be administratively served in another language as the executive council may determine. Therefore I think adequate provision is being made, and made to the satisfaction of these people themselves, who had this legislation before them and I do not think that we should deprive them of the choice that they have to settle their own affairs and to exercise self-determination by vetoing it here in advance—not in respect of a matter such as their use of language within their own territory.

Mr. Chairman the hon. the Minister poses the question whether we must decide finally in this Parliament what the third official language should be. What he means is whether he must come to this Parliament with a proposal. Well, I suggest to him that I much prefer the thought of him coming to this Parliament for a decision to him making a decision in his office in Pretoria.

Hear, hear!

He seems to miss the whole point. He seems to think Parliament is not important in these matters. He would like to make his decisions in some back-room. He has also missed the point of the amendment, a point which I think is far enough to the people of these Native homelands. The point is that if they want one of their Native languages, their indigenous languages, to be made an official language, or perhaps they want two, which is conceivable in the case of some of these territories, they debate it in their respective legislative councils and whatever decisions are arrived at come to this Parliament. Now, how can he conceivably suggest to us that we at this stage have lost control of the situation and that we must just allow him to make the decision, because, after all, he is the man who will be making the decision? The State President issues the proclamation but he does it on the advice of that hon. Minister, does he not?

But it must start with the territory concerned.

Why do we not do it the other way? Why do we not start with the territory and then come to this Parliament? You can give us all the reasons that you would put to yourself in your office. Why cannot we hear it in public?

I have in advance replied to the argument of the hon. member for Kensington. I did reply to it just now and I will repeat it now, but I do not think it necessary to repeat it more than twice. Sir, the position as I stated it is simply this. After the consultation we had with those various groups in the various regions, we decided on this pattern as it is laid down in the Bill whereby the Afrikaans language and the English language will be two of the official languages, plus a third language which they will decide themselves in the various regions, and that third language will be proclaimed by means of a proclamation to be an additional language; and, fourthly, the executive council—not the legislative but the executive, or their Cabinet—may decide which other language will for administrative purposes also be allowed there in the different regions. Now the position is that I am not going to dictate in connection with this because I cannot put this matter up to the State President if they do not approach me and ask me to put to the State President a request that a certain language be proclaimed as a third language. The executive council and the bodies concerned there will come together and they will decide which indigenous language of theirs they would like to have as the third official language. Then, if they put that matter up to me, it will go through the normal channels to the State President for proclamation. But I cannot start the matter without them asking me to do so. So the hon. member is not correct in suggesting, when he spoke previously—no it was the hon. member for Pinelands who said that the hon. Minister will single-handedly handle this matter and decide thereon. That is not the question. It will, not be so. I will only ask the State President to do what the people there have asked should be done.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is being obtuse, either deliberately or he just does not understand the position. He now tells us that he will have a recommendation made to him by the executive council as far as the official language is concerned. That is not provided for in the Bill. The Bill simply says—

Anyway, what he tells us … Mr. Chairman, it would be nice if I could have the ear of the hon. the Minister.

I do listen.

What he tells us is that he will consult the executive council, the Cabinet. Well, that might well be so. However, what we are asking is that a resolution should come from the parliament, the legislative council of the area, to start with. In other words, we want it debated as a language issue would be debated in this House, supposing such a language issue were to apply to the Republic. I certainly should never agree to the Cabinet taking a decision. How can that hon. Minister expect us to agree to something like that in the case of these Native homelands? I think this is nonsensical.

Can he not understand that what we want is that a request must come from the local Native parliament, from the legislative council? That is simple enough. It must not come from the Cabinet, the executive council, but from the legislative council. The hon. the Minister can bring that request to this Parliament. After all, we are supposed to govern the country; we are supposed to govern South-West Africa, not that hon. Minister. Why can it not be done this way? There is no earthly reason why it should not be.

Mr. Chairman, I have already replied to that question. I shall repeat it because apparently it did not register with the hon. member. I shall repeat it for his convenience. We must understand fully that there is a possibility of the use of two indigenous languages. The first can be the third official language. The Bill does not say that the executive council must take the decision on that matter. The Bill merely lays down that the State President has to issue a proclamation. Of course those people will have to ask me first. I do not, as I have explained, simply go to the State President of my own accord and say that this, that or the other language has to be proclaimed the official language. We shall ask those people which language they want to be the official language and then it is up to them whether only their Cabinet makes the decision or whether their legislative assembly makes the decision.

The Bill does not lay down who has to make the first recommendation or request for a particular region. They can therefore decide that their legislative assembly, the full parliament, should make a decision. That decision will then be submitted to me through the proper channels; it will be submitted to the State President and the necessary proclamation will then be issued. I have already said a moment ago that the advantage of this is that, through this, we can gain a whole year in order to serve these people in the language of their choice, because say for example their legislative assembly decides they want language X as the third official language. Say for example they take that decision in July or August of a particular year. We will then have to wait until this Parliament assembles again in Cape Town in February the following year. It may be that we do not succeed in piloting this decision through Parliament quickly; it could then mean that they would have to wait for almost a year before this Parliament has ratified the request made by their parliament. The position is now that their parliament or their executive council decides which language shall be the third official language. That decision is submitted to me and then to the State President. It is ratified, and they will be able to use that language as an official language months before it would otherwise have been the case. With regard to the fourth language which could possibly be used for administrative purposes and not as an official language, the Bill lays down that it is their executive council which has come to a decision on the matter, but there is no such provision as far as the third official language is concerned. It seems to me as if the hon. member did not relate those two points to each other.

Question put: That all the words proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—93: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Otto, J. C; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

NOES—42: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and W. M. Sutton.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendments dropped.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Once again we have the position that a very important, major constitutional step is being taken and once again we have the hon. the Minister wanting power to be able to do it by proclamation. Indeed I am surprised to see members on the other side of the House being so sanguine about their being stripped of responsibilities and powers which rightly belong to them as members of Parliament; I find it very strange indeed that they should support the hon. the Minister in something which once again amounts to a most important by-passing of this Parliament, most important in the sense that here we have provision being made for constitutional moves to be made by the hon. the Minister naturally by getting the State President to issue a proclamation. We have had this sort of legislation before. On many occasions in the past we have raised our objections to this type of thing for very cogent reasons. In the first place I think that the hon. the Minister and the Government owe it to Parliament to come to us beforehand with any proposed constitutional changes. He should motivate them and we should have fair warning. We should be allowed to debate them. It is no use his saying that we shall be able to review proclamations in retrospect; then it is too late. We believe that the only proper course for the hon. the Minister in matters of this nature is to do what we suggest: In the first place, he should consult with the legislative council concerned and after that consultation he should come to us in Parliament with his reasoning tell us exactly why he wants to grant self-government. And, of course, there is another important element to all this, namely the question of the timetable, something which once again has been debated a number of times in this House. I cannot see how this Parliament can gladly shed itself of all responsibility in so far as timetables are concerned in constitutional matters. I think this is of vital importance that we should know, not only what is being done but also when it is being done. For that reason I have moved my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I also wish to move an amendment in this regard. In the new section 17C(1) I want to ask the Minister if he would not consider changing the word “shall” to “may”. The said subsection will then read “as soon as it is expedient, the legislative council of a self-governing area may submit a recommendation to the State President for a national anthem for that area”. Subsection (2) states that the State President “may” by proclamation in the Gazette … As the wording is now, the legislative council of a self-governing area shall submit, and then the State President may declare a national anthem. Accordingly, I move this as an amendment. Will the Minister accept that?

Mr. Chairman, as regards the last suggestion by the hon. member for South Coast, I am quite prepared to substitute the word “may” for “shall”, but I still expect another amendment to this section and I think the matter must stand over till then.

In regard to the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington. I can only say that here I think is a very fundamental difference between the Opposition and our side in this House. We know that from experience, as the hon. member mentioned in other cases we had some sometime ago. What is the position here? The position here involves firstly and above all the principle that this Parliament is satisfied that those regions in South-West Africa may in their constitutional status rise to the level of self-governing areas. That is the principle in this Bill, and I think we all agree on that. They may have that constitutional status of self-governing areas as is stated here. If we settle that matter, if Parliament agrees to that what then follows are not matters of principle, but only certain general things, certain specific matters, and a timing. That is all. With regard to general matters, this Bill lays down what the position will be which will apply to all those areas if they become self-governing areas. But then there are the specific matters where they differ from one to the other. That will have to be determined in the proclamation which will then follow. Those specific matters, again, are for them in consultation with us, to decide what their nature should be matters that apply only to one specific area and not to others. That will be dealt with in the proclamation.

Now, finally, there is the matter of the timing, of when they should become self-governing. I think if this Parliament accepts this Bill here before us, then, as far as we are concerned, at any time anyone of those areas may become a self-governing area within the Republic. Sir, if they may become so at any time, why then must the question come back to this Parliament again to decide on the timing? It is then only one of the specific matters to which I have referred just now, and that must be dealt with in collaboration with those people concerned. We have the negotiations; they decide on the specific matters and on how they would like to have it worded in the proclamation; it goes to the State President; the State President approves, and they can then become self-governing areas. Why the question must come back to this Parliament to decide on everyone of them, one after the other, I cannot see. If in principle Parliament allows them all to become self-governing areas, I cannot see why everyone specifically must be singled out to bring their case before Parliament. Or may I put it otherwise: Can any one of the other members on the other side name one of those areas which they think should never become a self-governing area? We on this side say they may all become self-governing areas as defined in this Bill. It is just a question of when and how the specific matters must be dealt with. Sir, if we are wrong, if they may not all become self-governing areas, then I would like to hear from members on the other side which one or how many of those areas in South-West Africa may never become self-governing areas.

What are you going to do with the Bushmen in the Namib?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should really know that the Bushment do not fall under this Bill. If he does not know that, I think he has just forgotten it. But I really think that he does know it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is speaking rather like a frustrated imperialist looking at his colonies in South-West Africa; but let me remind him that when imperial powers in the past decided on constitutional changes to their colonies, they always passed separate legislation through their Parliaments.

This hon. Minister, if I may suggest, Sir, is talking nonsense when he says the only principle here is whether any of these areas may rise to the level of self-governing states, or I suppose you could call them “ministates”. That is not the point. It is quite conceivable that at some time or other, perhaps some sooner than others, they can rise to this level of self-government. We have no issue with him on that question. But what we want to know is why he should have the power to decide how this self-government is going to be granted and when. These are matters that belong with Parliament here. I do not see how he can arrogate this to himself. He is trying to talk past the issue when he says the only question is whether they possibly can at some stage become self-governing. To me, Sir, the issue is simple. But he has not explained to us why Parliament should not be asked each time about the manner in which self-government is to be granted and when it is to be granted.

I am.

You are not asking Parliament—you are asking for a blank cheque.

Oh, please, you just weren’t listening.

Of course you are. What does this legislation say? It simply provides for these things to be done by proclamation. I cannot believe that this hon. Minister now thinks that he has to come to Parliament every time. It is no use him telling us that he is going to come, after it has been done with details of the proclamation which we can debate in retrospect. That is no good. No, Sir, I think we still must hear why this Parliament should not keep control over the manner and the timetable relating to these constitutional changes.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the hon. member for Kensington. I have the feeling here that it is a case of “cheaper by the dozen”. I have the feeling that if there were only one little area in South-West Africa, or perhaps two, that were going to follow this particular course, there would be much greater concern to handle their forward development personally through this House. One has the feeling that, since there are, perhaps not a dozen, but a very large number of these areas and peoples, the Minister is in a sense handling them on the basis of “cheaper by the dozen”.

We are not dealing with children here.

Right. He is dealing with them in the same way as he would with a large number of children. He is not giving them the personal attention they would have enjoyed had there been merely one or two of them. If there had been only one or two of them, or had they been an only child, as the hon. member for South Coast pointed out, we would surely watch with even greater care their forward steps and we would deliberate in this House upon the future steps. But because there are so many children it seems that the mother and the father are a bit too busy with other activities to give them this care. We on this side of the House like all our children, and we like them so much that we want to give them that personal care and attention.

Some children do not like their parents.

While I am on my feet, I should like to refer to the other amendment to this clause, to which the hon. the Minister has referred in an earlier speech. That is the amendment of which I have given notice, namely to delete certain words in lines 10 and 11 on page 18, and to substitute certain other words. The hon. member for South Coast has already moved a simple and effective amendment on that point, and if it is just as convenient to the hon. the Minister to stand on that amendment of the hon. member for South Coast, he can do so. Would he prefer to accept that, or would he prefer to accept mine?

I shall accept yours and incorporate his amendment in yours.

That is most helpful of the hon. the Minister. I say no more, except to move my amendment, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that I can accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Pinelands, as I also told him by way of an inadmissible interjection. This also goes for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Coast. I think the provision is improved by that wording and the corresponding alteration in the Afrikaans text. The intention has never been anything but that a legislative assembly of a nation must, by way of their body, give the decision that they want this or that literary work as a national anthem. That was the intention, and I think it is stated more clearly now. I thank hon. members for their assistance. In regard to the rest of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Pinelands in support of the weak case put forward by his colleague the hon. member for Kensington …

It was not a weak one.

… I just want to draw your attention, Sir, to the metaphor used by the hon. member for Pinelands when he spoke about “cheaper by the dozen”. We know where this expression, “cheaper by the dozen”, comes from; it is a reference to people with very large families. I have not come anywhere near the “dozen”, and I know that although the hon. member is trying hard, he has not done so either. But this is why he stood here talking in such a cheerful and friendly manner all afternoon when he used the expression “cheaper by the dozen”. But this is not a question of cheaper by the dozen. I do not begrudge the hon. member his cheerfulness when thinking of “cheaper by the dozen”, and I hope he will reach a dozen as far as children are concerned, but here it is not a case of cheaper by the dozen. And this brings me specifically to the other arguments used once again by the hon. member for Pine-lands to say that not enough personal attention is being given to the affairs of the various areas.

I was speaking in the sense of this House.

Yes. Sir, just the previous time I spoke I pointed out that as far as general aspects were concerned, such as financial administration and all sorts of other things, the Act specifically laid down the procedure which all of them ought to follow because these are standard matters, if I may put it that way; but it is precisely where the very individual and specific aspects of a particular nation are concerned, which in the case of nation B will be different from the way it is in the case of nation A, that these things come to the notice of us all on a more personal basis in the dialogue which we conduct with them and when we prepare and work out the wording for the specific proclamations, which are then approved by the State President. But where their very personal and specific affairs are concerned, they are after all much more involved in the matter than this Parliament is, and therefore it is sufficient if the matter is finalized by proclamation after the general aspects have in any case been approved by this House.

As far as the hon. member for Kensington is concerned, I have now by way of these words replied again to his second argument, namely that this Parliament will have to approve each and every thing of each and every area, which I think is definitely unnecessary and which may result not only in unnecessary repetition and use of the time of this Parliament, but also in delay in those particular areas and regions which need these constitutions in order to operate on a higher level. To me it is inconceivable why we should have this long delay. Suppose this Parliament sat all year round, as the British Parliament does, then half of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Kensington would have had some substance, for then this Parliament could be reached much sooner, without loss of time, but we would still have had another problem, which he mentioned, namely the unnecessary loss of time, the delay, the waste of both their and our time in regard to matters specifically concerned with them. Sir, we differ very fundamentally on this amendment of the hon. member for Kensington and cannot accept it, but the other two amendments I gladly accept.

Amendment proposed by Mr. G. D. G. Oliver put and the Committee divided:

AYES—44: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hope-well, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and W. M. Sutton.

NOES—95: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon. J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P, J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den berg.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. O. N. Thompson agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with the Bill at its Third Reading on the grounds that we on this side believe that this Bill detracts from the sanctity of citizenship. I wish to take the House back to the very foundations of South African citizenship—to 1949. I want to read to the House what a very eminent South African then said. He was none other than Dr. Dӧnges and I want to read what he said in introducing the Citizenship Bill. You will recall that there was some concern in the country at that time about the terms and conditions of that legislation. Dr. Dӧnges dealt with the Bill and its various aspects. I quote from col. 7582 of Vol. 69 of 1949. I think it is well that I should read in detail what the hon. the then Minister said in regard to citizens. He said—

Then he came to deal with clauses 19 and 20 of the then Bill. This is what he said—

Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite how they can now ask this House to adopt this legislation which is before us. The hon. the Minister at that time—he rose to an elevated position in this country—who had a judicial background and a judicial standing in South Africa, could say that that was the very foundation of citizenship. You can be admitted by an executive act, but you can only be deprived of your citizenship by a judicial act was what he said. It was that sentiment expressed by Dr. Dӧnges that prompted me in the Second Reading of this Bill to ask the hon. the Minister, and I did it in all sincerity, to take this Bill back and to think about it again. He himself had indicated that he wanted these powers in limited and circumscribed circumstances, in fact very limited and circumscribed circumstances. What have we had now? We have had the hon. the Minister, who had the opportunity in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage to show that he could approach citizenship and give it the sanctity which was given to it, which was promised and which was enshrined in 1949 by the late Dr. Dӧnges. But that is not the thinking of this Minister of the Interior, quite obviously. It is not the thinking of this Minister, because this Bill as it now stands before us and which we are asked to adopt at the Third Reading, introduces a penalty, a criminal sanction upon persons who have not been convicted in a court of law but convicted solely in the opinion of this hon. Minister of having acted contrary to the interests of South Africa. This Bill further legislates for a group of persons which have not yet been identified by this hon. Minister. There is a nice-sounding phrase to be used on political platforms, namely that this is only for people who have dual nationality, but there is no safeguard for the man who cannot deny or cannot relieve himself of or relinquish his second nationality. There are those cases, and the hon. the Minister should know it, in a country where a man cannot relinquish his second nationality. The hon. the Minister shakes his head, but I would suggest that he studies for instance the laws of Israel as he was asked to do.

You prove a case for me.

The Minister should know that he has come to us to legislate. Is he legislating for one person, 50 people, 5 000 people or for 500 000 people? How far does the net spread with this legislation he is asking us to adopt? If one can go back to the ancestry of this country, if one goes back and looks at the position in the Netherlands, for instance, from where a lot of the stock of South Africa has come, what do we find is the attitude? In the Netherlands the attitude is that, when once a man gets his Dutch citizenship or Dutch nationality, he can never under any circumstances be deprived of that nationality by the State, by the Netherlands. There is a penalty which they impose in the Netherland, and that is that he can be deprived of certain civic rights. However, they never take away from him the right to claim the Netherlands as his fatherland and homeland at all times. It is never taken away from him, even if he assumes a new citizenship in another country. We have put these points to the hon. the Minister. I want to say quite emphatically that, as we see it, he is degrading citizenship of the Republic of South Africa to a grace and favour status in his hands, the hands of the Minister of the Interior. He is degrading the citizenship of South Africa in the light of the words of his predecessor, Dr. Dӧnges, but he persists in this legislation. He wants it to be in his hands to decide whether a person or certain of our citizens—those who have dual citizenship—may retain South African citizenship. It is his prerogative. These are autocratic powers. They are dictatorial powers. They offend against the basic principles which are applied in every democracy in the Western world as far as citizenship is concerned.

I want to repeat that the hon. the Minister was invited, requested and urged, to reassess the position in regard to this legislation. He was asked to look at it again, but he has failed to respond and I want to say to him quite sincerely across this floor that in failing to respond to the request to amend this law to deal with the evils which he wishes to deal with, he has failed every South African citizen.

And himself!

In this the Third Reading of this Bill I want to emphasize that the official Opposition in this House has never been found wanting in supporting the Government in measures that are necessary to maintain law and order in this country. We will never be found wanting in that. We will never be found wanting in measures which are necessary to stamp out subversive activities or in combating the drug menace to which the hon. the Minister has referred, and particularly in combating the menace of the drug pedlar. This Bill has none of those objectives. This is something that is in the air; it is in the hands of the hon. the Minister as to what he regards as sufficient to deprive a South African citizen of his citizenship. This Bill does not have the safeguards to which Dr. Dӧnges referred in the original legislation and which were honoured by Dr. Donges in the House although we differed from him in other aspects of the Bill. One thing he did honour was the sanctity of citizenship. The hon. the Minister can give us all the assurances he wishes; it has been said and I want to repeat it that the law we are being asked to pass this afternoon is the law as printed in this Bill. In the printing, in the words of this Bill, there is no security other than the opinion of the hon. the Minister. We cannot, therefore, support this Third Reading and we shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the speech by the hon. member for Green Point would have been very effective and very good if it had in any way outlined to this House a complete picture of the attitude of the United Party. But the hon. member must forgive me, because I wish to say to him, with respect, that his speech this afternoon was a hypocritical one. I shall tell him why.

Order!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “hypocritical”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I shall define it in different way. The hon. member’s speech seeks to outline a picture of the attitude of the Minister of the Interior of that time and of the attitude of the United Party which in respect of the standpoint of the United Party is an incomplete one. In 1961 certain legislation was piloted through this Parliament in terms of which certain discretions were granted to the Minister of the Interior. Section 19(2) deals with deprivation of citizenship and reads as follows—

I want to ask the hon. member in what respect this act on the part of the Minister, this power of the Minister, is a judicial act? It is an executive act. The Minister decides and it is an executive act. But what is more section 19(3) provides the following—

and I refer to paragraph (a)—

or, and now I read paragraph (c)—

These are specific frameworks within which the Minister has the authority to deprive the persons concerned of their citizenship by way of an executive act. What was the attitude of the United Party in connection with this legislation when these changes came before Parliament in 1961? That is why I blame the United Party and the hon. member for Green Point for the speech he made here this afternoon. On that occasion the United Party did not say what the hon. member has said now. On that occasion the United Party did not take the view that it is never deprived by way of an executive act. Let me read to the House from Hansard. I shall read from the Hansard—Vol. 1, col. 7840—of 12th June, 1961, from a speech by Mr. Tucker, who spoke on behalf of the United Party—

In other words, when this section came before the House in 1961 the United Party said that they supported the Minister but that they just wished to make a request to him: Do not delegate these powers of deprivation to an official; all that we ask you is to exercise those powers personally. In other words, the United Party has completely changed its standpoint of 1961. I want to challenge the hon. member and any hon. member across the floor of this House to tell this House why the United Party has now changed its standpoint. It is very important to note the following: From 1961 until today the Minister has exercised his powers in terms of this Act, and the Minister’s decision has never been attacked and no criticism of the Minister has been expressed in regard to the manner in which he has exercised his discretion. There has never been any question of his not acting in a proper manner. In this regard the Minister has always acted in a proper manner and exercised his discretion and his powers properly. But now I want to ask the United Party why they have changed direction now. If the United Party is really so pious about this matter and refers to a speech by Dr. Dӧnges, Minister of the Interior as he was then in this House in 1949, why did it not do so in 1961 as well? Sir, let the United Party tell us that. No, Sir, the reason is very clear, namely that the United Party has never yet, to this day, had a constant principle which it applies at all times.

I now wish to come to another aspect of this Bill, namely the question of public interest. In 1961 the hon. Opposition supported the legislation in which the Minister set out a specific framework of cases within in which he could exercise his discretion. Hon. members have now said that “public interest” should be defined. I want to ask the hon. members of the Opposition this question across the floor of this House: Why did they not at the Committee Stage of this Bill propose an amendment to define “public interest” in order to limit the Minister’s power in that way? If they are in earnest about it, why did they not come forward with a definition of “public interest”? They say it is a wide concept and there is no framework within which the Minister acts. They say that the Minister can do just as he likes and can act as he thinks fit. But I shall tell hon. members why they cannot define “public interest”: Because it is impossible for that side of the House or for this side of the House or for any lawyer or Minister to define every possible case which could be included in that concept. I want to mention to hon. members opposite a particular instance as an example. I think that I may also have mentioned it in passing yesterday. Can hon, members tell us what steps should be taken in respect of an international gangster against whom criminal verdicts have been recorded in various countries, a person who, say, is in charge of a large international gang of drug pedlars? That person did not commit his crimes in South Africa and cannot be indicted here for what he committed in any other country. How can we in South Africa take steps against a person who has South African citizenship, together with the citizenship of another country, and who has committed a crime not in South Africa, but in another country? We do not want that person in South Africa. That person may be a South African citizen by descent or birth. How then can this hon. Minister take steps against such a person except if he has the necessary wide powers to decide what is in the public interest of South Africa? I would like to extend the invitation to hon. members on that side of the House to state here what action should be taken in that case. Sir, it is very clear that in the case of “public interest” we are dealing with a concept that cannot be defined. Even in court cases the courts have decided before that there were certain specific cases where something was contrary to the public interest. But one can never give a definition of what is contrary to the “public interest”. The only alternative is that someone has to decide whether it is in the public interest or not. Now I wish to ask hon. members on that side of the House: In a case—and we can think of many such cases—where we cannot bring a person before a South African court, how can a South African court decide that this or that set of circumstances determines whether something is in the public interest or not? Surely, the court can only give a decision against a person—that is the rule of the South African courts—if that person has received notice that an action is being instituted against him.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30(2).

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name, as follows—

I want to say at once that in moving this motion I do not do so with any marked hope of persuading the Government to adopt it. I think that would be unrealistic in view of the fact that only a short while ago, while the Natal strikers were under discussion, the hon. the Minister of Labour made it quite clear that it was not his intention to allow Black workers to join registered trade unions. I must emphasize the word “registered” because obviously Africans, as we all know, can form trade unions, but they may not join registered trade unions. He told us that it was not his intention to allow, in other words, the right of collective bargaining, of negotiating wage agreements with employers, which are rights, I must point out, that are enjoyed by White, Coloured and Indian employees in the Republic. Of course, that is what this motion is all about. I wish full trade union rights to be extended to African workers including, I may say, the right to strike after all other avenues of conciliation have been explored, with the exception of workers in those occupations where compulsory arbitration is laid down and strikes are forbidden. In other words, I want to make it quite clear that what I want are exactly the same rights, neither more nor less, for Black workers in South Africa that other workers enjoy in South Africa.

As I have said, I doubt whether I shall succeed in this effort, but I think it will be of great benefit to this House to have a full and frank discussion on this subject so that we may learn from the Minister his reasons for not wanting these rights to be extended to Africans. Other than saying that he does not believe in trade union rights, that trade union rights are dangerous and so on, let us have a clear expression of opinion from the hon. the Minister as to why he is not prepared to allow these rights to be extended to Africans. Also, I think it would be very beneficial to the country as a whole if we got a clear and unequivocal statement from the official Opposition as well on this very important subject, because their views so far differ from spokesman to spokesman. There is, for instance, the view which was expressed last year by the shadow Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Yeoville, when he said in this House—

He did not, of course, tell us at that stage whether the United Party therefore meant to amend the definition in the Industrial Conciliation Act of “employee”, and he was also silent on the very important issue of whether Black workers would be allowed to strike in the event of negotiations failing.

The Leader of the Opposition, however, has said something quite different from this. In an interview last week he called for an extension of the works committee system, allowing for affiliation with responsible existing trade unions. But he said nothing about allowing Africans to form their own unions and become affiliated to registered unions. Then, in a private member’s motion last week, the hon. member for Maitland expressed much the same view. He pinned his faith also on works committees on an extended basis.

Are you for Black trade unions …

I shall tell you in a minute if you would listen. I shall cover it in detail; everything will be covered, I promise you. On the 10th February, addressing the United Party Platteland General Council in Pretoria, however, Mr. Harry Schwarz, the new leader of the U.P. in the Transvaal, said—

Now, Sir, there are considerable differences of opinion, therefore, within the United Party. As far as I can gather, the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Hillbrow support the view put forward by Mr. Harry Schwarz. I think it would be very valuable to know what U.P. policy is, because it seems to be somewhat chameleon-like in character, rather like the race federation policy of the United Party.

Legislative changes would, in fact, simply involve amending the definition section of the Industrial Conciliation Act so as to delete, in the definition of “employee”, the words “other than a Bantu”, which appear in parenthesis. There would have to be some consequential amendments to the Industrial Conciliation Act as well to allow mixed unions, and the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act of 1953 would also need certain amendments before the people in parenthesis in the Industrial Conciliation Act definition who happen to constitute about 80% of the industrial labour force of South Africa, are allowed to be included in the benefits of collective bargaining, which I believe to be an elementary right in all modern Western industrial countries and one which, as I have said, we indeed granted legislatively to all other workers in South Africa just about 50 years ago. It was just about 50 years ago when our Industrial Conciliation Act was passed. Since then, in those ensuing 50 years, we have had nothing short of an industrial revolution in South Africa. World War II has come and gone and it has left in its aftermath enormous industrial expansion. New goldfields have been opened, bringing secondary industries in their wake. A vast process of urbanization has taken place. With it there has been building and construction. Our great public utilities have expanded enormously. Railways and communications have expanded. I could go on and on, detailing all our vast industrial and commercial growth, all of it engendering huge demands for industrial labour in secondary, tertiary and the service sectors of our economy. And who has filled the gap? It is African workers that largely have filled the gap, that have come in to satisfy these huge demands for labour, and not only in the unskilled occupations, but to an ever-increasing extent in skilled and semi-skilled occupations, performing intricate tasks, minding complicated and delicate machines, but, mark you, not allowed to handle the machinery of collective bargaining, the modern machinery of collective bargaining, in order to negotiate on their own behalf for better wages and better conditions of work. They have had to rely on the good offices of White trade unions which, while bargaining on their own behalf, using our excellent conciliation machinery, have on the side, so to speak, done a bit of bargaining for Black workers as well, in some cases. For the rest, Black workers have had to rely on representations made by the labour officers of the central Bantu labour board which was set up by the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act in 1953. And, of course, they can use the works committees also set up under this Act, to settle or prevent any dispute, if and where these works committees exist. Now, as we all know, despite the fact that there are, I believe, an estimated 30 000 industrial establishments in this country, if not more, employing more than the 20 African workers required to establish works committees consisting of three to five Black workers, I believe that in fact there are, according to the last count, only about 18 functioning statutory works committees in the whole country, and about 118 non-statutory committees. It is on the broadening of the functioning of these works committees that the hon. the Minister says he intends to concentrate in order to avoid strikes such as those which recently took place in Durban.

Now I want to say at once that more could and should have been done by employers to set up and to use those works committees in order to establish proper human relations with their Black workers, and to sound out and redress legitimate grievances. This I think is readily conceded by employers’ associations, by officials and by the White trade unions themselves. I would say, too, that some works committees, some of the statutory and non-statutory works committees, few and far between, have functioned fairly well. But I do say also that to believe that works committees, even when operating in top gear, could ever substitute for legally recognized, properly organized trade unions, is nonsense. In saying that I am sure that most trade unionists—I am talking about White trade unionists—and certainly all Black trade unionists and many employers would agree with me, because there are built-in deficiencies in the works committee system, Firstly, they have no real, legal and enforceable negotiating or bargaining powers. That is the most important built-in deficiency. Secondly—and this is another very important deficiency-—employers do not like acting unilaterally in a competitive world. They hesitate to use a system which is not recognized in law as a wage-fixing mechanism—that is, the works committee. They fight shy of granting workers wage increases unless their competitors are made to do so, too. This is obvious in a competitive society. Thirdly, Sir, workers are inclined to regard works committees with suspicion. They think they are creatures of the management, and the fact that strikers in Durban did not use the one or two works committees that were in existence is surely, I think, proof of this. It shows a lack of confidence in the works committees and I believe that the Minister was palpably wrong when he maintained last year that there is abundant proof of the confidence which Bantu workers have in the existing machinery. I would like him to produce some of this abundant proof. Sir, the fact is that the Bantu (Settlement of Disputes) Act has failed dismally, and the irrefutable proof of its failure is to be found, I believe, in the wage rates which its agents, the labour officers, with the best will in the world, have managed to get out of Wage Board and Industrial Conciliation agreements. Sir, White trade unionists say that these unfortunate labour officers are not only unable to cope with the tremendous volume of work, but they are absolutely at sea when they appear before the councils and wage boards because they really do not know what is being discussed most of the time; they do not know the technicalities and they do not understand the job descriptions that are being discussed. They are simply unable to cope. They are not experts; they do not know what is really going on. What is the position when one looks at the wages which have been obtained? The hon. the Minister told us proudly the other day that something like 800 000 workers—I presume he meant Black workers—are covered by industrial conciliation agreements and wage determinations. But he omitted to tell us what those wage determinations were. He did not tell us, as the Productivity and Wage Association survey showed last year, that something like 80% of the Black industrial workers in this country—and statistically it was a very significant survey—earn wages well below the poverty datum line, let alone the minimum effective level, which is all that we really ought to be talking about. Sir, he also forgot to tell us that the latest wage determination for the unskilled workers in the cement industry, obtained by these various officials on whom the Africans have to rely—resulted in an increase—the first obtained in 5½ years—of 3 cents an hour, bringing the wage up to a princely R9-66 per week for an adult male.

How much do you pay your people?

Sir these wages cannot be reconciled with section 5(b) of the Wage Act which lays down, inter alia, that remuneration should be paid at such rates as will enable employees to support themselves in accordance with civilized standards of life. I believe that the failure of the Bantu (Settlement of Disputes) Act is further exemplified by the ever-widening gap, about which so much has been said over the past year, between White (skilled) wages and Black (unskilled) wages. This is an ever-widening gap and nothing that the officials have been able to do has been able to narrow the gap so far. Sir, it is interesting to know that 25 years ago the earnings of Blacks in manufacturing and construction were 25% of those of White workers; last year they were only 17%, so the gap in fact has been widening all the time, and this is for one reason and one reason only. White workers have the advantage of collective bargaining machinery; they have registered trade unions at their disposal; they are able to use this in order to obtain higher wages for themselves. Black workers do not have this advantage and therefore their wages are kept pinned down at low levels and they are unable to do anything about it. Sir, not only do the vast majority of Black workers get wages which are very low, but they are excluded from unemployment insurance—in fact, because of the low wages—since R10-50 per week is the starting point for unemployment insurance—and many of them are excluded from the fringe benefits which other workers enjoy, all of which I believe proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Minister was perhaps wrongest of all when last year he stated in this House that Bantu workers are adequately protected by existing legislation. They are in fact hopelessly inadequately protected. They are not in fact protected at all. Ten years ago I moved a private member’s motion asking for a national minimum wage, with adjustments, of course, for regional differences in cost of living, and making allowance for wages in kind—one obviously has to do that—to ensure that all workers are paid a living wage. I still believe, Sir, that this is a necessary protective device to obtain the desirable civilized standard for all workers to which the Wage Act refers. I think it is also necessary in order to prevent exploitation and stop uneconomic enterprises from being subsidized, as they are, by Black workers who because they are in excess supply—unskilled workers particularly—are prepared to accept very low wages. In particular I think of the situation of Black workers in the homelands who do not even have industrial conciliation agreements or wage determinations to protect them and the same applies to many of the workers in border industries and to migrant workers on the mines and to workers on the White farms. All these workers are crying out for this kind of protection and it is precisely these workers who are denied any form of minimum wage protection.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has an objection to minimum wages. I do not believe they are a substitute for trade unions; I believe they are complementary, and certainly where no trade unions exist, you have to have them. I have here the minimum wages paid in America. America has a standard national minimum wage and there are also minimum wages laid down for the different states. Where the state wage is lower than the federal wage, (hen the federal wage applies. The minimum federal wage in commerce or in industry is $1-60 an hour. There are regional differences due to the cost of living, etc., not in the national wage but in the state one. Even agricultural workers are included, and the minimum wage for agricultural workers is not less than $1-30. I should think it would make most of the farmers in this House faint dead away at the thought of having to pay a minimum wage of anything like that [Interjections.] You can cost the mealie-meal and you can cost the water and you can cost the hut and you can cost the firewood, and if you add all of that, I wonder what the wage is, including the cash wages they get. [Interjections.]

Order!

I give notice right now that I shall move a private member’s motion next year on the wages paid by farmers and asking for a full-scale survey of the wages paid by the farmers in this country. I think hon. members will be very shocked to hear what those wages are.

You will be surprised.

Now, to come back to the motion, workers who can be organized, and in particular urbanized workers of all kinds, can obviously achieve far more for themselves by proper collective bargaining machinery than by allowing the State to take over this function for them. As I say, that should only be done under special circumstances. Now, interestingly enough, there is remarkable unanimity among workers, White workers—I am leaving out Black workers at the moment—about the need for collective bargaining machinery for African workers, be they the “linksgesindes” as the hon. the Minister rather foolishly the other day described Tucsa, or be they the more conservative unions like the Confederation of Labour. And there is, also unanimity interestingly enough amongst the White employers of Black labour. Last year Tucsa carried out a survey of its members and the result was an overwhelming vote in favour of trade unions for Blacks.

Why did the AEU resign?

At its 18th annual conference in August, last year, similar strong views were expressed also in favour of trade unions for Blacks, separate or integrated, depending on the workers themselves. That is my point of view in answer to the interjection of the hon. member. I do not lay down any hard and fast rule. This must obviously be done by negotiation and discussion. If they want the Black workers to join their registered unions as individuals, fine. If they want them to have separate but affiliated unions, that is also fine. My own point of view of course is that they get far better protection for themselves—and I will enlarge on this a little later—if they allow Black workers to join registered White trade unions. I want to say that discussion at top level is going on about this question in practically every White trade union in the country with the exception perhaps of that way-out union, Mr. Paulus’s mineworkers’ union. But at every other White trade union, practically, top-level discussion is going on about this, and as recently as March, last year, the Confederation of Metal and Building Workers’ Unions which is a predominantly non-Tucsa association of unions, passed a resolution recommending that Blacks become members of registered trade unions. I am very glad to say that the White trade unions, many of whom were dead against it, are more and more coming around to the point of view that it is in their own enlightened self-interest that Black workers be given the right of joining or forming registered trade unions. I might say that it was to the Tucsa conference that a very interesting proposition was put forward by Prof. P. J. van der Merwe, who is the professor of Economics at the University of Pretoria. He put forward the fascinating idea of homeland-based trade unions with labour diplomats to negotiate in the industrial White areas on an ethnic basis. I must say that when one considers Soweto and one considers the teeming people of all the ethnic groups there, when one considers that in one factory alone you can have Vendas, Xhosas, Zulus, and Machangana all in the same factory and you think of labour diplomats on an ethnic basis negotiating wages for little ethnic groups inside the factories …

Is there anything wrong with the principle?

I shall tell you what I think it is. I think it is the best Van der Merwe joke of all. That is what I think it is if you really want to know. It is obviously impossible.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?

No, I am sorry; I have limited time. At a highly successful and widely representative conference held in Durban in November last year on “Industrial Representation of the Bantu by the Natal Employers’ Association, at which many trade union leaders were present, a substantial majority of those present voted in favour of some form of closer association of Africans in existing trade unions, either in the form of separate African trade unions affiliated to the existing trade unions …

Was that Tucsa?

No, it was not. It was the Association of Natal Employers. And a substantial majority voted also for direct African membership of existing trade unions. In the face of all this swelling demand—that is the only way I can describe it—for proper channels of communication between Black workers and employers, for proper negotiating machinery on wage demands, in the teeth of the Natal strikes, we surely have a right to ask the hon. the Minister to give us a better response than just the parrot cry that he will not allow Blacks to join registered trade unions because trade unionism is dangerous for Blacks and is foreign to Blacks since Black workers are inexperienced and unready for trade unionism. I have said before and I want to repeat here that I think it is impertinent for a member of the Government that deliberately killed off the existing Black trade unions 20 years ago to say now that Blacks are inexperienced in trade unionism. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister: How do you start getting experience of trade unionism if in fact you are not given the right to join registered trade unions? I should also like him to tell me something about Mrs. Lucy Mbuvela’s very successful non-registered Black trade union which, however, gets a lot of assistance from the White Garment Workers’ Union and which has 17 000 paid up members and is functioning very well indeed, except, of course, that although she is a very able trade unionist, she is not able to negotiate on her own behalf for her members at any of these Industrial Council discussions.

What is the hon. the Minister against? Let us try to analyse it. Is he frightened that White workers are going to be swamped if Black workers join their trade unions? I want to tell the hon. the Minister that already by sheer weight of numbers they are swamped. It is absurd. They are swamped. More and more Blacks are coming into the jobs which formerly were done by Whites and less and less representative are the White unions in fact becoming. Surely, the very best protection that the White workers can have is to take the Black workers into their unions and then when jobs are fragmented, which is happening all the time, they will be able to see that there is not severe undercutting in respect of those jobs, because there is always a period when both Black and White workers are in fact doing the same jobs, and gradually then some of the jobs slide down the scale to the Black workers exclusively. I must say at once that I think that the rate for the job is the great protection for the White worker, but I also say that I think that we need proper scientific job evaluation in South Africa so that the actual value of the job shall be the work entailed; it should not in fact be valued because of the colour of the skin of the worker who is doing that job. I think the fact that we fail to do this has contributed to a large extent to the spiralling inflation we have had in this country. Although, no doubt many jobs are properly evaluated, I would like to make this point too. Some leading trade unionist, and not just these “linksgesindes”, as the hon. the Minister calls them, have already come to the conclusion that self-interest requires that they take Black workers into the unions. Men who not very long ago were talking quite differently are now coming round to this point of view, and are expressing their views very frankly. Mr. Liebenberg and Mr. Crompton have been saying it and Mr. Grobbelaar, of course, has always said it.

What are the hon. the Minister’s other fears? Is he frightened that Black unions will be for ever striking? Is this what worries him? Do I need to point out again, as I pointed out last year when 13 000 Ovambos went off on their illegal strike, and as I pointed out two weeks ago when at least 30 000 to 40 000 Black workers in Natal went off on their illegal strikes, that one does not need to have trade unions in order to have strikes? One has strikes when there are in fact no trade unions and I would say that it is far more dangerous to have these wild-cat strikes than to have trade unions where there are people with whom to negotiate. This is one of the great dangers of this form of strike. It was one of the great problems, as the hon. the Minister and his department must know, about handling the Natal strike, that there was nobody with whom to negotiate. The strikers did not put forth leaders because they were frightened that they would be arrested and there were no proper trade union leaders, or works committees with whom the hon. the Minister and his officials could negotiate properly. I want to point out that trade unionism in fact—and this has been pointed out by economists throughout the world—is the best insurance against economic disorder. In this perhaps lies its greatest significance, and our White workers have found …

Like in Britain.

There would have been far more strikes in Britain if there had not been trade unionism in Great Britain, you silly man. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

If the hon. the Minister is worried about Africans using trade unions for political purposes, I want to point out that trade unions also prevent political disorder because the history of the world has surely shown over the years that political disorder largely follows economic grievances. If those can be prevented via orderly trade unionism and via orderly negotiations for wage rates and for conditions of work, the changes of political disorder are less. They are not greater as a result of trade unionism.

Finally, I want to say that I do not share the hon. the Minister’s fears about trade unions for Blacks and by trade unions I mean properly registered and lawfully recognized trade unions. I believe the time is long overdue for us to have these trade unions and to help organize these trade unions. I have other fears, and my fears are that by continuing to rely on the existing inadequate wage regulating machinery for Black workers, we will perpetuate the dangerous wage gap between skilled and unskilled wages. I fear that Africans will continue to receive wages that keep them in poverty and I fear all the dangers inherent therein. I fear that, lacking trade unions and lacking any effective say in the laws that regulate their lives, in other words, lacking also political rights, Black workers will turn industry into a battlefield in South Africa. I believe that unless we act swiftly, the Natal strikes will prove to be a mere curtain-raiser to very much more dramatic episodes. I believe that there are emergency measures that have to be taken. Of course there are, in view of what has happened recently. Immediate rises in unskilled wage rates and cost-of-living allowances to cope with spiralling inflation are obviously essential.

What we have to realize is that we must face the long-term situation, and the long-term situation is that economic growth, without which we will all go down in this country, Whites, Blacks and Coloureds alike, is ironically enough the Black man’s real and best weapon against apartheid, because the more that he is drawn into our industrial structure as a semi-skilled and as a skilled worker, the more irreplaceable he is and the greater power he will get to demand more rights. It is easy enough when you are dealing with unskilled workers and they go on strike or are difficult; you dismiss them and you draw thousands more from the bottomless reservoir of the homelands and the adjacent territories. But that reservoir is empty when it comes to semi-skilled and skilled, trained workers. This is the field in which the Black workers are to be found to an ever-greater extent. I believe that intelligent anticipation is the answer. I believe we must help the Black workers to take their place in an orderly manner in our industrial democracy and I believe that to continue to deny trade union rights to Blacks can lead only to alienation and to a sense of exploitation, to a dangerous polarization of the interests of Black workers on the one hand and the interests of White workers on the other hand. One has only to read what Mr. Drake Koka, who is a Black trade unionist, has to say to see that this …

The Black Power movement.

Who is building up the Black Power movement but this hon. member’s Government? They are building up the Black Power movement and are leading to the dangerous polarization of interests. If we do not act soon, there will be a rejection by Black workers of the White trade unions that are offering to help them. I am not suggesting that the recognition of trade unions for Blacks is going to be a complete panacea for all our strained labour relations …

Do speak up a bit; you are turned away from us.

You cannot hear me? I am sorry. If only the people behind me would be quiet. I say, I am not suggesting that the recognition of registered trade unions for Blacks is going to be the complete panacea—obviously not. A great deal remains to be done in other directions. There are also long-term factors. We must have the provision of basic education and vocational training for Blacks in order to improve their productivity, which is clearly an essential thing. We must have the re-education of White workers in order that they will realize, as more and more of them are doing fortunately, that the Black man is complementary to them and is not in competition with them. I believe we have lost 25 valuable years of training Black trade unionists and of training of White trade unionists in this regard.

I believe it is desperately necessary for us to have the removal of all the barriers that inhibit productivity; that is not only job reservation, but also a phasing out of things like the migratory labour system as fast as possible, for that inhibits productivity and training. I believe that the conventional and customary colour bars must go and I believe, too, that one has to do a fair amount of re-education at management level as well in how to handle their Black workers and how to use them to the very best advantage. All these things are vitally necessary. I do not believe that economic trends are going to change. I believe that economic development is going to go on drawing more and more Black workers into our industrial set-up and into the skilled and semi-skilled industrial occupations. More and more Blacks are going to be drawn, in short, into our industrial stream, and I think it would be to the benefit of all to guide and direct that stream and to assist in the recognition of African trade unions with all the implications that that brings in its trail.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall come back to a few allegations the hon. member for Houghton made here, but I first want to ask her a very simple question: Nowhere in our wage legislation, in our industrial conciliation legislation or our Bantu labour legislation, in respect of the settlement of Bantu disputes, is a maximum wage laid down, only a minimum wage. Why does the hon. member then pay her workers in the Union Hotel a minimum wage? The hon. member must tell us that. We are tired of the piousness we hear from day to day in this House. Today we have a very important motion before this House. It is a motion embodying important implications for the economy, the prosperity and the future labour peace and quiet in this country. The motion incorporates all these things. It is a motion that can have the deepest effect on and cause the deepest changes in our traditional life and labour patterns in the country. This motion affects the soul and the substance of every worker in this country.

I want to give the House the assurance that every worker today is waiting in suspense, and with great interest, to hear what is going to result from this motion. Everyone will also want to know what the trends of thought of the various political parties in this country are in connection with this motion. I must say that the motion emanating from the hon. member for Houghton is not a strange one. We have already grown used to this type of motion; she placed a similar motion before this House a few years ago. The wording was slightly different, but the content was exactly the same. It concerned joint bargaining and labour equalization. We know that she could not gain a supporter at the time either. I think the only supporter was the late Mr. Tossie Barnett, The Coloured representative. Since it is now my task, and since I am now sitting next to this hon. member, I must say that although one has an appreciation of the fair sex, I cannot allow myself to be misled by that, and I must reject in toto the evil motion which the hon. member tabled here.

I say that I am very grateful for this little difference, that she is sitting on the other side of the pathway and that I am sitting on this side of it, because the gulf that exists between her policy and the policy of the National Party separates diametrically opposed views. I am grateful to be sitting in the ranks of the National Party, whose principles are based on separate development and which stands for the maintenance of the colour bar in our industry. I also want to add, however, that the hon. member for Houghton and her party are at least honest. They are not ashamed of saying what their policy is, and at least they are honest in proclaiming it. Their policy is diametrically opposed to that of the National Party, and therefore it is not possible for us on this side of the House to support her motion. I therefore move—

1. (a) expresses its appreciation for the measures applied by the Government to safeguard and promote the interests of the workers of South Africa; and
2. (b) declares its conviction that the steps being taken by the Government in terms of its policy will benefit the workers as a whole”.

During the past recess there were six by-elections. There the respective parties had the opportunity to state their party policy and also their labour policy. In Johannesburg West we had an election where Ray Barrel stood, and in Vereeniging a Mr. Strydom was the Prog, candidate. Vereeniging is through and through a workers’ constituency. There the Progressive Party propagated Bantu trade unions from morning to night. With a few gift votes the Progressive candidate obtained 200 votes in the workers’ constituency of Vereeniging. In all reasonableness I do not know why this hon. member again comes before the House with this motion, because they obtained an unambiguous reply from the workers and the voters of South Africa about the question of Bantu trade unions in the White area. She comes along again with this motion about Bantu trade unions in the White area. Sir, since she has advocated this, I want to say: I do not know of any Bantu or Bantu movement that has ever advocated Bantu trade unions. There may be some individuals who have advocated those rights. The only body that has ever advocated it is that leftist Tucsa, which we heard so much about, last year, under the Labour Vote, this hon. member accused the United Party of not having supported her in the past when it came to joint bargaining rights.

But, Sir, this hon. member is not as gormless as we think either. There are two very important reasons why the hon. member is coming to light with this motion. The first reason is that this hon. member is aware of the division in that party. She is aware that there are some of her spiritual allies within the United Party who support Bantu trade unions. The hon. member for Wynberg is not here. She had to be silenced last year by her own party members, she embarrassed them. She knows where she stands with Mr. Harry Schwarz, the new Transvaal leader. She knows where she stands with Horace van Rensburg, the Dallings, the Eindhovens and the Winchesters. She knows the one cannot drive a knife blade between that group and the hon. member. But there is a second very important reason why this hon. member is coming before the House with the proposal. She wants to feel how the conservative United Party men on that side regard the matter, how the Marais Steyns feel about these matters. This hon. member has the fullest right to come forward with such a motion, because the hon. member for Yeoville, who has always in the past denied that they are in favour of Bantu trade unions, last year put into the hon. member’s mouth the words that they are now also in favour of it. That is the second reason why this hon. member came along with the motion. I want to quote what the hon. member for Yeoville said about this matter last year. I quote from Hansard (Vol. 39, col. 6609):

That is what the hon. member for Yeoville said. I referred to the hon. member for Wynberg. The question now arises: Why did the hon. member for Yeoville so suddenly become a champion of Bantu trade unions? I shall tell you why he became a champion of Bantu trade unions: He is under the misapprehension that the Industrial Conciliation Act is not applicable to the border industries. Last year he built his whole argument up around that misapprehension, but that is not so, Sir. The Industrial Conciliation Act, the Wage Determination Act, are also applicable to the border area industries, because those industries are within the White areas. I can just tell the hon. member that there are more than 49 industrial council agreements and 31 wage determinations applicable to the wages and the conditions of service of people in the border industries. Therefore that argument of the hon. member for Yeoville falls flat.

It is very important that we know where we stand with the United Party, the so-called Opposition Party in this country. We want to know where they stand as far as their new labour policy is concerned; we want to know where they stand in respect of their affiliated trade unions, which the hon. member announced so openly here last year. Sir, every worker wants to know this; the electorate wants to know it and even the hon. member for Houghton wants to know it. In the course of this debate the hon. member must tell us what affiliation holds in store; or have the details not been worked out yet? After all, Sir, they always come to light with a plan devoid of detail. We want to know whether those details of that new labour pattern of theirs have not been worked out yet; or does it also entail the White workers eventually being phased out of the trade union? After all, in time the United Party phases everything out. The hon. member for Yeoville has now had nine months since announcing here, on 5th May, his plan of affiliated trade unions; or did Harry Schwarz keep him too busy so that he cannot give us the details yet; or must we go to Harry Schwarz and ask him what the details are? Or, Sir, are the details of their labour policy as mysterious as their federation plan? Or is it just that incomprehensible? As The Cape Times has stated: “Whether you put it upside down or downside up, it does not make sense”. It seems to me the same also applies to their labour policy. Sir, if the Bantu workers are affiliated, we should like to know whether those affiliated Bantu members will be able to serve on trade union executives. I put the question to the hon. member for Turffontein and to the hon. member for Salt River. No, they are as silent as the grave. Sir, I say that the workers of Sasol, the workers of Vanderbijl Park and the workers of South Africa want to know whether those people will be able to serve on trade union executives. Will such a Bantu member be able to become a workshop representative, will he be able to serve the interests of the workers in that industry? Will such a Bantu member be able to serve on an industrial council? We want to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether such a Bantu member will be able to serve on the industrial council as an affiliated member? Will he be able to bargain? The workers want to know this. The hon. member must tell us whether such a person would be able to bargain, whether he will decide about the question of conditions of service and wages, and if this were to be the case, how would this affect the wages of the Whites in future. Sir, these are very important questions. The hon. member must tell us what effect this would have on the Whites’ wages. We want to know whether these affiliated members will be full-fledged members in all respects, or will they be only second class members of that trade union? The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Hillbrow are continually emphasizing that 70-80% of our labourers in industry are Bantu. Sir, we accept the figure of 70%. If there is a majority of Bantu in a specific industry, they are surely entitled to form the majority on the executive body. Is that the attitude of hon. members on that side? They must tell us. It is no use just shaking their heads. I can hear how they are shaking their heads, but I get no reply from them.

You are talking nonsense.

No, it is not nonsense. Since the Bantu are now being affiliated, since they are not “partners” or “unior partners”, since they are now sleeping in the same beds, the father of the plan, the hon. member for Yeoville, must tell us whether those affiliated members will have the franchise. These are very important questions. If they can bargain, why would they not be able to have the franchise? Will the Bantu member pay the same membership fee as the White union member? Sir, when years ago we introduced here a Bill which made it compulsory, if a man belonged to a trade union, for the employer to deduct his membership fees from his wage, hon. members of the Opposition opposed it. What are they going to do with the Bantu’s trade union fees? Must the employer deduct them? Sir, hon. members of the Opposition do not reply to those questions. I then want to know whether these members will hold meetings with the Whites? Will they join in the discussions of domestic affairs? The White worker wants to know whether the funds in the trade union will be jointly divided? Will they be jointly administered?

What is your policy?

Our policy is very clear. We have separate trade unions with separate branches. There is no ambiguity and there is no equivocality. We give no recognition to a Bantu trade union. Mr. Speaker, I now want to ask this very important question, one of the most important. If rights are granted to the Bantu trade unions, would they have the right, by constitutional means, to establish a strike fund? The hon. members must tell us whether they could establish a strike fund. Are you prepared to allow that? [Interjections.] No, that is an unlawful strike. Sir, they do not even know the difference between a lawful and an unlawful strike. They want to give the people legal strike rights. Are they prepared to amend this Act to give those people those powers? I want to tell you this, Sir, those people are not prepared to say today whether the above-mentioned rights should be given to the Bantu, but they cannot go on running away. They will have to give us answer to these questions. If this were allowed, it would lead to total integration, which would result in the ousting of the White workers. It would mean the end of the traditional national policy in recognition of racial differences. I say it will eventually lead to “one man, one vote”.

That is what they want.

I say the United Party is responsible, and I hope the speakers on that side of the House will give us a very clear reply. Apart from the Progressive Party, we know that the leftist Tucsa is still the only body that has made propaganda for Bantu trade unions. They are the only people who have ever done this.

Untrue.

We know that they said: “All Africans will be in trade unions and the State must recognize them.” After all, we know this story. There were also other propagandists for non-White trade unions, and I am referring to Mr. Collins, who was here in days gone by. “Collins asks trade unions to organize South African non-Bantu”—that was said in London, and do you know, Sir, Solly Sachs, the ex-trade union leader, linked up with him and said that is the way to achieve rebellion and get the National Party out of the country. I quote from Die Burger of 11th June, 1956. [Interjections.] The hon. member said Tucsa is unanimous, but you know, Sir, there are three of their trade unions, the A.E.U., the Electrical Workers and the Motor Industry Employers that broke away from them about the question of Black trade unions. Their enthusiasm flagged and they left it temporarily until 24th August of last year. But now they come along again with such ideas. I say the South African Confederation of Labour has never propagated this; and that is one of the reasons why they broke away from the Trade Union Council. [Interjections.] I say that under existing labour legislation there is sufficient machinery in terms of which the Bantu also has just and reasonable rights. In fact, the peace and quiet in our industries proves that our Bantu have those rights. Under the Wage Act, under the Industrial Conciliation Act, under all those and other Acts, they can have the necessary protection. Other members of our Party will deal in greater detail with the works committees, the Bantu Central Council and the Bantu Labour Act. I say again that it is very clear that our Bantu workers have the necessary protection in terms of existing legislation. As far as the National Party’s policy in connection with Bantu workers is concerned, we are convinced that the organization of Bantu workers in the Bantu trade unions in the White area is not in the interests of South Africa. It is not in the interests of their own wage position. Neither is it in the interests of the promotion of race relations. If we were to listen to the Progressive Party and the United Party, we would throw the channels open and create routes for underminers, yes, we would be creating routes for agitators. But I want to give every White worker in this country the assurance that they should take note that as long as the National Party is in this House, their interests will always be protected in the future, as in the past, as is the case with any other national sector of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for Houghton that she moved the motion that is before the House today. I do not think she is a party to the campaign that we have seen in the Press, especially in the Rand Daily Mail over the past few days, which seemed to indicate that this motion by the hon. member for Houghton was not an attempt to develop a healthy dialogue on a very difficult problem, but an attempt to embarrass her political opponents. I do not think she was a party to that. I think it is a pity that newspapers such as the Rand Daily Mail who are loyal supporters of the hon. member should so misrepresent her motives. I am quite sure that it will embarrass her as an hon. member of this House. I believe this is a genuine attempt on the part of the hon. member to educate public opinion to her point of view on a very important issue. I am willing to respect her contribution to this debate in that spirit.

I must say that at this moment this debate to me has an air of unrealistic removal from the facts of life in South Africa. To me and to all of us, I think on all sides of the House, the great and immediate urgent problem that we have to deal with today is the poverty of millions of people in our midst. It is not the poverty of tomorrow or that of next year or that of last year or a century ago, but the poverty of today and tonight. It is the problem of paying the rent at the end of the week, the problem of buying food for your children and the problem of covering them so that they can sleep warm at night. That is the problem. Now I want to put a question to hon. members on both sides of the House: How will the establishment of trade unions tomorrow solve that problem the day after tomorrow?

[Inaudible.]

Oh yes, I will come to that part of your speech. The hon. member spoke for 35 minutes and she devoted 32 minutes to trade unionism and half a minute to the immediate problem. I say that is unrealistic because if we were to establish trade unions everywhere tomorrow, it will take a year to three years before the new machinery can become effective and play any real role in the conditions of employment of our people in this country.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must give the hon. member for Yeoville an opportunity to deliver his speech.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

I want to be fair. Towards the end of her speech she cursorily remarked about the need for immediate action. She mentioned two things that should be done. If I remember correctly, she thought that there should be a minimum wage and an immediate revision of wages which is excellent. She also felt that there should be a regular adjustment of wages as the cost of living varies. These are two points that were taken directly from the very fine list of suggestions made for immediate action by my Leader a week ago during the no-confidence debate. He made those two suggestions but added so much more. He spoke about encouraging the Government and management to increase productivity. He spoke about narrowing the wage gap on a permanent planned basis between skilled labour and unskilled labour and he spoke about removing the ceilings, the artificial legislative and administrative ceilings, which are imposed upon Black workers in South Africa preventing them from making their full contribution according to their potential to the welfare of South Africa and receiving rewards accordingly. She did not refer to that. She really only spoke about the sixth suggestion by my hon. Leader which was that there should be effective permanent channels of communication between the Black workers and their employers. So I say that regrettably there is an air of unrealism about this. Judging by the advance publicity in the newspapers, especially in the Rand Daily Mail, I looked forward to a debate dealing with the problem of poverty, the immediate urgent problem of what we were going to do to see that economic justice was done to the majority of the people of South Africa, but she failed us. She left us with an academic dissertation about possible trade union organizations that would take a year and longer before they could become effective.

I find the same lack of realism in a very interesting and a very stimulating contribution to this debate by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. His contribution was a cross-examination of the United Party. He fired a series of questions—there must have been 50 of them.

You are running away.

Even if I tried I could not write them all down; even if I wanted to, I would not remember them all. Even if I tried to answer them, it would take me days instead of half an hour. But I want to draw hon. members’ attention to something. Everyone of the questions put to the United Party by the labour spokesmen of the Government party was based on the assumption that the Black workers were an essential, permanent, indispensable part of the economic enterprise of White South Africa. If the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark believes in separate development, believes that it will be effective and that it will come about one day, not one of those questions would have been put to us. It was through him that we had a denial of the success and practicability of the policy of separate development. With that I leave him. The questions he put to me will be answered by what I have to say as I go on.

Unrealism, lack of relation to the truth, to the actualities of life, mark the two speeches we have had so far. I want to warn against two other misconceptions, two other misunderstandings of the truth that came from those two hon. members. The one is the assumption by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that trade unions or trade unionism—which I prefer and which are the words the hon. member for Houghton used in her motion—for the Black workers should never be allowed. According to him this is in itself dangerous and not permissible in the interest of the White people of South Africa. I say that is completely unreal thinking, because whether we like it or not, let us face this: If we want to have peace in South Africa, if we want to survive as White entrepreneurs and privileged White workers in South Africa, we cannot hope permanently to deny the Black workers of South Africa the right of collective bargaining on an organized basis. He will have to admit that even according to Die Burger it must come. I believe it will come, and I believe that a wise Government will take steps, continuous steps, to see that this machinery is created in an orderly, peaceful way in accordance with the practical considerations of South Africa’s industrial life. I believe that, and the United Party believes that. My hon. friend from Vanderbijlpark made a point of the fact that if we did this, there would be strikes and complete disorder in South Africa. Are there not strikes now? Were there not strikes in Durban? Were those strikes in Durban not a contravention of the law, or has it become legal for Black workers in South Africa to strike? There were considerable strikes in Durban, in Hammarsdale and in the Eastern Cape and they were against the law, but they were allowed. By administrative action, or lack of action, the Government made them lawful. That is what it amounts to. We have had a series of questions put to us about strikes while strikes were occurring. Unless there is more realism on the part of the Government, unless more is done to combat poverty, there will be more strikes. They will be more extensive strikes; they will be illegal on paper, but lawful in practice because the Government will be powerless to act. Surely it is wiser to see that the demands of our workers, irrespective of colour, can be put in an orderly fashion and can be made subject to proper, collective bargaining, so that peaceful solutions can be found so that all peoples of this country can progress towards a happier life.

The other unreality is the suggestion which comes from the hon. member for Houghton, with all the sincerity which is hers, that we should now give full trade union rights—“full trade unionism” was the term—immediately. That is what she wants.

Oh yes.

Can you imagine something more unrealistic than that—to give full trade union rights to all our Black workers? You can only make a suggestion like that if your thinking is superficial, if you have a simplistic approach to the problems of life and if you do not look at the society in which you live. The fact which we have to face in South Africa is an unfortunate fact, an unhappy and miserable fact, namely that the Nats, the hon. members opposite, have been in power for 25 years. Certain social consequences have flowed from that. The one is that we have two types of workers in our urban areas. The Government’s policy encourages one type of worker and discourages the presence of the other type of worker. The two types of workers we have are what I may call—because we all understand what is meant by it—the tribal African and the urbanized, sophisticated African. Anybody who tells me, while the existence of these two types of communities, with shades merging in between, is a fact, that one can have the simplistic approach of creating trade union organizations for both these types of communities, is simply unrealistic; because it will not work. I shall give you one reason why it is not practical. One of the reasons why the system of collective bargaining works is that in normal countries—in this one respect South Africa is abnormal—both employer and management on the one side and the workers on the other side are dependent on their livelihood, their security in life, on the industries in which they are employed. When you have migrant workers, which is the policy of the Government, those workers who are migrants are not completely dependent upon the industries. They can, and not only temporarily but for a very long time, take refuge in the tribal organization that exists and makes it possible for its members to live. It is true that they have a very low standard of living, but they can exist. They are not completely dependent upon their industrial work. I think that if you give the same rights, the right to organize themselves into trade unions and to strike, to those people as to the sophisticated permanent workers, whether Black, White, Coloured or Indian, who have no other support but the livelihood they derive from industry, you will be totally unrealistic. It cannot be done. I dread the day when agitators get hold of the workers in the Government’s border industries and start organizing strikes there, because those workers will return to the reserves and will be cared for by their tribal organization. In that way they will find it possible to strike much longer and cause much more disruption than the sophisticated worker could do, because the sophisticated worker is completely dependent on his work for his livelihood and his daily existence.

The homelands are poverty stricken.

I want to make a general statement now: I think that we South Africans have one weakness in our thinking about our labour problems. We attach too much importance to colour. This is true for all of us, but particularly for the hon. member for Houghton. Our whole thinking is coloured by the concept of colour. Because a man is Black or because a man is White, we believe he has certain problems and certain difficulties which other people do not have. I think we will find it a much healthier and a much more productive approach if in the case of our labour and industrial relations we think of workers, the needs of workers, the wants of workers, the problems of workers and what would be justice to workers. Ultimately—and I am not a liberalist, you know; I am a verkrampte—the needs of all workers are the same: the need to live, the need to be clothed, the need to eat, the need to have shelter, the need to have their health protected. We should think more in those terms irrespective of our outlook in life. That is why we of the United Party would oppose, and do oppose and have always opposed, a policy which denies this. The hon. member for Houghton helped us wonderfully in 1956 when we were discussing the Industrial Conciliation Bill, clauses 4 and 6 and 77. She was on our side, and I think she still is. [Interjections.] I really say this from my heart. In all the things that are practical, the hon. member is on our side, but in all the things that are airy-fairy theory, heaven knows on whose side she is! That is why the United Party would in principle be opposed to a policy which was in favour and which furthered the establishment of Black trade unions for Blacks, only because they are Black. We think that will be unhealthy; we have discussed it often. We discussed it in 1953, in 1960 and again last year under the Part Appropriation Bill. Our attitude should be clear. Once we start organizing the workers of South Africa on a race basis when we only have one economy—remember we may have separate states, we may have separate nationhoods, as the Government would like us to believe but we have one economy—once we start organizing them not as workers but as Blacks, as Coloureds, as Indians and as Whites separately, we are heading for disaster and we are asking for racial competition, for racial considerations to weigh at industrial council discussions and negotiations. I believe that would be fatal. That does not however mean that because of the practical facts of life in South Africa we will not have Black trade unions. As a matter of fact, and that is my further answer to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark…

Where is he?

He is just sheltering. I want to answer the hon. member’s question about Blacks taking over everything from the Whites. Again it is a superficial approach. As a result of the facts of life in South Africa, in 90% of the cases one has to deal with in industries, because of the nature of employment in South Africa, the Blacks do different jobs from the White people. You can take any example, the Railways or the Public Service. But take the steel industry, which just recently negotiated a new agreement. They have categories of work and by agreement they fix wages for the different categories of work. At a certain level between the skilled and the unskilled, usually there is a tremendous gap—there is a wage gap, too—and the difference is such that no White man and very, very few, if any, Coloured and Indian men can work at that wage and still live a decent life. Because of the facts of the situation in South Africa, the majority of the people who do that sort of work, who are the vast majority of workers in South Africa, are Blacks. If they were to be organized in whatever form, they would, by the nature of their occupations and interests find themselves in separate unions. That is a fact and my hon. friend, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, need not spend so many sleepless nights worrying about the problem, as he sees it. It is not part of the realities in South Africa.

We were asked a great many questions about the United Party and its policy. Let us look at it taking the facts into consideration. You will then find that there are three levels upon which you have to think. The one is at the level of a union or an association of which all the members are developed people by the nature of their work. It is not easy for me to say this (I was a journalist), but a typical example is the South African Society of Journalists. Any person who practices the profession of journalism is an educated man.

Quiet!

He is a civilized man. Whether he is Black, White or of whatever colour, he cannot practice journalism, write for a newspaper, do sub-editorial work, scout for news or interpret news, even if he does it wrongly, unless he is an educated, civilized man. There I would say that it would be stupid not to allow membership, affiliated or whatever you wish, of individuals to a trade union like the South African Society of Journalists. We are merely facing the facts.

The other one is where you have a number of groups of people doing the same work in an established industry, where the rate for the job would apply to protect the White worker. That is one of the few spheres where the rate for the job becomes necessary and effective, where Black people work in occupations done by Whites, Coloureds and Indians in the same industries and circumstances and in competition against one another. Then they should be paid the rate for the job. There we believe they should as groups, perhaps as separate branches if you wish, be affiliated to the existing unions for that industry.

But, Sir, when you come to the majority of the Black workers of South Africa, who are the unskilled workers, the people with the immediate problems, where one finds this difficult mixture of urban and tribal workers, we believe we should give, as my Leader has said again and again, e.g. in the Vote of No-confidence debate, the works committees a further chance to develop. But there are certain problems about the works committees. We have mentioned them before. The hon. member for Houghton mentioned some of them today. First of all, too many individual works committees may make the law very difficult to administer. If you have 12 000 or 13 000 works committees—which may happen if it is completely applied to every undertaking—it becomes almost impossible for the Department of Labour to administer the law. That is why the Act has been amended, if I remember well, to make regional organizations possible as well. When the Minister comes with amending Bills, we think that there is one thing which he should consider, and that is to encourage larger associations of the works committees based on industries or geographic areas where that is necessary.

The hon. member for Houghton made one or two suggestions which I want to repeat, emphasize and add to. The first one is that there must be very strong protection against victimization; because any Black worker who does not fall under the protection of a large trade union in a particular industry and who is assertive in pushing the demands of his fellow-workers, can very easily be dismissed, and victimization may be very difficult to prove. It would also be much better, as in the case of recognized unions under the Industrial Conciliation Act, if works committees could also be part of a larger organization, which will give members protection and a sense of security against unilateral and unfair action by an unreasonable employer. Then these works committees should get more recognition under the labour laws of South Africa. Agreements entered into, especially with these larger organizations on a regional or industry-wide basis, should also have the force of law. The Minister should be able to proclaim them in the same way as he is able to proclaim other agreements under the Industrial Conciliation Act. Because we believe that all the workers’ interests are the same, these works committees should, through their larger organizations which I have referred to, be affiliated to the existing unions. The trade unions are very jealous of their rights and you cannot compel them to be affiliated, but that should be the policy which one should make possible by amending the Industrial Conciliation Act; that should be the policy which one should encourage with all the administrative means at the disposal of the Government to bring about a form of affiliation, which will be determined in consultation with the union and which will be administered by the Registrar of Trade Unions so that the workers of South Africa will be seen as a unit and not as people who are determined to undermine one another and weaken one another’s position in collective bargaining. Because, Sir, once you have trade unions hostile to one another, doing collective bargaining in the same industry, you can get a situation that will be disastrous not only to industrial peace in South Africa, but to the ultimate well-being of the workers of South Africa. We have been challenged, Sir, to put our attitude and our policy, and I have tried to do so. I want to end off as I ended off last year when I spoke in the Part Appropriation debate: To think that there is a solution to this highly complicated problem of human and industrial relations in South Africa, a solution that you can bring about with a stroke of the pen by indulging in slogans like separate development, or a slogan like “trade unionism for all”, is to forget that you must live with your feet on the ground in South Africa. Ultimately, Sir, we must be pragmatic; we must be willing to experiment; we must be willing, if we make a mistake, to admit it and to change our attitude, as I think the Government is going to change its attitude to the Native (Settlement of Disputes) Act this session. You must be willing to do that; you must have an open mind, but, above all, you must relate your thinking and your planning to the facts of the situation, and my criticism of the two speeches that we have had so far is that the one speaker has his head in the ground and the other one her feet in the clouds; neither of them is realistic, and it is a topsy-turvy world that they have presented here.

Mr. Speaker, when we are speaking about matters relating to a person’s daily bread, particularly in this multi-national country, we must be particularly careful, because it is specifically at the labour level that we make the most contact with other people, and one is most sensitive about things affecting one’s daily bread. That is why we must be very careful not to put something to the worker which he does not believe in, and not to make him a promise that we cannot carry out. Therefore we accept, in this multi-national country, that this motion brings us into closer touch at ground level, where one earns one’s daily bread. Just as we, as South Africans, as Whites, earn our daily bread on many levels, this also applies to the eight existing Bantu peoples in this country and to thousands of foreign Bantu, as I shall indicate at a later stage. We must be very careful when talking about these matters. Yet it is nevertheless a good thing that we discuss this motion today, because it gives us the opportunity to define this sensitive way of life clearly, and for that reason we may not be ambiguous; for that reason we may not be inconsistent. We shall therefore only be doing good if we keep this debate on a high plane. Since the motion states that Bantu trade unions should obtain full recognition, we should go back a little in the history of Bantu trade unions. The history of Bantu trade unions is very well known. As far back as 1918 Clements Kadali established the Industrial Commercial Workers Union, and until 1927 it grew strongly, but as a result of internal corruption, as a result of cheating amongst themselves, and exploitation by the officials of that organization, it came to nothing. The next to come was the then Communist party, which began under the Garment Workers and Baking industries. They began establishing Bantu Trade Unions. They went the same way, and as a result of ideological differences that Bantu Trade Union also came to nothing. Then came a man by the name of Max Gordon, who was a Trotsky Communist, and in 1930 he formed 20 Bantu Trade Unions. So that history continues. In 1947 a certain Joe Marks—and he died recently as an exile in Moscow—established the Mineworkers’ Bantu Trade Union, and that also gave rise to a strike in 1946. In 1944 the Council of non-European Trade Unions, with 119 affiliated unions, again broke up because their members had not paid their subscriptions. These things followed on, until in 1955 the South African Congress of Trade Unions was established, and it is illuminating that this organization was very active, in 1961, in the functions and the activities of the African National Congress, and that Bantu Trade Union’s activities gave rise to the African National Congress being declared void in 1960. Then, in 1959, Fatso was formed, and their president, Jakob Nuoza, again found a direct link with the Pan-African Congress, and that was also banned, as we know, in 1960. Therefore we must not be blamed if we, on the National side, say firstly that Bantu Trade Unions will not be acknowledged by us. We know the history throughout the years and we have that fear, which will continually exist, because they have proved themselves in the past. But we do not only have Bantu here in our country who belong to our own eight population groups, and if we allow a Bantu trade union for our Bantu in their sphere of work, they also have thousands and thousands of other Bantu from other countries with them. How can we only give a Bantu trade union to a certain group and a certain section, and not allow into it others who also work here? The hon. members did not speak of the thousands of Bantu who work in the mining industry. If we want to give the Bantu in industry a trade union, we must also give it to the Bantu in the mining industry, and there are 362 000 foreign Bantu working in South Africa at present, Bantu from Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Rhodesia, Malawi, Mosambique, Angola, Zambia and other places. How can one give a trade union to one group when one does not give it to the other group at the same level?

The hon. member for Yeoville only devoted five minutes to their policy.

That is five minutes too long.

At the beginning of his speech he said something about poverty, with which we all agree, but there are also other factors. It is our function to elicit United Party policy here today, and to obtain answers to questions about what they feel and what their official policy is in respect of this matter. The last acknowledged United Party policy was that old piece of Africana that we still have. I just want to read one sentence from it. Neither the hon. member for Houghton nor the hon. member for Yeoville has repeated the fear, which the party stated in their booklet:

But what did we get from the hon. member for Yeoville as an example of how they view the development of trade unions? He spoke of three categories of labourers. The hon. member gave one example, i.e. the Association of Journalists. I believe he intended this to make a good impression with the Sunday Times so that they would not discredit him further as Leader.

I want to repeat what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said, i.e. that we should come to light with realities. Where do we stand as far as the United Party is concerned? I want to quote a few passages which will serve us as clear guides in that connection. The hon. Senator Eaton, for example, said the following about the policy of the United Party [translation]—

Now, Mr. Speaker, on what grounds can we now still have a possible experiment after all these years? The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark asked: What do you mean by affiliated members? We simply do not get that answer. What is an affiliated member? Does he have any right or any say? We must remember that we must not think only of ourselves; we must also think of what the Bantu thinks; we must also be able to give him a recipe. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition explained the policy to us clearly with his clarion call as it appeared in The Cape Times of 12th February under the heading “Black Work Committees Plea by Graaff”. In quotation marks the following is reported—

That is the question.

… would accept the machinery of works committees as a starting point.

Legislation concerning the works committees was passed in 1953. Now, after exactly 20 years, the hon. the Leader of the United Party comes along and wants to take the works committee as a “starting point”. Whereto is it a “starting point”? The hon. Leader, we believe, gained his inspiration from the organization of the International Metal Workers Association, which came to carry out investigation on behalf of Tucsa and the International Labour Organization. This organization made certain recommendations to Tucsa which they should follow. I quote here from a relevant report—

Why was the United Party talking only last year of a separate affiliated workers’ organization? Now they use the machine which, according to this report, is the lawful one. They ask further—

Those are the answers we still want to know. What do they mean by a “starting point”? How do they think we should go further? Where do the Whites stand, because we Whites are the people who are going to be affected? Their future is determined by what attitude we adopt here. I want to go further. There are a few other brief quotations which will indicate to hon. members what the United Party’s reactions are in respect of labour. Last year the hon. Senator Crook used the following words in the Other Place, and I quote from the Senate Hansard, col. 3956—

I must now accept, when hearing the concepts “phasing in” and “phasing out”, that the United Party is also incorporating these labour matters in their federal policy. Where does this labour policy fit in? Do these works committees fit in with this “phasing in” of the Bantu in the economic set-up of our country? Does it fit in with the federal parliament, which we know so little and have heard so much about? Do we also have the same problem here? Since we have not obtained any answers to the questions we put to the hon. Opposition, with a view to understanding their policy clearly, we must accept that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was victorious in the caucus, because according to The Cape Times of the 12th of this month he said the following—

Labour cannot be divorced from the federal concept. So far only tourism has been transferred, but the most necessary and essential aspect of the federal concept of the United Party must be the labour matters, and we have received no answer in this connection. I accept that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout won his fight in the caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the hon. member for Brentwood and I have of course kept the speech and the motion of the hon. member for Houghton at the back of my mind. I think that the speech by the hon. member for Brentwood and the motion introduced by the hon. member for Houghton, have brought to the fore two very clear viewpoints regarding trade unions and trade-unionism as such. Standing on the one side …

Yours is floating.

I shall come to mine shortly. Standing on the one side is the hon. member for Houghton, and she says that trade-unionism should be introduced into South Africa tomorrow. Just by saying “tomorrow”, that in itself already proves to me that the matter is unrealistic. I just feel it. Trade-unionism not only is an instrument which brings with it specific rights—and it is a fact that it brings with it a wide range of rights to those workers who are organized into trade unions—but also brings with it specific and very heavy obligations to those who have joined the trade unions. To make the statement in South Africa today, if regard is had here to all the people who are concerned with trade-unionism as such, that as from tomorrow we should have in South Africa Black trade unions with all the rights which that involves, proves that it is totally unrealistic when it comes to South Africa. That mere statement proves it. The hon. member for Houghton says “tomorrow”.

I did not say “more”; I said “today”.

The hon. member for Brentwood and the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark say “never”. From the one side we hear “immediately” and from the other side “never”.

The hon. members have asked us many questions and they are perfectly entitled to put those questions, but now there are also a few matters concerning the trade unionism to which the Government must reply. They cannot run away so easily and just say “never”, because by saying “never”, they are escaping every possible problem which the acceptance of trade-unionism in South Africa may bring about. They simply forget about it because they say that it will never come. That is just as unrealistic. Let me just read to you what even a newspaper such as Die Burger says about this particular principle:

Trade-unionism or no trade-unionism! They say …

Order! From which edition of Die Burger is the hon. member reading?

It is a fairly ancient Burger, Mr. Speaker.

How many years?

It is about a week old.

Does the hon. member regard Die Burger of a week ago as ancient?

It is ancient in the light of this debate, Mr. Speaker.

No, the hon. member may not quote from it.

Let me then put it another way. This is of course a newspaper which one reads with pleasure, particularly if one keeps in mind that it is the one slightly enlightened element in the Nationalist Press. They put it clearly: We are not going to condemn trade-unionism as such; nor shall we say that it will never come, because that would be unrealistic. What does the hon. member for Brentwood say about this? Does he accept this bald statement by Die Burger or does he say that these people are just talking nonsense? And more, what does the hon. the Minister say to this statement by Die Burger: is Die Burger talking nonsense or is the Nationalist Party very close to it after all? The fact of the matter is that they say there will never be trade unions, because they know that if they say that, they are rid of all the difficulties and problems. It is not as easy as that.

There is another question. Either the hon. the Minister or his predecessor announced last year that the spade-work was now being done in the Transkei regarding labour legislation for the Transkei. That will mean that the Transkei Government will shortly be in a position—we hope—to take care of its own labour affairs. The simple question which arises from that is: If the Government is so dead set against trade-unionism as such, what will their attitude be regarding the self-governing Bantu states? Will they or will they not be allowed to practice trade-unionism? My viewpoint is that they will have to allow it, and the moment they have to allow it, we must remember that as a result of the labour involved locally, trade-unionism will immediately come to the fore as regards the South African economic terrain. This they cannot escape. Whatever they may do, sooner or later they will be saddled with the problem. I think that it is a tragedy that the governing party, the people of action, the people who can do things, can really come to this House and say: We do not want to think about trade-unionism; as far as the Black man is concerned, never! Really, no government can be as unrealistic as that. Having regard to the facts, I wish to say that a government which reacts in this way, must expect to run into problems in regard to the labour front in South Africa.

On the other side the United Party is completely practical. Our viewpoint is that any government which knows the practical side of South Africa, which knows the problems of South Africa and which keeps an eye on the economic progress of the country, knows that the time will come when it will have to organize the total labour force in South Africa properly or else it will undoubtedly run into difficulties. Therefore we say that it is fitting for any sound government, and this is also the view of the United Party, to have the ideal that trade-unionism will in course of time be applicable to the labour force in South Africa as well. But to say now that it must come tomorrow is totally unrealistic, and our viewpoint is as simple as that.

Before people can take part in the labour machinery and in the industrial democracy there are specific prerequisites. The first is certainly, and I think it is the main requirement, that before one can talk about Black trade unions in South Africa, which is a matter which can be discussed academically, one will have to be sure that one can to a large extent take the existing White trade unions along with one. If one does not succeed in that, one will definitely run into difficulties. There is no doubt about that. One will have to have their goodwill before one can organize trade-unionism as a national matter. What is more, and this is where the Government comes into the picture, one must also make the Bantu realize that trade-unionism does not only imply rights, but also definite and very important responsibilities. The lesson to be learnt from that is that one must use and train the Bantu in such a way that he may realize what rights he will acquire, but especially, too, what responsibilities he will bear in practising trade-unionism in South Africa.

Now the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark comes along and moves as an amendment that we should thank the Government and express appreciation for what has already been done as regards the labour front. If there is one government which for 25 years has been dealing organized labour in South Africa a dirty hammer-blow, then it is this very Government. Why? I shall tell you, Mr. Speaker.

Is it for that reason that you have 47 seats?

The hon. member knows that as long as he succeeds in consolidating the Nationalist Afrikaner, no other factor will play a role in South Africa.

Are you underestimating the intelligence of the Nationalist Afrikaner?

In reply to that hon. member I can only say that only a few months ago Schalk Pienaar wrote that the Anglo-Boer War was still being fought at every election. We know it.

I now come to my point. The Nationalist Party Government has over the past 25 years, on the basis of the Bantustan philosophy, either broken down or totally emasculated every facet of our labour machinery. The philosophy is this … [Interjections.] Just give me a chance. The philosophy of the Nationalist Party is that the Bantu is a temporary worker, and because he will remain so for ever the labour legislation, particularly the conciliation legislation, is not made applicable to these people. Because he is supposedly a temporary worker, they have gone further and said: It is also not really necessary for us to worry about Bantu trade-unionism in South Africa. In fact, the Government has placed itself between the employer on the one hand and the worker on the other. Everything has been broken down so that we are saddled today with people who, as far as trade-unionism is concerned, are back in a stage actually prior to 1948. Any person who talks about trade-unionism in South Africa now, will have to start at the beginning and build it up piece by piece. I am referring to the rights he will have to acquire and, in particular, to the responsibilities the trade-unionist in South Africa has to bear. A tremendous task lies ahead, and because we realize that it will take a long time to execute this task, the United Party has come forward with these immediate steps which must be taken to cope with the matter. If ten strikes were to occur again tomorrow, the day after tomorrow of next year, what would the hon. the Minister do? What machinery would he seize upon then?

Then we would solve the ten.

Yes, we solve them until they explode. Let us make no mistake. What these hon. members must choose between, is either a strike which takes place in terms of the Act under the umbrella of the Conciliation Act, or a strike which takes place illegally. That is the choice hon. members have, and the time will come when the Bantu too, as I said the other day, will have learnt something and when we shall have to try to teach him not to strike outside the Act. It is for that reason that we say to the Government, introduce the Act, and start teaching the Bantu that he has to use the laws of South Africa, that he has to use the labour laws, not to annihilate the Whites, but in fact for the preservation of the total population of South Africa, including the Whites. If we do not succeed in that, I foresee a very gloomy time ahead for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, what we have now heard from the two United Party speakers probably did not surprise any of us. As my hon. friend said, it was the usual business of casting about, shilly-shallying, and going around in circles. On the one hand they really would not like to be associated with the hon.member for Houghton’s outspoken standpoint on the recognition of Bantu trade unions. No, they are opposed to that; but immediately the standpoint has to be changed, too. It will eventually be possible—only not soon. These are the senseless impracticability which are being dished up for us here. The next moment it is being said that they may not strike. Imagine, the most fundamental right of a trade union is to strike. If it may not strike, of what significance is it?

They may not strike at the moment.

Yes, it is our policy that they may not strike; but we are now discussing the hon. members’ policy. After all, it is their policy which is to bring us a Utopia, and it is that policy which does not give them the right to strike. What irony! Surely this is absolute hoodwinking of the people—it is the old United Party tactic—to try to satisfy everyone. Whether the issue is the federal policy or this one, this is the same pattern we find in all matters of fundamental concern. I shall return in a moment to the United Party.

But before doing so I first want to say something with reference to the motion introduced by the hon. member. I think this motion which the hon. member for Houghton introduced was concerned for the most part with the Bantu worker and his position in the economic life. Because of this I am compelled at the outset to say what the Government believes ought to be done for the Bantu worker in our country. At the same time I want to tell you what suggestions the Government does not deem to be in the interest of South Africa. What the Government’s attitude in this regard amounts to in short is that the Bantu worker in our country ought to receive a fair wage. That is the first point on which our policy is based. Secondly, he should be afforded the regular opportunity of discussing his conditions of service with his employer. The Government believes that on these two pillars we can continue to maintain a satisfied and happy Bantu labour force in South Africa. But now the Opposition parties have in fact elevated this matter of the economic position of the Bantu to a political issue and have included it in their respective programmes of action. It is for that reason that I now want to discuss this political aspect first, before I come to the really important part, namely the working conditions of the Bantu.

The hon. member for Houghton has suggested to us here that Bantu trade unions should be recognized. She did so by means of arguments and according to a pattern which did not surprise us; this is how we have come to know the hon. member; we know her views in this regard, views which, in parentheses, have been rejected at one election after another. The fact of the matter is that after a quarter century the hon. member is sitting in this House as the only representative of her party, which should surely be an indication, even to her, of how the White electorate in the country think and feel in regard to her views on such matters as these. But I shall leave it at that. I want to refer to an argument which she presented. This hon. member referred, inter alia, to the support which trade unions supposedly gave to this motion of hers. Obviously she was referring to Tucsa, which is known to us all as the leading advocate of Bantu trade unions. But I do not think it was fair of the hon. member to drag in another highly respected trade union federation, the Confederation of Labour in that context, as if they were in agreement with Tucsa in this regard. Sir, concerning the purely representation aspect, it is well to note that Tucsa of course has a great many Coloured and Indian members. It will interest hon. members to hear the following figures in regard to Tucsa, which has now held this referendum—how they held it I do not know, nor do I care: They have 119 000 Coloured persons as members, and only 72 000 White members.

That is quite a lot. *

Yes, it is quite a lot. The Confederation of Labour has 186 000 White members. I think that from the point of view of the White worker, therefore, the vote of the Federation for a Council such as this is of very great importance. To say that the Confederation agrees with Tucsa, is not correct. I do not think it is fair to the Confederation. Last week I held talks with these people; they will themselves, in due course, issue their own statement, but I can at least on the authority of my talks with them, say that this is not correct. The people from the Confederation of Labour are responsible people and I attach very great value to what they say, and if they should perhaps adopt standpoints which do not correspond to the hon. member’s view, then I do not think it is quite fair to say that they have changed their minds.

They are changing their mind.

They have not issued any statement on this matter that I am aware of, and I think the hon. member should take up this matter with the Confederation. They will probably issue a statement on this matter shortly.

I leave the hon. member at that for the moment, and now I want to refer to the hon. member for Yeoville. I can quite understand why the hon. member for Houghton came here with this motion this year. The previous motion which she introduced in 1965 was of course not nearly as outspoken as this one. In that motion she asked for collective bargaining, and she referred to a whole series of other aspects. On this occasion she presented her request that Bantu trade unions should be recognized far more blatantly. It is rather interesting to know why this is so, one cannot get away from the fact that she must have been influenced by none other than the hon. member for Yeoville and the United Party, who pleaded in this House last year for affiliated membership. The hon. member for Houghton will still recall how she congratulated the hon. member for Yeoville on that occasion on the progress he had made along that road, on the fact that he, too, was beginning to see the light. After having received this encouragement from the hon. member for Yeoville, I can understand why the hon. member came to this House so courageously today—far more courageously than in 1965. Sir, it is important to be clear on what the effect is going to be of the motion which the hon. member for Houghton introduced here, or of this sugar-coated one which the hon. member for Yeoville moved here. What is the real effect going to be on South Africa, on our industrial peace and on employer-employee relations? Previous speakers on this side, the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark and Brentwood, put very pertinent questions to the hon. member for Yeoville on this matter, and in reply we had the usual egg-dance. We received no satisfactory reply to such a pertinent question as how the White trade unions are going to be affected and how they are to maintain their position if they are going to have their ranks swelled with this multitude of affiliated members, members who are not going to sit there with their mouths closed, but who will also want to say their piece. Previous speakers on this side put questions to the United Party on the other very important matter, namely what the bargaining rights of these affiliated Bantu members, who are now going to be affiliated to the White trade unions, are going to be, but the United Party speakers were not prepared to give this House any information in that regard either. [Interjection.] The hon. member is going to hear considerably more about this. He must not be so sensitive of his own policy. It is really too obvious that the hon. member does not want the spotlight trained on his own policy. What is the United Party’s reply to this crucial question of whether the affiliated Bantu workers may also have a say in the bargaining process?

Surely the trade union bargains on behalf of all its members.

Yes, but surely they have been affiliated; are they going to have an equal say in the bargaining process?

Surely the trade unions are on their own.

Yes, but surely they have been affiliated. Are they now going to have an equal say in the bargaining process? Why are they affiliated members then? As affiliated members they will therefore have equal bargaining rights. Why do you not admit it? Why are you evading this now? [Interjections.] In other words, they will have equal bargaining rights. What does it mean now if this multitude of Bantu workers are going to be given equal bargaining rights together with the numerically inferior White workers? Surely that can mean only one thing.

There is also a multitude of Whites.

But surely there are hundreds and thousands more Black workers than there are White. Take your operating work. Eighty-five per cent of operating work in factories today is not skilled work; it is semi-skilled and unskilled work. It is that 85% where the multitude of Black workers and the multitude of White worker have to bargain collectively for the same kinds of work. For that reason it is an evasion, to evade this crucial question. The hon. member beat his chest here and said he was a verkrampte. No, I think he should rather regard himself as being an evader. People who hide away from such crucial questions as these are evaders. One cannot evade these things. These are basic questions which one should look squarely in the face. I fear, Sir, that if the United Party is ever in the position of governing this country and they implement this policy, this policy that the Bantu workers will be affiliated, whether it is in works committees, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said only last weekend, and which was of course an ill-considered idea, will have to be affiliated with existing trade unions …

Why do you not tell us something about your policy? [Interjections.]

Order!

You are so terribly sensitive about your own policy. It is very obvious. After all, the people must realize that if this policy of the United Party is going to be applied in South Africa—look, you are the alternative government. Do you not intend coming into power, not even in 1980? If you come into power in 1980, surely you will have to implement this policy, and if you come into power in 1980 and your policy is implemented, surely it is going to mean that that smaller number of Whites in the trade unions is going to be in the minority and that the trade unions are going to be inundated with Bantu.

Tell us what your policy is.

The second thing which must inevitably result from the United Party’s policy is this, these Black workers will now have to negotiate, who now have to be given an equal say, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, will surely, with their lower standard of living force down the wage of the White worker. That is surely the other effect this will have, that White worker’s wage level will be forced down by the low standard of the competing Black workers. Why do you now want to explain away these inevitable consequences of your policy?

You are not telling us how you will negotiate. You have no policy at all.

After all, one must take the people into one’s confidence. That is surely the logical effect of that labour policy. But the Government is not only opposed to the recognition of Bantu trade unions on the grounds of these economically inbuilt characteristics of this policy of the hon. member for Houghton, as amended by the hon. member for Yeoville. We are also opposed to it because it so easily assumes a political character. This is the experience we have gained in this country. The hon. member for Brentwood was quite right in referring to Clemens Kadale. From that time to the present one still finds the same pattern in regard to Bantu trade unions, which is that there are always organizers who prefer to use those Bantu trade unions as a political instrument for their particular political aims rather than as an economic negotiating instrument. We have had this throughout history. In parentheses we also had it in the past in that Sactu organization to which the hon. member referred. That Sactu is the organization whose members were proscribed and banned in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act and the Riotous Assemblies Act. These are people who belonged to the banned organizations. Eventually Sactu disappeared. For that reason it is important that we keep on saying that the Government believes that on the basis of experience gained in this country with Bantu trade unions in the past, and the way in which these were also applied as political instruments, it is not in the interest of South Africa that Bantu trade unions should be recognized.

In view of this danger which Bantu trade unions constitute, will the Government also prohibit the Bantu homelands, when responsibility for labour is transferred to them, from establishing trade unions with regard to the workers in the border industries?

What the homelands will do when they obtain their independence is, as has been said over and again in this House, their own affair. The border areas, on the other hand, are situated in White South Africa and they fall under the laws of this Parliament, and so it shall remain. In addition to this standpoint in regard to the political character of these trade unions, there is still the fact that most of the Bantu workers in this country are not asking for trade unions. The majority of Bantu workers in this country are not asking for trade unions, as is also apparent from the struggle the trade unions are having to survive. I have with me here a great pile of particulars, but time does not allow me to furnish them to the House. It gives an indication of the struggle to survive of the Bantu trade unions which come and go.

Are they entitled to have their subscriptions collected by the employer?

If they are registered trade unions in terms of the law of the country they can make application for that, but then you and your party will first have to get into power in order to achieve that.

This brings me now to the following question: What does the Bantu worker in fact want? Now I am adopting the standpoint, on behalf of the Government, that they are not asking for Bantu trade unions. This practice degenerated in the past into a political instrument. For that reason I ask this question: What does the Bantu worker really want? He wants a fair wage. That is what the Bantu worker wants. To be able to know at all times what a fair wage is and how the Bantu worker is faring in his working conditions, regular talks between the Bantu workers and their employers in the works committees will be a very valuable instrument. But as far as the payment of a fair wage is concerned, the Government has certainly set an example to others in its latest salary adjustments on the Railways, in the Public Service and the Post Office. At the same time I want to say that the Government does not expect employers to pay their workers more than they are worth. I want to repeat this. Despite the example which was set, the Government does not expect employers to pay their workers more than they are worth. All the Government wants is that employers should pay their workers, whether White or non-White, a fair wage in relation to the work which is being done. If it should happen that employers pay their workers more than they are worth, employers will either cease to employ them or they will change over to automation. And then what is the effect going to be on Black employment in this country?

But your policy has always been one of automation.

But what is in fact appreciated is that a great number of Bantu workers fall into the low-paid group, and therefore fall for the most part under wage determinations. It was in view of this that I said last week in another debate of this nature that I would investigate the possibility, particularly in the case of unskilled workers, of causing a rapid revision of the wage determinations to be effected.

Now, it is my pleasure to be able to announce that I have decided to issue an instruction to the Wage Board to revise five existing wage determinations relating to unskilled labour in a series of industries in the principal areas. The existing determinations are not yet two years old but because only unskilled labour is affected by this a revision of these determinations will be to the benefit of a considerable number of low-paid persons, and the prescribed new wages may also serve as a criterion to other industries. The Wage Board will be requested to revise only the prescribed wages. Such an investigation will take up less time than a general investigation, which also concerns other conditions of service. I therefore hope that the Wage Board will be able to submit the necessary recommendations in this regard at a relatively early juncture. In this …

How long will it take? *

I hope they will be able to do this within two months. In this way, and with the expansion and the increased utilization of the works committee system I believe, in all sincerity, that we will be able to preserve our labour peace in this country. Experience up to now has shown that those firms that are making use of the 118 non-statutory works committees I mentioned last week, have had very good results. I hope that this system will continue to be expanded. I listened today to the suggestions made by the hon. member for Yeoville. As I said previously, I am asking for suggestions from the employers’ organizations and we will certainly put all these suggestions together when we eventually come to this House with a Bill. To think that we would be able to maintain South Africa’s industrial peace and progress if we were to do so in the way advocated by the Progressive Party and the United Party, really is an illusion. The experience of our country in the past in the field of labour speaks loudly against this standpoint adopted here today by the hon. members. For that reason it is necessary for this House today to reject this motion of the hon. member for Houghton firmly.

Mr. Speaker, in the few years that I have sat in this House I must say that I have never been quite so disappointed in a Minister as I have been in the present Minister. Just recently in Durban we had incidents which have probably changed the face of South Africa for all times. A door has been closed on South Africa as a result of the incidents at Durban and the hon. the Minister can get up in this House and talk and make the same sort of speech that he has made almost every year since I have been in the House. It shows that he has in fact not learnt the lessons which the hon. the Prime Minister said we should learn from the strikes in Durban. The Prime Minister himself could probably do South Africa no greater service than to look for a new Minister of Labour because this hon. Minister of Labour obviously was not listening to the Prime Minister at all. He has used the same trite phrases.

One for instance was that the Bantu should be given fair wages, but he has not told us how the Bantu should get those fair wages. This surely is what the whole strike and all the incidents in Durban were about. He said that the Bantu were a happy and contented labour force. Also in 1968 he said that the Bantu were a happy and contented labour force. We have just had strikes in Durban where thousands of Bantu came out on strike and yet he has the audacity to get up in this House and make the same claim that the Bantu are a contented and happy labour force. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what then was the strike in Durban all about. If they were so happy and contented, what were they striking for in Durban? It must be remembered that when Bantu strike, unlike members of an official trade union, they in fact lose money. They are not supported. When they go on strike, it is a severe loss to them. So, I must say that I am shocked and deeply worried for the future of South Africa while the hon. the Minister continues to adopt the attitude he does.

What is the point you are trying to make?

My point is that if the hon. Minister cannot face the facts of South Africa, he should stand down and let somebody else do the job. He has not learned a single lesson from the strikes in Durban because he said the same things here that he has been saying year after year …

What is your solution?

… namely that the present labour laws in this country are sufficient to look after the requirements of the Bantu labour force. If they were, we would not have had trouble in Durban in the first place.

They side-stepped the law.

The hon. member here says they side-stepped the law. May I be permitted to say that if I were starving, I might also side-step the law.

I am talking about the employers.

I wish the hon. members would apply their minds to what is happening in Durban. They themselves may feel quite secure. In fact, they probably do feel quite secure in their ivory towers, but if they were to go out and speak to these people and see how they are living and then discuss with them how they can adjust their conditions, they would be worried as well.

Do you do that?

I do that continually.

The hon. the Minister also had the audacity to say that the mass of the Bantu workers do not want to belong to trade unions. If I understood him correctly, that is what he said. I want to challenge the hon. the Minister to make that offer to the Bantu that they can belong to registered trade unions. He has said that they do not want to belong to them; I challenge him to make them that offer. If my memory serves me right, he in fact threatened to withdraw the registration of Tucsa a few years when they said they wanted to have affiliated Black trade unions in Tucsa. Now he gets up here and says that the Bantu do not want trade unions. He will not dare make them that offer and I challenge him to make that offer to them.

The hon. the Minister said they need fair wages. He then went on to say that he has instructed wage boards to review the position of minimum wages. This is perhaps one of the minor lessons he may have learned from the hon. the Prime Minister. I would like to ask him how long it will take. One of the things that came to light in the Durban strikes was that there was an investigation by the Wage Board early in 1972. By January, 1973, they had not yet filed their recommendation. In other words, the Wage Board sat on this particular matter for a full twelve months and when an official of the hon. the Minister’s department was asked why, he said: “Well, we have a lot of other work to do as well and the investigation is a big one.” The previous determination by the Wage Board in this particular respect was in 1967. If, even when you have an investigation, these particular workers have to wait for a year for the result of that investigation, while the cost of living is rising at the rate that it does, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that his machinery for investigations of this sort and for handling Bantu labour is archaic and outdated, it does not work and the result is extremely dangerous.

Come to the point now.

If I have to illustrate my point, I can do no better than tell the hon. member just to look at the strikes in Durban and to learn some of the lessons that his own leader, the hon. the Prime Minister, was talking about. It is perfectly true that the Government was not entirely to blame for what happened in Durban. The Government set the example and therefore the majority of the blame is theirs. But I do not excuse any industrialist or large undertaking who can make the confession after the strikes that “it is about time we appointed some arrangement between management and labour”. If they do not have that contact between management and labour in the year 1973, then they are certainly not blameless for what happened in Durban and they also deserve a rap over their knuckles for their actions. I do not excuse them. I am of the opinion that the only people who emerged with any credit from the strikes in Durban were the South African Police and the strikers themselves. As I said just now, South Africa will never be the same as a result of those strikes in Durban. As far as I am concerned, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, I believe that the hon. member for Houghton did this House a good turn by raising this issue, because we have got to consider the labour position in South Africa. We have to forget what laws and regulations satisfied our workers ten or twenty years ago. We can no longer afford our Victorian attitude and our Victorian approach to this matter. Too often in this country one hears from the hon. the Minister archaic suggestions which, quite frankly, to my mind are frightening. All he gives us year after year are political slogans which in the long run mean absolutely nothing. I would say to the hon. the Minister that if we are going to learn the lessons of the strikes in Durban, one of the first things he should have done as Minister of Labour was to have left this House and gone to Durban to see what was going on. This was a serious matter; in Durban it could probably have been more serious than in other towns. But the hon. the Minister of Labour sat in this House ignoring what was going on in Durban … [Interjections.] My hon. friend on my left says that things worked out all right. Probably it is just as well then that he did not go. The hon. the Minister last year, if I remember correctly, in a major debate in this House spoke for half an hour and in that half an hour he never mentioned the word “labour” once. This was when we were having an unsavory debate of another type. But the hon. the Minister never mentioned the word “labour” once, and yet the signs were already there.

The Minister talks about the works committees, but has he ever tried to protect the members of these works committees from victimization as a result of their pleas? According to a report in a Johannesburg newspaper today, I think nine African women asked for an increase in wages. They then took their complaint to the Department of Labour. When they returned to their jobs they found that they had already been replaced. What is the Minister doing about this? This is the sort of thing that happens to the works committees. If the hon. the Minister hopes that we can go on in the way that we have and that he can continue with the remarks that he passes here and that all will be forgotten, then I believe that all of us, all the White people in South Africa, are going to pay very dearly. The Minister said—and it has been said by hon. members on the other side of the House on different occasions—that the wage gap between the various groups is narrowing. This is obviously not so as anybody can prove and as letters in the newspapers during the last few days have shown. But it is more than that. The department of the hon. the Minister of Transport is partly responsible for what happened in Durban, because of the increase in transport fares; the Minister of Economic Affairs is responsible, and there is probably not a Minister on that side of the House who is not responsible for what happened in Durban. What is going to happen on future occasions?

I want to conclude by saying the following: The Government has got to face the realities of the situation. It has to face the fact that its present legislation and its works committees are no working; it has not given them teeth; they cannot work, and if the hon. the Minister is going to be prepared and content to come to this House and make the sort of speech which he made in this debate, I believe we will have further trouble and labour unrest in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the speech to which we have just had to listen was, of course, a tremendous anti-climax to the very brilliant speech made by the hon. the Minister of Labour. [Laughter.] The noises coming from the opposite side are the best proof that I am correct. What we have now had from this hon. member, is the very clear direction in which he is moving; for what he actually did here, was to support the hon. member for Houghton. He explicitly said here that the hon. the Minister had said the Bantu did not want trade unions, but he, the great authority from Port Natal, says the Bantu want trade unions. He disputed the statement made by the hon. the Minister. Surely, this is the best proof that what he said is in line with what the hon. member for Houghton had said here. But this does not astonish me at all, for their leader, who is not here, Harry Schwarz, also stated that he was in favour of Bantu trade unions. This cannot be disputed, nor has it been disputed here this afternoon.

In other words, what we have had here again this afternoon is the kind of discussion which is neither here nor there. The one says, “No, we are not in favour of Bantu trade unions”; the other says, “No, but we are at least not rejecting it out of hand.” Harry Schwarz, who is not a member here, says they are in favour of it. Sir, how far can the United Party go with this kind of egg dance? How long can they try the patience of the White voters outside? How long do you think the White voters outside are still going to stand for the United Party saying, “You must trust us. Now, we are now going to tell you today about everything we are going to do when we come into power; we shall only do so the day we are in power.” That is what happened again here today. The hon. member for Yeoville takes up one standpoint; then the hon. member for Maitland butters him up a little; and then the hon. member for Port Natal comes along and takes up quite a different standpoint, so that they may satisfy everybody without getting to the crux of the matter, namely to define very clearly the standpoint and policy of the United Party on this very important matter.

The hon. member repeatedly referred to the strikes in Durban. That matter was settled a long time ago. But the fact of the matter is that this hon. member is trying to accuse the Minister of being responsible for the strikes, instead of his rising here and thanking the hon. the Minister for the action taken by the Government to settle those strikes in time. This did not only happen in Durban; in Johannesburg the same attempt was made. But what the hon. member omitted to say is that his people and those echoing his views are the people who stirred up that strife in Durban in order to cause these strikes, and this was done for one reason: to embarrass the National Party Government to such an extent that it could possibly be kicked out.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32, and motion and amendment lapsed.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 23, the House adjourned at 7 p.m.