announced that the Honourable Roelof Frederik Botha had been declared elected a member of the House of Assembly for the electoral division of Westdene with effect from 11 May 1977.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half hour.

Today is probably the last time I shall have the opportunity of discussing this Vote in this House. It is probably the last time, too, that I shall have the privilege of opening the debate on this Vote. Hon. members will understand that under these circumstances, I should like to express my thanks to my hon. colleagues on the Opposition side, who have assisted me over a considerable period of time and whose support and co-operation I have enjoyed. I should also like to thank the officials, who have been of great assistance to us. I should like to single out the senior parliamentary officer as a man who has a phenomenal knowledge of labour legislation. He has always been prepared to share his knowledge with us. We thank him for that.

There has been a tendency over the years to turn the subject of labour into something of a political football in this House. In the time that I have been the chief spokesman on labour, I have tried to bring about a more objective discussion of the subject. I think that to a large extent we have succeeded in doing this. But this is a game which has to be played by two sides, so I want to thank hon. members on the Government side as well for their contributions to this.

Since today will be my last opportunity to discuss this subject, naturally I do not want to follow a party-political approach today. Perhaps I will be permitted to discuss labour in rather more general terms and, in all humility, to give my view of what may be happening today and what may happen in the future.

†As far as labour in our industrial society is concerned, there can be no question whatsoever about its importance. In our own particular case this is all the more important for several reasons. I think it is only down the mine and in the workshop where there is still a large area of meaningful contact between White and Non-white. This will tend to have a spill-over effect, and relationships which are established in the work situation will, to some considerable extent, determine whether goodwill will persist in our society or not. In view of the fact that we have such a large migratory element in our labour force, relations in the work situation affect not only our own people; they will, of necessity, also spill over and affect other people in the Southern African continent.

Labour in itself is, of course, a primary ingredient of the economic process. It can be shown empirically that a poor labour situation inhibits expansion. It brings about instability and low productivity and causes inflation and a loss of confidence. This is the situation which certain countries face today—certain countries in the world—and, regrettably, also our own country. However, it is of prime importance, because South Africa has, in a specific sense, come to the crossroads. We face vast changes in the labour field, a complete metamorphoses of the situation, something which is going to change our approach to this whole issue dramatically. There are immense and new forces at work, and perhaps I will be permitted to try to identify a few of them.

To begin with, South Africa is today in the midst of a third economic revolution. The first occurred with the discovery of gold and diamonds towards the end of the last century. The second we saw at the beginning and during the Second World War and centered around manufacturing industries. We are now in the midst of the third economic revolution in this country. This centres around technology and the utilization of manpower and hence has considerable relevance to the Vote that is now under discussion.

However, there is a second important development. This is what is commonly referred to as “manpower dynamics”. I think that we must look at this in depth, because, to begin with again, there is the unfortunate—and it could become dangerous—imbalance between the distribution of entrepreneural skills and opportunities in this country. It was the English-speaking South African who came here initially as the risk-taker. For years our Afrikaans-speaking section tended to concentrate on the professions and on the fringe professions like teaching. The manner and powerful thrust of Afrikaners into the entrepreneural ranks has been giving great impetus to the economic situation in South Africa. As far as the Indians are concerned, they are natural risk-takers, but the Black and Coloured people in our society have not made the advances in this field that they should have done. This is creating a serious imbalance, and if it is not attended to immediately, it could lead to great instability.

There is an unfortunate duality developing in our economic society. On the one side we have a high profile of economic development, as exemplified by the Whites and, on the other hand, a low profile of economic development, as exemplified by the other race groups. Just to show the magnitude of this difference I want to mention that the average wages in our society, the ratio of what is paid to skilled workers and paid to unskilled workers, is of the order of 8:1. In a society like the American society the ratio is 1½:1.

However, there is a third element here. There is a series of developments taking place in the South African society, developments which are occurring outside the parameters of the law. I shall mention only one or two examples. Recently Prof. Nieuwenhuizen of Unisa reported about a factory where they do strategic work, and notwithstanding all the laws of the country, and notwithstanding the national ethos he reported that in this particular factory, employing some 500 people, nearly all the administrative and clerical work was done by White women and nearly all the technical and production work was done by Black men. One has exactly the same sort of situation with regard to Black unions. The law says that they do not exist, but they do, and some of them are already in operation. Unions are highly mobile. If we make it difficult for them here, they will move. In Southern Africa there are lots of places that they could go to. I recollect some years ago in America when the American government introduced stringent labour legislation, the unions all hopped over the border. They went to Canada where they erected their offices and radio stations and beamed their propaganda from there onto America, thereby creating a situation which was so intolerable that the American Government was very pleased to have them back again.

A third important development in our labour situation is that industrial bargaining is going to change completely. We have traditionally thought of bargaining as something which is bilateral, that is between the employer and the employee. However, because of the conditions which exist in our society, industrial bargaining is going to become multilateral and is going to involve other people and, in fact, other Governments. Whereas traditionally industrial bargaining centres around the question of the cost of labour, it is going to acquire a completely new dimension in South Africa. It will also involve the aspirations of people, amongst other things their political aspirations. I think this is an important development and I hope we have a clear understanding of what is happening here.

The fourth trend of importance which I see is the growing clash and conflict between Government and big business. Big business will tend to grow; it is the order of our times that they merge. Indeed, it is suggested that by the turn of this century 90% of the business conducted in the Free World will be conducted by some 300 giant international corporations. It is also suggested that half of these will be controlled by the Americans and a third of them by the Japanese. As business gets bigger and as its stake in society becomes bigger, so of necessity it will clash with Government, because a Government, by the very nature of things, postulates the macro-requirements of economic development while business for its own survival must concentrate on the micro-requirements of economic development. This process is inherent in the free enterprise system. I think it is against this background that one must view the utterings of Dr. Wassenaar, and there will be many others in time to come.

In the fifth instance the labour structure in South Africa is changing dramatically. Traditionally we have seen labour in the nature of a triangle, with a vast, amorphous mass of people at the bottom, people with relatively low level skills. This then tapers off into a small apex where there is a concentration of high level skills. But the basic structure has changed completely. The South African labour force no longer resembles a triangle. It looks very much more like a diamond. The cast mass of people have moved up in the hierarchy. They are no longer at the base. The implications of this for training, succession and productivity are immense. It is in view of this that we must look at the whole question of productivity. It has been clearly established that there can only be manpower productivity if one has mobility of workers, if the workers move in laterally from the less productive sectors in the society to the more productive ones, and, secondly, if one has vertical mobility whereby the workers can move up in the hierarchy of jobs. When one has legislative enactment whereby one deliberately frustrates this—as we do by way of the Physical Planning Act and with job reservation—then one must not be surprised when one has low job productivity. This is particularly the case in South Africa, where labour costs amount to nearly 50% of the total output level.

In the sixth instance there is going to be a vast change in the internal environment of business itself. We enter the era of mass consumption, of high output. Business methods will be revolutionized. I merely think of the question of how one attends to people. When the very first time the principles of management were written up, by a Frenchman called Fayol, he referred to this as “command”. One commanded people and told them what to do, and they did it. When some years later these management principles were revised by Urwick, he referred to this as “lead”. One had to lead people. When more recently this was done by Brech he referred to it as “motivation”. There has thus been a vast change in emphasis—from “command”, through “leadership” to “motivation”. New methods are going to revolutionize the whole business situation. The computer is probably as important to the businessman as the discovery of the microscope was to the biologist. This new situation, and particularly modern forms of decentralized, participative management in which the worker plays an increasing key role, will have a spill-over effect which, coupled with higher levels of education, will bring about a much greater degree of social mobility. One will find too that where there are noticeable differences at the moment between our various communities, the edges will tend to become blurred. In fact, one may find that the business situation and more advanced education will become the great equalizers in our society.

In the seventh instance we must face up to a period of very much greater interference by the outside world. We have already seen signs of it. It began with the Polaroid experiment when a particular American company decided to change conditions of service to equate them more fully with those overseas. More recently we had a set of six injunctions from Washington, a set of six conditions imposed upon American companies which operate here. I think the third step is also quite clear. That is that the conditions of service in this country will become conditions for international trade.

I want to refer to the sextet of injunctions received from Washington, because I think they are important. Amongst other things, they contain the injunction that there must be an absence of discrimination in the work situation. Furthermore, they refer to equal and fair employment practices in South Africa. These conditions were accepted, on behalf of the Government, by the hon. Dr. Mulder, the Minister of the Interior. He stood up in this House and said that they were fair enough and that he accepted them on behalf of the Government.

I hope the hon. the Minister has checked it out with the hon. the Minister of Labour and I hope there is an understanding of what is involved in this regard. When the Americans talk of “fair employment practices”, it is not just loose phraseology; they are in fact referring to a particular Act which pertains in America and is called the Fair Employment Practices Act. If it is true that the Government has accepted this, I merely want to say that it represents a complete and total reversal of Government labour policies as we have known them up till this point in time.

Mr. Chairman, I have tried to indicate that some of the facts, some of the developments in the whole environment of business will have a crucial effect upon our approach to this problem. Against this kind of background it is clear that in the long term, the only policies that could conceivably survive are those that take cognizance of those developments outside and inside our borders. I think I shall be permitted in the limited time that is available to me, to indicate what one could perhaps call certain “dos” and certain “dont’s” in regard to the very important policy issues.

The very first thing we should do, is to drop completely the “poor, but White” attitude that was prevalent in South Africa for many years. The work force is not going to be White. Every projection which is made indicates that at the end of this century there will probably be some 21 million workers in this country, and at most one-seventh of them will be Whites. Therefore, whatever we might say, the work force is not going to be White. If we were poor, and I do not want to dissemble on this particular issue, we could imagine the absolute mess we would be in. This kind of attitude has evoked all the negativistic responses in our society; it has never been helpful to us at all and the sooner it is dropped, the better.

In the second instance we must accept, in all our policy decisions, the permanence of the Black worker in the South African industrial situation. The moment one has taken this small step in attitude, one has in fact taken a giant forward leap as far as industrial relations are concerned. The moment one begins to do this, one begins to see the inter-dependence of races in the economic situation and all the rest of it falls into perspective. Many of the negative attitudes that we have had over so many years, will then be shown to have no relevance whatsoever. South Africa has been built up by White, Brown and Black hands and it must continue to be done in this way, because if they do not build together, they will break and destroy what has already been built up. The moment one begins to view these workers as temporary sojourners here, this whole concept becomes completely obsolescent. It has been rendered obsolete by economic factors, and every day we continue with it will further destroy this myth.

I believe that we should completely restructure the Department of Labour as it exists at the moment. I have said before that labour is indivisible, but here we have tried to split it on racial lines by looking at White labour, Brown labour and Black labour separately. We have even gone further by trying to split it in a functional sense. When it is anything which concerns the Industrial Conciliation Act, this particular hon. Minister attends to the matter, and if the matter concerns mining labour, the hon. the Minister of Mines deals with the matter. We are therefore dealing with something which is indivisible, but as a result of this policy we have plethora of different departments and committees. The Handelsinstituut has said recently that it is impossible to deal with labour in this country because there are ten different agencies to whom one must go. Nowhere in the world does one find the situation where the Department of Labour is fragmented in this particular way. I urge the hon. the Minister that it is necessary for him to provide greater cohesion and to correlate the activities which are embraced by the general function of the Department of Labour. It should be done by him and it should all centre in his department.

In regard to job reservation I dare say that there is probably no concept which has been dealt with so often in this House than this. For 20 years now we have pleaded that the Government should do away with it, and I think the hon. the Minister might even have a surprise in store for us today. This is, however, not a new problem. We have the problem of skilled and unskilled workers, a problem which has persisted since the very first specialization in labour. In the olden days they tried to reserve jobs as well. They did it by way of the guild system, by way of establishing craft guilds. They also found that if they did so, they were undermined and circumvented. Therefore job reservation did not even work in those days. Through hundreds of years society has learnt that the only way, in the long term, in which one could protect the skilled worker was by paying the rate for the job.

The disadvantages of the present system are that it is not in the interests of the Whites on account of the fact that they are provided with no real competition and hence it is a drag on their own personal development. The effects on the labour structure of job reservation are even more far-reaching. It restricts the size of one’s skilled base; it leads to artificially high salaries; it results in massive under-employment such as we have in this country at the present time; it restricts the growth of one’s domestic market; and it limits the tax base. The irony of the situation is that it does not protect the White worker, because there is, in fact, no real danger. In the South African situation, where the ratio of White to non-White in the manufacturing industry is one in four, it means, in effect, that one needs four non-White workers to create one job opportunity for one White worker. This single item has probably done us more harm than any other that I can imagine.

Here sits the new hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I am sure that he can back me up in this regard because this is something that the outside world could latch onto. When one bears in mind all the protestations to the effect that we do not discriminate in this country, it is difficult to see how one could adopt that attitude to the outside when one has a measure of this kind which is medieval both in concept and in application. The Government is on record as having said that it would do away with discrimination. I cannot think of a better place where it can start. Now that we hear from up north that the Botha’s are becoming so “verlig” and now that the hon. the Minister of Labour himself should return to the leadership stakes, it seems to me that this is the kind of announcement that he can make to us now, today. However we might wriggle and however we might try to rationalize it, we would like the hon. the Minister to stand up and say that this is at least one aberration that will be exorcised from our industrial legislation.

When one says this, one must of necessity say a few words about trade unions. The rights of workers are universally recognized. They were probably established for the very first time in the Trades and Disputes Act in Britain towards the end of the last century. These rights are simple and fundamental. They merely determine that all workers should have the right to unite and to organize. It says, secondly, that all workers must have the right to collective bargaining and, thirdly, that they must have the right to strike. We have gone quite some way in the direction in South Africa. Again, however, there is this reluctance on the part of the Government to say that Black people can be members of a trade union. This attitude is rationalized, and we hear every day how they say that the Westminster system and trade unions do not work in Africa. I do not want to comment on the Westminster system at the moment. However, to say that Black trade unions do not work in Africa is, of course, rubbish, because it works all over Africa. I can quote a great many countries, particularly Rhodesia, and Rhodesia’s situation is no different from ours. They have had mixed trade unions now for years and we have never heard a word about it.

We are not opposed to the committee system to which the Government is committed. We see this as a useful adjunct to the whole industrial bargaining machinery. But it can never be a substitute, because of the simple reasons that the Black people are saying that we are discriminating against them. They say: “Why can the White man have a trade union and we cannot?” That is the simple question that we must answer. By the same token, if you do not like trade unions, you must do away with all of them. You cannot say that it is a good thing as far as certain workers are concerned and a bad thing as far as others are concerned. The Government has been saying for years that our Industrial Relations Act is the best in the world. They have held it up as a model. The question that inevitably is asked is: If you have such a wonderful piece of legislation, why do you then not extend its protection and all its provisions to all the workers in this country?

Mr. Chairman, there is the important aspect of training. For the moment we face a situation of unemployment in this country. We all hope that this is a temporary phenomenon. The long-term needs are, however, quite clear. South Africa has a massive need for high-level skills. All the latest demographic studies that have been done, all the projections that have recently been made, point to the fact that we must create in South Africa 1 000 new jobs every day. If we view the magnitude of the task of creating 1 000 new jobs every day, it gives us some idea of the massive training problem that lies ahead. The accelerating demand will, of course, be for high-level skill. In doing this, we must realize that it is the Blacks and the non-Whites that will have to be trained more and more. I say this not because we are partial to them. I say it because all of us can see so clearly what is happening. The Whites are opting out of most of these jobs. They are not going into blue-collar jobs any more. Hence the emphasis must of necessity be on massive training not only of Whites, but also of non-White people.

My time has unfortunately run out. I wanted to make some reference to the migratory system. I wanted to show how skills are being picked up almost surreptitiously, instead as part of a national design for the migratory worker. I wanted to deal with the need for a charter for migratory workers. I was hoping to be able to refer to low productivity and how this could be improved. I wanted to refer to the closing of the wage gap and steps that should be taken in this regard, and to the function of education and training in this particular context. I was hoping to be able to refer to the need for a manpower training agency at national level; and I was hoping to make reference to the vexed problem of unemployment. Unfortunately I cannot do so.

Hence I conclude by just saying that as far as labour and introducing the best possible machinery and atmosphere are concerned, an immense responsibility and obligation rest upon all of us. I think we will make much greater progress in future if when dealing with this issue we do not seek political advantage for ourselves, but try to do what is right for South Africa, because this, in the long term, is the only thing that people can expect from us.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is now actually taking leave of this House, and it is common knowledge that he is going to leave the political arena to take up his appointment as head of the school of business of the University of the Witwatersrand. Therefore, since it has been my privilege, for many years, to react to his speeches, I should like to take this opportunity of wishing him everything of the best and every possible success. He and I have never viewed labour politics in South Africa from the same vantage point. We have often crossed swords and reacted sharply to each other across the floor of this House.

However, I do want to tell him that it has always been a pleasure for me to have listened to him, particularly because of his sound knowledge of the two languages and the fluent and convincing way in which he has put the UP’s case. We want to wish him everything of the best. Taking leave of him now as I do, as a good Southern Free Stater I want to tell him that he can safely leave politics without any qualms. He need not be concerned about his successor either. His successor will definitely not be a Progressive Reformer. After the result in Westdene, it would appear to me as if Hillbrow, after the next election, will be represented in this House by a Nationalist for the first time.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to take this opportunity, firstly, of expressing our thanks and appreciation to the responsible trade union leaders in South Africa. It is with gratitude that we have taken note of the statement and attitude of Mr. Attie Nieuwoudt, the president of the S.A. Confederation of Labour, and that of Mr. Arthur Grobbelaar, the president of Tucsa, who made an appeal to the workers of South Africa to be realistic and reasonable when it comes to wage demands in these times in which we are having to deal with economic problems. We appreciate that attitude, because only with that attitude have we come far and are we pulling the wagon through the economic drift.

However, I want to come back to the Vote. During this session the most vehement of attacks on the Government in regard to labour have centered on the fact that the reduced inflow of capital to South Africa can be ascribed to the ideological labour policy of the Government. In that connection reference is made, inter alia, to job reservation, the non-recognition of Black trade unions and influx control. That, together with the riots in Soweto, are supposedly the reason why unemployment in South Africa has increased. Without beating about the bush, I want to say that that is the biggest lot of nonsense that is being broadcast to the world. After all, this is not a situation unique to South Africa. I cannot agree at all that the increasing unemployment in South Africa can be ascribed to the above-mentioned factors. I want to say unequivocally that unemployment has indeed increased in the past year. We even expect that it will regrettably increase further in the coming months. I think, however, that we must ask ourselves who or what the unemployed are. When we begin to make calculations about unemployment in South Africa, we must not subsequently talk ourselves into a crisis situation that does not, in fact, exist. Unemployment is not a situation unique to South Africa. It is a situation the whole world is worried about. The situation is, in fact, so bad that Western countries have come together in the past week for discussions to see what solutions they can find to get rid of the problem of unemployment. In that connection there is also another problem. Combating unemployment by simply creating job opportunities can also fan the flames of inflation. Then hon. members come along and say that the unemployment is the result of the uprisings in Soweto.

It is perhaps very necessary that we take another proper look at the whole labour set-up in South Africa. With a view to the economic conditions in which we are living, with a view to the future and with a view to the changed world in which we are living, it is perhaps necessary to have another look at the matter. However, there is firstly something we must clear up for ourselves. All day long the Opposition refers to the tremendous discord and unrest amongst Black workers. It is said that as workers in this country they are so unhappy. There is only criterion by which we can measure that. I should like to use the following figures as a criterion: In 1972 we had 16 strikes involving 3 000 Black people. In 1973 this increased to 246 strikes involving 67 000 Black workers. That was the year when, as we are all aware, militant influences were present in South Africa. There were, in particular, the strikes in Natal; those strikes were out of the ordinary because of certain influences that were behind them. In 1974 there was a decrease to 189 strikes involving 37 000 workers. The following year there was a further decrease to 119 strikes involving 11 000 workers, and in the past year 105 strikes involving a few more workers, i.e. 15 000. Is this evidence of deteriorating conditions? The evidence I have just furnished proves, on the contrary, that working conditions have greatly increased as far as the Black man is concerned and that we have a happy Black workers’ corps in South Africa. In 1973 the position deteriorated.

We are all aware of the fact that the Act we previously had on the Statute Book, the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act, No. 48 of 1953, did not embody sufficient negotiation machinery for the Black man to be able to negotiate his conditions of service. We also know that, apart from the fact that that negotiating machinery was insufficient, many aspects were not implemented by employers. Consequently it was necessary for the Government, in 1973, to introduce certain amendments into that Act. Today that Act is known as the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Amendment Act. That Act created a great deal more negotiating machinery for the Black man. It created many wider powers and more negotiating channels for him. What comes to mind, for example, are all the liaison committees, which were introduced, through which they could negotiate conditions of service. Previously they did not have such a means at their disposal. We have introduced great improvements.

What were the results? Whilst only a few works committees and liaison committees existed at the time, today, only a few years later, we have 2 440 liaison committees in South Africa representing more than 650 000 Black workers. Thirty nine per cent of the total economically active Black people belong to liaison committees. Conditions have, after all, improved tremendously. This is proof of the good results that stemmed from the amendment of that Act.

We must take further note of the fact that if we analyse the 105 strikes, we find that in the case of 79 of the strikes that took place in the past year there were no works and liaison committees. Consequently the employers had not yet made use of the machinery they have at their disposal. We are all aware of the fact that there is a Bill on the Order Paper envisaging the amendment of the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act. That amendment will embody greater benefits, create more negotiating machinery and give the Black people wider powers so that they will not only be able to negotiate their conditions of service, but also their wages. Agreements will be made enforceable. Those are the proposals embodied in it.

Now I want to ask those holier-than-thou apostles, particularly the hon. members of the PRP, who are actually the great champions of the Black trade unions, to take note of these facts. They believe that Black trade unions are the alpha and the omega as far as solutions are concerned, and this also applies to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. They could perhaps take note of the fact that only 29% of the White workers are members of trade unions, i.e. 29% of the economically active White workers in South Africa. Only 31% of the Coloured workers are members of trade unions. However, as far as I am concerned the most puzzling question is still this: Why are those hon. members always the great champions, the people who stick up for, the fact that the Black people should be organized into trade unions? It is because they are not interested in the conditions of service of those people. They think they can mobilize the Black power in South Africa in order to use it for other purposes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am just standing up to give the hon. member the opportunity to continue with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Mooi River for the opportunity he has offered me.

The puzzling question is: What do they want to do with those people by thus organizing them? Since we have the liaison committee system and the system of negotiation at the manufacturing industry level, my plea is that we should not only give this opportunity to the Bantu workers in South Africa. I want us to have a look at our industrial legislation—particularly in view of the small percentage of Whites and Coloureds who belong to trade unions—so that we can also create the opportunity for those workers, who choose to organize themselves at factory level, to be able to do so by way of committees. This is done throughout the world and is successfully implemented. Those workers must also have the choice to enter into agreements on that basis. They are agreements that have not only a broad national basis, but also a personal basis, i.e. between employer and employee directly. Workers have a greater direct interest in those than in these national agreements.

This is not a Second Reading speech.

That hon. member would do well to wait for Haas Das, and then he can go and listen to him.

I want to come back to the question of job reservation. There has been a great deal of reference here to job reservation. We are all aware of the great number of cries, including those of employers in South Africa, that went up, particularly last year, requesting that section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act be repealed. Those employers perhaps have every right to make that request. What they asked for is logical. With the great economic growth and the boom, it was simply essential that the wheels be kept rolling. As a consequence there were shortages in certain job categories and it is understandable that there should have been requests for the deletion of section 77.

Section 77 is a measure to prevent interethnic competition in the labour market. Then there is also an historic fact from which South Africa cannot uproot itself. I am referring to the fact that certain kinds of work were traditionally done by Whites in the past, that certain types of work were traditionally done by Coloureds and that certain types of work were traditionally done by the Bantu. Consequently it was absolutely essential in the past that section 77 should, in fact, be on the Statute Book. It was also essential that the respective population groups be protected. They needed the protection because there was concern about the fact that their future could possibly be in danger and that they could possibly be ousted from positions in the labour market. For that reason it was essential to retain section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act.

Since there are, on the one hand, arguments for the repeal of section 77, on the other hand we must also expect, particularly in times of unemployment, more cries to go up from the employers requesting a possibly stricter implementation of section 77. Employers will, in all probability, argue in favour of that because they realize that work is becoming increasingly scarce and because they will have a need for protection. Surely that is also logical. Everyone thinks of his livelihood and survival. When we therefore reflect matter-of-factly and calmly on these things, we can understand why it was necessary for the provision that was made in terms of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Historically it is equally true that the standards of living of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Bantu are not equal. It was as a direct result of this that certain population groups could offer their labour more cheaply in the past. That, of course, was a further reason necessitating the provision in terms of section 77. There had to be that provision so that when an employee was involved with an unscrupulous employer, he could have recourse to protection against cheaper labour.

I now want to refer to another aspect which we must not lose sight of either. We all know that earlier on South Africa was an agricultural country and that it has recently switched over from being an agricultural country to being an industrial country. Thanks to the co-operation of the Government and the trade unions, as the knowledge, training and education of the Black man and the Coloured improved, increasing use was made of Black and Coloured labour in job categories previously occupied exclusively by the Whites. That is true. Consequently the incomes of Brown people and Black people have increased tremendously in recent years. The University of South Africa recently carried out an investigation in which it was found that the per capita income of the Black man in South Africa increased, from 1970 to 1975, from R297 to R628 per year. In the same investigation it was found that the income of a Black household in Johannesburg increased from R1 043 to R2 273 per year. This is all the result of the training and knowledge of the non-Whites and because of the fact that these days they are being placed into job categories which were previously exclusively occupied by Whites. However, we must be realistic. We must face the facts of the future. As the hon. member for Hillbrow rightly indicated, by 1980—bearing in mind our present population increase—we shall have to create at least 327 000 new job opportunities annually. We shall also have to bear in mind that by the year 2000 we shall have to create about 480 000 new job opportunities per year. With the development in the future, we shall also have to take into account that the posts we shall have to create will not be posts which can be filled, as in the past, by semi-skilled or unskilled workers. We shall progressively have to place skilled people in those posts. We shall therefore have to look at the human material in South Africa. As in the past, it is logical that in cooperation with the trade unions, and without worrying that the whites will be ousted from certain jobs in their own fatherland, we shall have to consider making use of more of those people’s labour.

I want to conclude. Seen in the light of the aspects to which I have referred, and since, in South Africa, we are not dealing with an obdurate Government or a stagnant party, I want to make a very serious plea to the hon. the Minister that we take another look at the labour legislation. We must investigate all the legislation. Voices have already been raised in this connection, and I want to join with those. I want to advocate that we appoint a commission of inquiry which will be comprised of experienced people who know the labour field. Representatives of employees and employers must serve on the commission and, if necessary, we must even see whether members of other ethnic groups cannot serve on the commission as well. I am not worried about that, because after the commission has duly investigated these matters, I know that we are dealing with a responsible Government. I do not think any worker in South Africa, regardless of race or colour, need be worried that the Government will not see to it that he is not edged out. I want to make a serious plea that we go into this matter.

In conclusion I want to say that we are dealing with certain fixtures that have perhaps become out of date and I want to advocate that we again ask the Industrial Tribunal to have a look at these fixtures, to amend them, to adapt them or to do away with them if necessary.

Lastly I want to express my sincerest appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the appointment of Prof. Wiehahn as the labour advisor to the Minister and the department. Prof. Wiehahn is someone who has come from the factory floor and been through the mill. He is an authority on the field of labour and is regarded not only as an authority on the labour field in South Africa, but also as an expert on the international labour field. We appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister has appointed Prof. Wiehahn to assist the department.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark made an exceptionally informative speech and laid particular emphasis on the progress that had been made in respect of liaison committees and works committees. This is an aspect which is receiving more and more attention from experts in South Africa and the world.

The congress of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut is at present being held in Cape Town and knowledgeable speakers there have spoken extremely highly of the system of liaison and works committees. For example, I am thinking of the reports that appeared in various newspapers concerning the speech made by Dr. W. J. de Villiers, executive chairman of General Mining, at the congress. I am also thinking particularly of the well-considered article of Mr. Greyling in Volkshandel of May 1977. I want to quote the following sentence to this House—

I think it is common cause between all political parties in South Africa that industrial peace is a matter of the highest priority in South Africa. During the discussion of his Vote last year, the hon. the Minister made mention of the fact that in the years ahead, we would have to consider matters pertaining to labour with the same respect as we had given to defence matters. This was also the purport of the address that was delivered a few days ago by Prof. Marais at the congress of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, viz. that the next ten years of our future would, to a large extent, be determined by our labour policy.

We agree that economic objectives can only be reached if peace, security and good relations exist in this country. That is why it is the aspiration of all of us to make employment possible for everyone, Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks. Secondly, it is our aspiration that the worker be paid a fair wage.

In this respect, I want to associate myself with the appreciation expressed by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark for the joint declaration—the first in 20 years—made by the South African Confederation of Labour and Tucsa a few days ago. Together, these two organizations represent more than 500 000 workers in South Africa. Their appeal that wage demands be tempered with great responsibility, is in the interests of South Africa. It is this sort of action which re-emphasizes the stuff South Africa’s workers are made of and the patriotism that inspires them. The commercial and industrial sectors should also take cognizance of the warning sounded by these two gentlemen, viz. that they should display the same measure of good faith in relation to prices and profits.

Thirdly, we are striving to make and maintain our labour arrangements in such a way that White and non-White workers will make their labour contributions in harmony. Different standards of living and different attitudes towards life exist. I should be pleased if the hon. member for Hillbrow would once again take note of this. The fact that the Government respects those attitudes towards life of our Whites and non-White workers is the key to our success as far as labour is concerned. Social security and the absence of fear that one’s job will be taken over by someone with a standard of living unequal to one’s own, someone who would, for that reason, probably bargain on the basis of a lower wage than one’s own, ensure industrial peace, and hence productivity as well.

I refuse to accept that such a policy is unjustified discrimination in favour of the White man because it is the duty of the State to protect its people in the industry in which they are employed. The White man is fully entitled to demand this of the Government. In the same way, we afford the Black worker the same protection in his homeland and we do the same thing in the case of the Coloured in certain industries in the Cape. If one has to single out the most important reason for industrial peace in South Africa, it is labour and social security. This is effected by means of job reservation.

A fourth necessity for industrial peace is adequate provision of the best training facilities and capacity available. In this regard, there must be the greatest co-operation among the State, the employer and the employee. Not only pre-service training, but also first-rate in-service training, is of cardinal importance. We have seen how many schemes for in-service training have been established in the short space of time since 1976. I think more than 77 000 people have undergone in-service training in the private and public sectors since 1976.

I want to refer to a fifth aspiration. This has also been dealt with by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. There should be every opportunity for communication between employer and employee. There should also be opportunities to discuss each other’s problems. We have heard figures and it is important to note that liaison committees were involved in only 24 of the 105 strikes in which Bantu workers were involved in 1976, whilst works committees were involved in only two of them. If one takes note of how well works committees are doing in Germany, Japan and in other European countries, and how works committees are instrumental in bringing about industrial peace and harmony in our country to an increasing extent, then I wonder whether the time has not come to do more than simply encourage employers to establish liaison committees or works committees.

It is a praiseworthy achievement to be able to note in the report of the Department of Labour that 1 162 employers with a combined Bantu labour force of 554 000 people were visited by Bantu labour officials during 1975. In my opinion, the workers are to an increasing extent becoming aware of the futility of striking or taking action out of sympathy with other employees, whilst perfect harmony prevails in their specific occupational milieu.

A final aspiration relating to industrial peace in South Africa is that the labourer must be able to do his work in healthy working conditions. The report of the Commission of Inquiry on Occupational Health has just been made available to us. I realize that the commission recommended that the overall control of occupational health be entrusted to the Department of Health, but I am nevertheless looking forward with interest to the hon. the Minister’s comments in this regard. It is upsetting to learn from the report that industrialists spend precious little in the form of money, time and organization on the prevention of occupational diseases in the Republic and in the territory of South West Africa. I should just like to quote a few sections on the commission’s report which are most upsetting. They say inter alia the following—

A further finding of the commission is as follows—

In my opinion, this is a field which may be worked very advantageously and very productively. If we take note of the praiseworthy work being done in the mines to enable miners to work in conditions which are most conducive to good health, then it is pleasing to see that urgent attention is also about to be given to the health of workers outside the mining sector.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan has referred to what could be termed as a recipe for industrial peace in South Africa. I have no quarrel whatsoever with his objectives, because I believe that industrial peace has perhaps never been so important as it is today. I am, however, not sure that I go along entirely with some of the recipes which he offered and I shall return to this matter in a moment. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark also dealt with the critical elements within labour legislation and I shall come back to them in the course of my speech.

Both the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark and Brakpan referred to the growth in liaison committees and works committees and both suggested that these should not be restricted merely to Black workers, but that they should be incorporated as a whole in our labour legislation. I agree with that because I believe it is very important. When one compares the situation with that in Germany I want to point out that works committees which operate in Germany operate against the background of a trade union system throughout the country. They do not operate in place of it, but alongside it. So I think these two could well be operated together in South Africa as well for all workers.

I want to return to a theme which I introduced in the no-confidence and in the budget debate, namely to highlight the growing unemployment problem in South Africa and to stress again the importance of urgent action at Government level to counter what I described earlier as public enemy No. 1. I said then—

It is interesting to see that only two days ago the president of the Railway Artisan Staff Association made the same point when he said that “unemployment was a greater danger to South Africa than terrorists on the border”. He went on to say that large numbers of workless Blacks were a fertile ground for communism and urged the Government to make the finding of a solution to unemployment its No. 1 priority. Over the last few months I have suggested a couple of ways in which something could be done to stem unemployment. I drew attention, particularly for the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance and of the hon. the Minister of Labour, to three partial solutions to this massive problem, because I think all of us must acknowledge that one simply cannot cure this problem overnight. I suggested that the Government should look seriously and actively at a selective stimulation of the economy, that there should be an implementation of the emergency measures which are at the disposal of this particular hon. Minister and of the State, and the introduction of emergency food distribution programmes for those who are in dire straits.

I have been asking the hon. the Minister consistently during this session whether the Unemployment Insurance Board has made any recommendations to him in terms of section 13(a)(ii) or section 46(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act and whether he intended to act on such recommendations. As consistently I have been told by the hon. the Minister that no recommendations have been forthcoming. I find it very difficult to understand, against the background of growing unemployment, why this particular group of people who are charged in part with this responsibility, should not be busy making recommendations to the hon. the Minister. It may be that he will announce in the course of this debate that recommendations have been made or that some programme of study is taking place. Month succeeds month and we hear nothing in terms of concrete proposals to meet the unemployment situation. So I hope the hon. the Minister will make some specific response this time. The very fact that there has been no response, leads me to say again that I believe the time is overdue for the appointment of an employment opportunities commission. No matter how many speeches are made in and outside this House and no matter how many recommendations are made, I believe it is only when people come together, people who have been specifically appointed to look at this, that one is going to have the benefit and wisdom of industry, commerce, trade unions, academics, government, and, who knows, even of the Opposition, coming together on a commission in order to try to make specific recommendations so that South Africa can move out of this ever increasing cycle of unemployment. I believe that one of the first things this Government, the hon. Minister of Labour in particular, should do, is to change its policy of having one specific approach to industry in the rural areas and another in the urban areas. In the rural areas the emphasis is on labour intensive industrial development, while in the urban areas it is just the reverse, viz. capital intensive investment. I believe that we should now move away from that and should stimulate labour intensive industrial development throughout the country.

Don’t you believe in decentralization?

The hon. the Deputy Minister misunderstands me. I am not saying for a moment that we must not decentralize. It is absolutely crucial that we should. What I am saying is that we ought not to stress capital intensive development in the urban areas where the major part of development is taking place, and labour intensive in other areas where not so great a development is taking place at this time. There should certainly be industrial development.

So you believe in decentralization?

Absolutely, as I indicated in a speech in this House just recently. It is also possible—and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would keep this in mind—to come to some arrangement between employers and the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner for employees to be kept on part-time, rather than to be dismissed altogether. There may be major problems to be overcome in this regard, and a certain amount of trust will have to be involved as regards the employers concerned. I spoke to an employer just the other day. Because of the recession, he is having considerable trouble in keeping on his entire staff. He told me that it would be a very good idea if he could say to his men, instead of telling them that they are fired, that they can work two or three days a week. But if he does that, they are not eligible for unemployment insurance. I would urge the hon. the Minister therefore to regard this as one possibility. Nevertheless I want to come back to what I have already asked, i.e. to consider the establishment of an employment opportunity commission representative of the various groups, management and labour naturally being paramount.

It is not only the present depression which has increased unemployment rapidly. I believe the present system of labour legislation is in part responsible for our problems. I believe this legislation is confusing, discriminatory, inhibiting and, in the present situation, even dangerous. We have one pattern of legislation for White, Coloured and Indian workers, and another pattern for Black workers. This despite the fact that over 70% of our labour force is Black. Because of these two systems, I believe the dice is loaded against Black workers. Reference was made earlier by, I believe, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, to Prof. Nic Wiehahn. I was very glad to hear that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark regards Prof. Wiehahn as an absolute authority, not only in this country, but in the international sphere as well. I believe he has been appointed as an adviser to the hon. the Minister of Labour. In an article he states—

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Sir, I rise merely to offer the hon. member an opportunity to finish his speech.

I am most grateful to the hon. Whip for this opportunity. I assume that Prof. Wiehahn will give that kind of advice to the hon. the Minister. He goes on to say, and I am sure that he is absolutely right when he says—

And then he goes on to say—

I believe that to be an outstanding statement to come from one who is now the right-hand man, an adviser, to the hon. the Minister. I believe that the only way to move towards the rights of democratic labour, is to amend the maze of detailed legal and administrative complexities which often reflects this Government’s obsession with racial privilege, thereby inhibiting the development of our full labour potential. In short, the very fact that race discrimination has been enshrined in our legislation means that if we are to move away from race discrimination there must be significant changes in present legislation. We have heard continually throughout this session of the Government’s obligation to fulfil its promise to move away from race discrimination. We have applauded every single move that has been made in that direction. What has been notable is that there has hardly been any piece of legislation which specifically said to the world and to this country: “We are moving away.”

Race discrimination is enshrined in many of our laws. Let me refer to a few. If we are going to have democratic labour rights, we have to take another look at influx control and pass laws. The law governing this practice is the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. Through this legislation labour mobility is inexorably tied to residential rights. The procedures are made manageable by means of so-called pass laws. There has to be a change in this particular practice if we are to bring about any unified rather than dualistic rights.

Secondly, there is the question of migrant labour. This is another area in which change will simply have to be brought about. Every one of the African workers employed in industrial centres falls under section 10(1)(d) of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act already referred to. Together with the recruits of officially licensed employers’ agencies, these workers constitute the migrant labour force. In 1968 a Government spokesman in this House indicated the Government’s policy when he said—

That is what the hon. Mr. Froneman said in February 1968. Anyone who has worked with migrant labourers knows that this is not only morally indefensible, but that it is also economically wasteful. Whilst, again, one understands full well that, if it concerns a system which has been in operation since the last century, one simply cannot change the course of history overnight, or even over months or perhaps even over years. However, this Government has in its power the ability to change the direction. That is what I am pleading for when I talk about a moving away, specifically and concretely, in terms of the legislation on the Statute Book.

Thirdly, there is the industrial colour bar. The training of the workers, their rights to negotiate, their conditions of employment—virtually every aspect of commercial and industrial life in South Africa, whether by law or by custom, is racially differentiated. Think for a moment of job reservation. I must say that, with the hon. member for Hillbrow, I fully expected that in the course of this debate—perhaps it will still come—there would be an announcement by the hon. the Minister that, on reflection, he has decided to strike job reservation from our Statute Book. I hope very much that the hon. the Minister will specifically respond to that. Since the introduction of the Mines and Works Act, which imposed regulations prohibiting the issuing of blasting certificates to Africans and effectively thereby preventing them from doing much of the skilled work, job reservation has become an established practice. A wider application of this colour bar in employment was effected in 1956 by the addition of a new section to the Industrial Conciliation Act, namely the infamous new section 77 which is defined as a “safeguard against inter-racial competition”. It empowers the Minister of Labour to direct the industrial tribunal to investigate any undertaking, industry, trade or occupation or a class of work and to make a recommendation to him as to where the colour bar should be applied and, if so, in what form. Legalized job reservation has had the more significant effect of reinforcing and extending the customary job reservation. It is significant that the new adviser to the hon. Minister, Prof. Wiehahn, has stated—

I fully agree with him, and I hope the hon. the Minister does as well.

Secondly, there is separation and supervision on the shop floor. Here there are any number of Acts which specifically lays down regulations regarding the separation in factories of persons of different sexes, races or classes in relation to any particular matter. The same thing is virtually true in terms of Shops and Offices Act. The detail to which racial laws extend, is quite staggering. It extends even to which toilets one may use. In this connection the hon. the Minister of the Interior earlier this year welcomed the United States’ six guide-lines to its firms in South Africa. This six-point statement contained guide-lines concerning equal and fair employment for Black workers in South Africa. One of those guide-lines is non-segregation of the races in all its eating, comfort—which means toilet—and work facilities. The hon. the Minister of the Interior said he welcomed these guide-lines and I hope therefore that we shall have an announcement from the hon. the Minister of Labour that he is going to amend certain legislation which makes it impossible to do just that. Although no legislation specifically governs the reservation of supervisory positions, it is quite clear that the Government’s policy is that there should never be a White man who will be under a Black man. A Black man must hold no position of authority over a White. If the hon. the Minister believes that I am being unfair, that I am misinterpreting Government policy, I ask him to be specific and to tell us that as far as the Government is concerned, all promotion in every working place should be in terms of merit rather than race classification.

One could go on and talk about the wage discrimination which takes place, but what I do want to emphasize is that when one takes all these things together, one begins to see the overall effect. When one looks at the overall labour supply and demand, the differential access to basic education and specialized training, the differences in production, the scarcity premium, certain categories and skills in employment, the differences in geographical mobility, in bargaining power, and race discrimination, one sees that it is the combination of all these factors which leads to the enormous gap between White and Black earners.

Finally, I want to say a word about collective bargaining, because the cornerstone of the South African industrial relation system is the Industrial Conciliation Act, which bestows statutory recognition on trade unions. We know well that Africans are explicitly excluded from this and that they are assigned to what may be termed an “institutional vacuum”. Provision is made to an extent for Africans in the form of work and liaison committees, and here we have another amending Bill which we shall still be discussing.

Only yesterday, Mr. Arthur Grobbelaar of Tucsa, warned in the following words—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Labour affords the various political parties in this House an opportunity of comparing policies. It is important that this should be so, because the greater proportion of the population of this country is affected in some way by this department and its actions. That is why when one compares policies, one has to expect that this will be an opportunity for a political party to explain its standpoint to the people of this country and to do so in such a way that on the one hand, there will be no casting of suspicion on the position in which those people are being placed, and on the other hand, no expectations will be created amongst those people who are involved in the matter concerned. That is why everyone has once again looked forward to this discussion and why everyone was probably justified in expecting that the two parties that have already participated in this discussion would make use of this opportunity to spell out once again to the electorate of the country what their attitudes and policies were in respect of the labour situation in South Africa, particularly after the pronouncement made by the voters in Westdene yesterday. However, we did not get that sort of constructive contribution today. We got the usual reproaches, accusations and criticism—which we are used to by now—which really have very little substance to them, and they offered no alternative to the policy of the NP which was once again confirmed by the voters of South Africa yesterday. Instead of talking politics, the hon. member for Hillbrow delivered his professorial inaugural speech in this House this afternoon. One can only hope and trust that when the day arrives for him to make his professorial inaugural speech, he will not talk politics.

I shall invite you to come and listen!

I want to assure the hon. member in advance that I should be pleased to accept his invitation. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to react to certain aspects of the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow. I should prefer to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands.

The hon. member for Pinelands raised a whole series of complaints and problems. One of the complaints he made concerned increasing unemployment, something which is the order of the day in South Africa at the moment.

Why are you not worried about that too?

Mr. Chairman, as far as the Government is concerned, there is, obviously, always cause for concern when people cannot find employment, whenever people are unemployed.

[Inaudible.]

Of course it is true. It is my conviction, however, that if ever there was a sympathetic Government, one that was prepared to look after people’s interests, including those of the unemployed, then it is the NP Government. There need be no doubt about that. A matter which gives me cause for concern, however, is the fact that the hon. member for Pinelands tried to create the impression here today that the question of unemployment had suddenly assumed tremendous proportions and that the situation was becoming critical. Surely that is not true. When one takes cognizance of the actual number of registered unemployed, it becomes clear that this is not so; on the contrary, it makes one realize that under the present economic conditions, we really ought to be very grateful that the situation is still as healthy as the aforementioned figures reflect.

To begin with, I want to confine myself to the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians who were registered as unemployed as at 28 February of this year. According to the available figures, there were 4 755 registered unemployed White men and boys on that date, as against 5 292 registered unemployed White women of all ages. So this amounts to a total number of 10 047. As far as the Coloureds were concerned, there were 11 576 registered unemployed as at 28 February. The total number of registered unemployed Asians on the same date was 3 893. The grand total of the three groups, therefore, amounts to 25 516. This represents only 1,2% of South Africa’s total labour force. As far as I am concerned, this aspect really ought to make us very grateful.

If we make a further analysis of the figures and of the present situation, we find that the existing bottlenecks in relation to unemployment are limited to the general engineering industry, in which the unemployment figure is 570 at the moment; the motor engineering industry, in which there are 182 unemployed; the building industry with an unemployment figure of 2 659. The combined unemployment figure in the other industries is 558 at the moment. When one takes cognizance of these things, one discovers where the bottlenecks are. One also realizes, however, that there is a reason for this state of affairs.

If we look at the position regarding the Black workers, however, we find that on 31 December 1976—this is the latest figure I have—there was a total registered unemployment figure of 102 000. If there are still more unemployed people, they are people who have not reported to the labour bureaux which have been specially established for that purpose. If this is the case, one must also ask why this has happened. What does the hon. member for Pinelands do, however? All he does is make a big fuss about the alarming conditions that are supposed to be prevailing. At one stage, the hon. member for Hillbrow said that 1 000 new employment opportunities had to be created every day in order to make provision for the increase in the country’s labour force. That sort of talk will get us nowhere.

I want to draw the attention of this House to another matter. Industrialists tell me that because of the insistence on higher wages in past years, they have been compelled to take other measures to limit their labour complement to an absolute minimum. If, in future, we want to have a healthy situation in this respect, active attention will have to be devoted to this matter so that there will not be an unjustified insistence on higher wages.

The hon. member spoke of a “job opportunity committee” which could investigate those matters, etc. That sounds like a very fine proposal but what contribution would it make? He suggested that there should be more labour-intensive development in the urban complexes. What about the complications related to this? What about housing, travelling facilities and so on? What would we gain by it? The hon. member is creating expectations amongst the people and they want their expectations to be realized. It is very irresponsible to continue in that vein.

The yardstick to be applied for success in this regard is whether the Government of the day is able to maintain and perpetuate industrial peace in this country. The NP is, in fact, doing this because we take account of the fact that South Africa is a multinational country with a multinational labour force. Within this framework, the Government ensures that every group of workers has the opportunity of organizing itself so as to enable it to be in a bargaining position. I do not have the time to go into this but it is certainly true. The workers can organize themselves to negotiate better living conditions. Secondly, every worker in the country can lay claim to the fact that he has the right to ask for protection from the Government of the day, and this holds good for his labour situation as well. In this respect, too, the NP Government is his guarantee, irrespective of whether he is White or non-White. The worker also has the right to ask that he be trained. The record of the NP Government is above all suspicion in this respect as well. Every worker in South Africa has that right.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react to the speech made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, nor do I want to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands, except for making a few indirect references to it a little later on. When I listen to the hon. members opposite and to the pessimistic and alarmist spirit radiating from their speeches, it reminds me strongly of the story I heard about the old fellow who had such a difficult day whilst away from home on business. When he returned home in the evening, his wife nagged continually because the children had been uncontrollable and the servants had not done their work. She vexed him even more. He did not say a word but that evening during the family prayers, after he had read from the Bible, he prayed as follows: “Lord, difficult, difficult. Amen.” The hon. members opposite have that type of attitude. They merely say “difficult, difficult. Amen”. They find everything difficult and insurmountable.

There is no doubt that we are living in difficult times; we are living in times in which the erosion of the value of our money, due to inflation, is allowing one to buy progressively less for a rand. This holds true particularly for the worker whose wages have temporarily been frozen as a result of the anti-inflation programme—we are grateful that they are prepared to take a hand in this programme from time to time. This makes it difficult for them to maintain the standard of living they have become accustomed to down the years. We accept the fact that the standard of living of the worker in South Africa is dropping. Perhaps this is a good thing because South Africa has maintained one of the highest standards of living in the world, one which might have been unhealthily high for a sound and flourishing economy. We want to thank the workers for the patience and willingness they have displayed in making sacrifices at this particular time. The lower income group is actually the one that is being really badly hit by these circumstances. These are the people who have always struggled to keep body and soul together.

Despite that, we note in the latest report of the Department of Labour that there has been a dramatic decrease in labour unrest or loss of work shifts as a result of strikes and labour unrest. I just want to mention a few figures. In 1973, 229 136 shifts were lost. In 1974, 98 395 shifts were lost, which meant a reduction by more than half. In 1975 there was a dramatic reduction in that only 18 559 shifts were lost in the course of the year as a result of strikes and labour unrest.

In their actions, the workers of South Africa furnish me with indisputable proof of two things. Firstly, they are proving that they are satisfied with this department and the way the Minister is handling their affairs. It also shows that they are satisfied with the machinery that has been established for them to negotiate wages and working conditions in general in factories and elsewhere. Secondly, it also proves that the workers in South Africa are undoubtedly very loyal to South Africa and that as a result of their loyalty to South Africa, they are not parties to labour unrest under the deteriorating conditions we are experiencing today. They deserve—this is my considered opinion—the gratitude and appreciation of this department, the Minister and the Government. That is exactly what they are getting.

Earlier on this session, the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill was introduced and this brought about a completely revolutionary change. This is what is at issue—the hon. member for Pinelands discussed it as well—namely, unemployment and the security which the worker must receive in these times of unemployment. As I have said, a completely revolutionary improvement has been made to the old Unemployment Insurance Act, primarily as a result of the way in which contributions used to be made to the fund. Whereas in the past there were 14 categories of workers who had to contribute different amounts to the fund, this has now been changed so that the worker contributes 0,5% and the employer 0,3% of the worker’s wage to the fund. All the red tape and administrative troubles of the past have largely been eliminated in this way. I find it strange that no-one else has thought of a system like this before.

However, what is more important than the fact that all the red tape has been eliminated and that all the machinery has been improved and made more streamlined, is the fact that the benefits the workers will receive have been improved to a very large extent by this amendment to the Act. The Act now provides that an amount equal to 45% of a worker’s salary is payable to him in the form of unemployment insurance benefits. Once again, I shall give a few examples. In the past, a worker who earned R3 600, received R88 in unemployment insurance under the old dispensation. Under the new dispensation he now receives R135, a vast improvement. A worker who earned R6 000, also received only R88 in unemployment insurance under the old dispensation. At present he receives the princely sum of R225. Unfortunately, there is that small group of workers who receive less per week, but the difference can be calculated in cents. Since these people constitute only 0,6% of the entire labour force, one may actually ignore this, although it is a distressing issue.

If one has regard to the fact that 99 000 employers and approximately 3 million employees contribute to this fund, one realizes how comprehensive this fund has become and how much security and assurance it gives to nearly all those people in South Africa who are economically active. There are few exceptions to this rule. But then there are the prophets of doom and their voices who pray “difficult, difficult” and who predict that the fund will be exhausted within the foreseeable future.

I now want to give this House the true facts of the matter. What are the facts of the matter? At the moment, the fund stands at R208 million. Benefits amounting to R10 million were paid out to 94 000 people during 1976. During 1975, an amount of R6,3 million was paid out to 62 000 people. If maternity, sick and other benefits that are also covered by the fund are taken into account, then an aggregate amount of R23 million was paid out during 1975, and an aggregate amount of R29 million in 1976.

According to estimates, R38 million will be added to the fund by means of new funds during 1977-’78—in other words, this year. This is, in other words, a profit of R9 million over the amount paid out during the past year. It is estimated that during the year 1978-’79, an amount of R44 million will accrue to the fund, and this would mean a further increase of R6 million. We conclude, therefore, that the fund will grow even more and become even stronger. In truth, one could say that the National Party Government and its Department of Labour are looking after the worker and his security in this way and that they are doing so to an increasing extent.

Increased productivity is generally recognized as the only real method of curbing inflation. Now one could argue about who is to be responsible for increasing productivity. I want to concede at once that the industrial leader should certainly take the lion’s share in this regard. However, I also want to warn against the dangerous illusion apparent in the remark of some workers—as became apparent in a recent television interview—that the industrial leaders alone are responsible for increasing productivity. Only a healthy interaction between management and worker can really contribute to a healthy increase in the productivity which will eventually place our economy on a very sound basis. Once again I want to make an appeal to the workers to give definite attention to this particular factor.

Mr. Chairman, every one of the previous speakers has, to a greater or lesser extent, referred to the unemployment situation in South Africa. I am sorry that some of the hon. members dealt with the matter a little superficially. Unemployment is, to all intents and purposes, a new phenomenon in South Africa as it did not exist for many years, definitely not amongst the White workers in South Africa. Unemployment is something which leaves its mark on a man. To be unemployed is a serious matter and a cause for very grave concern in this House. I really hope the hon. the Minister will not allow himself to be misled or led astray by the superficial manner in which some hon. members of this House have referred to unemployment. We have already referred to it on previous occasions and we shall continue to urge the hon. the Minister to keep his finger on the pulse, although we are perfectly aware of the fact that it is not he alone who is responsible for the whole matter. There is another department involved in the matter, but we want to tell him nevertheless that since he is the Minister in charge of the Labour portfolio, we shall expect him to keep a watchful eye on the matter so as to see what can be done for the unemployed in South Africa.

A new sound was heard from the Government benches today. They used the same words, but a new tune. They sang “Bobbe-jaan klim die berg” to the tune of “Sarie Marais”. This is a good thing. It indicates that whereas in the past we conducted fruitless debates at times in this House on matters concerning labour, there is nevertheless a deep realization amongst all hon. members that in this regard we are dealing with an enormous problem, one which lies at the root of our progress and our prosperity in South Africa. Contrary to what the hon. member for Sasolburg thinks, I am no pessimist. I believe that we in South Africa have been blessed with tremendous assets, and that our human assets make up one of the most outstanding of these. We must also be careful, however, not to squander our assets, and in particular we dare not … [Interjections.]

†Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that some of my friends on this side are not too well acquainted with the Afrikaans language.

*We in South Africa must be careful not to squander our human assets. We have a tremendous potential and the question with which we ought to occupy ourselves is: To what extent are we developing our human potential, particularly within the framework of the labour laws over which the hon. the Minister has control?

The question that keeps recurring to me is whether or not the time has arrived for us to take a long, hard look at South Africa’s labour laws in an attempt to determine whether we are developing the potential of our workers in South Africa to the full by means of the labour legislation. Many years have passed without a really penetrating investigation having been conducted into the matter. In fact, I think it was as long ago as 1948 that a commission last considered the matter. I want to support the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark because this afternoon, he asked that a commission of inquiry be appointed to investigate labour legislation. The hon. member for Springs wanted to grill this House into believing that everything was rosy in the labour garden. However, the very fact that an hon. member on his side calls for the appointment of a commission, indicates that there is a certain amount of concern about the matter. It is a good thing to have a penetrating investigation into the matter. Looking at the matters that have to be investigated, I want to place the highest priority on the laws concerning the regulation of Bantu labour in South Africa. Do hon. members know what is happening in South Africa? We in South Africa are in the process of building up two systems of labour organization. Under the system of labour regulation, there is the decentralized form in which bargaining takes place …

There is nothing wrong with that.

The hon. member must not be so critical because I am merely stating the facts relating to labour. One has to do with the decentralized form of labour organization as embodied in the Bantu labour legislation of South Africa. The Bantu steps forward and asks why he has to be satisfied with that. He asks why he cannot join the trade union movement which serves the rest of the people. Immediately, therefore, one has conflict and confrontation. On the other hand, the White man is cautious and wonders whether the Black man is able to use the sophisticated Western system properly. We know how the system is being misused in the rest of the world. One is faced immediately with a confrontation in this regard. On the other hand, we have our industrial conciliation legislation and this is the foundation of the labour legislation in South Africa. This is legislation that establishes not decentralized labour organizations, but centralized labour organizations. It is the antipode of decentralization. I think a thorough investigation should be conducted in this regard as well, so as to avoid a conflict as regards these two directions. If possible, there should be reconciliation. I shall not condemn either of the systems, but I am convinced that if we proceed with these two systems in South Africa, then as sure as I am standing here, there will be conflict on the road ahead. These conflicts will occur at the expense of industrial peace that lies at the root of South Africa’s economic prosperity.

I want to mention yet another matter which has to be investigated as a high priority and that is the co-ordination of Bantu training in South Africa. It has already been pointed out that the training of the Black man is a matter of the utmost importance to him and to us. This takes place under the auspices of the Department of Labour, on the one hand, and the Department of Bantu Education on the other, but then there is also the Department of National Education. I have already mentioned three departments that are involved in this matter and in addition to these the Department of Mines is another that is involved. Surely this is not a healthy situation. One does not want to be critical of the matter, but in the interests of South Africa, it is vital that there be adequate co-ordination as far as labour training is concerned.

We are also acquainted with the question of job reservation. Many fiery debates have been conducted on this matter and I could quite easily vent my spleen once again, if I may use that expression. However, we are dealing here with a deep-rooted question in the field of labour and it is a sensitive matter. I might also mention the question of the influx of labour into South Africa. Then there is the question of equal pay for equal work and in that regard the productivity factor is often overlooked. We simply want to pay without giving a thought to the fact that people have to produce. I could continue in this way, Mr. Chairman, pointing out all the problems that are deeply rooted in South Africa’s labour set-up. That is why I should like to make a strong appeal to the hon. the Minister not to ignore the request that was addressed to him by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, but to go out of his way to appoint a commission as soon as possible, one which is representative of all the facets of our national economy, and to which, hopefully, he will be able to appoint South Africa’s people of colour. This is a matter which, in my opinion, is close to the very best interests of our country and I want to associate myself very strongly with the request made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark.

Mr. Chairman, actually I have no fault to find with the speech of the hon. member for Maitland. He expressed a few stimulating, interesting ideas to which I believe the hon. the Minister will reply. However, I want to associate myself with him in what he said about unemployment prevailing in South Africa today. I want to assure the hon. member for Maitland that this Government, too, is of course concerned. This goes without saying. In this regard I also want to associate myself with the hon. member for Pinelands who said, inter alia, “unemployment is public enemy number one”. I differ from the hon. member for Pinelands in one regard only and that is that I think that “public enemy number one” is the PRP.

When we deal with the matter of unemployment in South Africa, it is important that we dwell for a moment on the history of why we are in the situation in which we find ourselves today. What are the reasons for this? As you know, Sir, the Republic of South Africa experienced sustained economic prosperity over a long period and especially so over the past decade. I could digress on this for a long time. I believe that we in South Africa were particularly fortunate to have enjoyed such economic prosperity. It was economic prosperity which I believe many other countries in the world envied us. The economic development cycle of the Republic showed such a strong upward trend that growing streams of foreign and domestic investments and loan capital flowed into the country. The dividends earned by investment capital were of the highest in the free world and could not be compared with those in the rest of Africa in any way. We also had the situation that this favourable capital position derived further benefit from an ever-increasing export figure.

What was the result of the economic boom which we enjoyed in South Africa over the past decade? Firstly, it generated an unusually high growth rate, and it involved the skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled labour forces—the entire labour force in South Africa. Such economic development, such a growth rate, such a high dividend yield in comparison with that of other countries, such a stable political structure as the one which we have in South Africa—i.e. where we have a situation that one party has been governing South Africa for almost 30 years—naturally means that the rest of the world must obviously have confidence in South Africa. Consequently one has the other problems which accompany that. This is that we have a situation in South Africa today—and I emphasize this—that we have thousands of illegal labourers here in the Republic of South Africa. I repeat: I say there are thousands of illegal people in the Republic due to the fact that they come here for the possibilities which exist here. Authoritative sources inform me that there are between 750 000 and 1 000 000 people who are here illegally.

Where do they come from?

I am coming to that. Thousands of immigrants, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled, have entered the country illegally or under false pretences. I want to emphasize that we shall have to take a careful look at the number of illegal labourers in South Africa. Since we have some unemployment in South Africa today—it has not got out of hand as the hon. member for Pinelands wants to make out—we shall by and large have to take firm action in respect of those people. We shall have to correlate our immigration regulations and requirements and concentrate on highly skilled workers. We shall have to give this serious consideration. We must exercise control in this regard. We shall have to conduct a thorough investigation into the influx of illegal workers into our country.

I want to refer to some of these illegal people by name. There are, for example, the people attached to the so-called Portuguese Market Gardens. I want to put it very clearly that I realize that there are good Portuguese people in South Africa. I also know that there are good Greeks and Italians in South Africa, people who are legal citizens of the country. However, I went into a café this morning and the man who served me could not speak Afrikaans. I can accept this. However, he could not speak English either. Hon. members may say that this matter should be dealt with under another Vote, but I ask myself in the first place whether the people serving in those cafés are citizens of the country. I ask myself whether they are naturalized South Africans. Furthermore I ask myself whether they pay tax in this country. Can they be called up for military purposes? Are they an asset to our beloved South Africa? I believe the time has arrived when we can no longer tolerate illegal people of this kind in South Africa.

Due to inflation and the economic conditions prevailing in South Africa, it is a recognized fact and understandable that there will be some unemployment in South Africa. On the other hand, if we want to be more positive, we must admit that relatively speaking South Africa is rather fortunate. There are other countries in the world in which the unemployment figure is much higher. In America there are 7 million people who are unemployed. In Britain there are 1,5 million people who do not have jobs. In Black Africa more than 50% of the people are unemployed. In spite of what the hon. member for Pinelands and other hon. members on that side of the House say, the unemployment which is being experienced in South Africa today, is not the NP’s fault. It is an economic occurrence to be found all over the world, and hon. members know this. Fortunately, the unemployment figure in the Republic is lower than in other Western countries. For various reasons it is less disruptive of our economy than it is of the economy of any other country. In the first instance the NP Government has a purposeful training programme for White and non-White workers. In the second instance we have a purposeful immigration policy. The NP has a prudent financial policy, both fiscally and monetarily. Because of the NP’s agricultural policy, there is still room for tens of thousands of people in the agricultural industry. The NP is in close contact with leaders in the field of labour and at the proper time, within the framework of orderly labour negotiation, will be the first, because of its sensible economic and monetary policy, to overcome this economic crisis with its problem of unemployment.

I want to tell hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Pinelands, that they should not think for a single moment that the Government is unaware of the problem with which we in South Africa have to contend. I believe that we in South Africa may be particularly grateful that, in spite of this problem—the problem is not as great as the hon. member for Pinelands wants to make out—we are still in the fortunate position of having employment opportunities for most of our people. As I have said, the unemployment figure in other countries of the world is far higher than in South Africa. I was in England last year—I mentioned the unemployment figure of that country—and people in authority there told me that they expected the unemployment figure in England to exceed 2 million by the end of this year.

In conclusion I want to tell hon. members in view of the fact that there is a real problem here—we concede this—that the NP will see to it that we shall solve this problem too in an orderly fashion to a large extent.

Mr. Chairman, you will also allow me to associate myself with the chairman of this group, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, in bidding the hon. member for Hillbrow farewell. I just want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow, who, unfortunately, is not present at the moment that it was a privilege to me as well to have sat with him in this House for a period of approximately 11½ years. We came here in 1966 and he can take this record with him. I do not know whether such a large number of MPs will ever again come to this hon. House at one time. We want to wish him everything of the best and trust that he will make a resounding success of the new career he has chosen for himself.

Today we are discussing the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Labour. I do not want to react to the remarks made by the hon. member for Welkom, but I, too, want to deal with the idea expressed by him. There is indeed a problem at this stage, a problem which does not exist in South Africa alone, but throughout the world, and that is unemployment. This major world problem must be tackled. We in this country must ask ourselves: What is the best method of tackling this major problem? Firstly, how did this problem arise? A few years ago there was virtually no unemployment throughout the world, but suddenly it increased. We know that the world is caught in the grip of a recession. This tremendous recession—one can call it a “recession” or “depression”—caused powerful countries like the United States of America and Europe to be caught in a stranglehold before this happened to South Africa. Unfortunately, we too have now been caught up in this problem.

Who is affected first when a problem and question such as this arises? Not the highly paid official or worker, but those in the lower income bracket. Unfortunately in this country it is the Black man, the Coloured and the Indian who are in the lower income bracket. I want to concede that there have been tremendous improvements in these income brackets due to the prosperity we enjoyed during the years when our economy was flourishing. Whether we want to admit it or not, this number constitutes a problem today.

Since I was involved in the mining industry and have experience of that industry, I want to break a lance for the mining industry once again today, especially for the way in which it rendered assistance in this situation by finding employment in the mining industry for Black people who had lost their jobs. This month and last month, for the first time in a long period, the mining industry employed a percentage of workers that brought its labour force to 103%. I thank the mining industry for having been able to alleviate this tremendous problem. I want to agree that this position can be alleviated even more because we have to develop our mineral resources at all costs, not only to give people employment, but also to earn money for the country so that we may govern the country on a sound economic basis once again.

I want to agree with what the hon. member for Welkom said: “Waar bloed nie kan loop nie, daar kruip dit.” Or, in English: “Charity begins at home.” We can alleviate this problem even more, especially amongst those in the lower income bracket, by employing them in the mining industry if—perhaps I am sticking my neck out too far—we do without the workers from our unfriendly neighbouring States that never have a good word to say about South Africa, but from where we employ thousands upon thousands of Black people to work in the mining industry. It is high time the Bantu realize, especially those on the gold-fields and in our large cities, that the days of a white collar and jacket are past and that, if necessary, they too will have to find a livelihood in the mining industry. I can say very definitely that the mining industry is one of the industries in the country which offers its workers the best remuneration. It does not matter whether he is a Bantu, a Coloured, an Indian or a White man. The facilities offered to him in the mining industry, are of the best. However, I also want to address an appeal to those people to help us to solve this tremendous problem—one which is in fact a world-wide problem. Everyone in South Africa will have to learn to work harder. I am talking about all sections of our population now. We shall all have to work harder. When someone who does have a job, works hard, he can assist in rapidly improving the economy of his country to such an extent that his unemployed brother will also be able to find a job within the foreseeable future. We must be productive. We must make every endeavour to mine and export our country’s minerals as far as possible. In that way we can develop the economy of South Africa and make a real contribution towards alleviating the pressing world-wide problem of unemployment.

I want to go further and address an appeal to my White colleagues today. As hon. members know, White workers in the mining industry made representations asking for a five-day working week. They advanced arguments to have this, and I believe they had the right to do so. Although they might not be able to benefit greatly from it financially, it would nevertheless benefit them psychologically. However, I want to repeat that we shall all have to work harder. That is why I should also like to address an appeal to the body of mine workers to abandon their representations at this stage as our country cannot afford something like this at this juncture. We need every minute, every hour of the day for production. No matter how difficult it may be for them to abandon that idea, I believe that this call may be made on their loyalty. I believe that they will comply with this request. In these circumstances and in the light of the economic stranglehold in which South Africa is caught, I believe that they, as my comrades, will make every endeavour to help build up South Africa and to ensure that the economy of this country will grow so that employment may eventually be provided to all the unemployed, irrespective of their race or colour, as long as they are here legally.

This is the message which I should like to convey today, not only to the non-Whites, but to all inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa. We must all work harder. Last but not least, if time permits, I just want to point out that a good MP, one who is worth his salt, also works from 15 to 18 hours a day and that this does not kill him. If he is a good MP, every member of the House of Assembly, irrespective of whether he is in the Government or Opposition benches, has to work an average of 15 to 16 hours a day. I appeal to my colleagues. I am not asking them to work 16 hours a day, but they must work hard for the eight hours that they do work, because the night approaches and then it is the time to rest.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. members who have participated in the debate so far very sincerely for their contributions. I think that the course of the debate so far has been very pleasant and has also been constructive. The debate was introduced by my friend the hon. member for Hillbrow. He availed himself of the privilege of the half hour. I am pleased that he did so, because it is probably the last half hour of which he will avail himself in a labour debate. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark thanked this hon. member, not only for his contribution today, but also for his contribution in the past. The hon. member remarked that the hon. member for Hillbrow, during the time he had been in the House, had made a good contribution. Since I have been Minister of Labour, the hon. member behaved very courteously towards me, and I want to thank him for that. In those cases, too, where we debated matters with one another, the hon. member did so very courteously. When the hon. member stood there speaking, I saw a professor in front of his class. I am saying this in a light vein. I want to express the hope that he will add further, both in scope and depth to the lecture he commenced today. The hon. member said that labour was the responsibility of all of us, and that a great responsibility rests on us in this regard. I want to tell the hon. member that a great responsibility is going to rest on him, too. If a person stands in front of a class to train future labour leaders, he has to be responsible, because it is a very sensitive field. I hope that the course which he is going to adopt is a course which will be in the interests of South Africa, and that the students he will produce will be good students.

I want to convey my appreciation to the hon. member for his reference to the officials of the department and the good services he received from them. I want to associate myself with that. I am very grateful for the good services which the officials of my department are rendering. In recent times in particular it has been very necessary that good service should be rendered. The pressure and the importance of what is happening in this sphere, is increasing. The Secretary for Labour recently asked me to allow him to retire from service for health reasons. After consultation with the Public Service Commission I had to comply with the request, to my deep regret. On this occasion I want to convey my sincere thanks to him. He has served the department for 42 years. A person who has served for such a long period, who has participated in much of the statutory development and who has come such a long way, deserves the thanks of this House and of everyone with whom he was associated. I want to wish him everything of the best. He will probably retire at the end of June. In particular I want to wish him good health, and tell him that if his health improves, I hope that he will allow me to speak to him again in future, because we always need good people.

As far as this Vote is concerned, I want to begin by saying that I agree with the sentiments which were heard in this House today on the very important general labour situation. Quite a number of arguments were advanced, and I shall try at the beginning of my speech, to summarize some of the matters which were raised. Those which remain, I shall then deal with individually.

I want to agree with the sentiment that labour is of cardinal importance. In fact, I want to go further and allege that labour in South Africa has reached a watershed. I believe it is in the interests of South Africa that everyone should realize that the economy of the country will rest on the basis of sound labour relations. It is of such importance that we must realize that everyone who is concerned with labour finds himself in a key position and can make a contribution towards helping to build a fine future for the country, or helping to destroy it. I believe that the steady, balanced, complete and sustained economic development of South Africa and of our labour relations in this country, have become of key importance. Each one of us has a charge in this regard, whether we are closely involved with labour or not. There are four objectives which should be pursued. The first objective which we should pursue is that interpersonal labour relations throughout South Africa should be kept as sound as possible. Secondly, we should strive to achieve communication between people on the individual level, on the level of labour organizations and on the level of the authorities vis-á-vis employers or employees. Thirdly, I believe that good and sympathetic guidance, now and in the future, particularly in a country such as South Africa where the labour question has in fact become so sensitive, is becoming of ever-increasing importance, and ought to be furthered. There is a fourth objective as well. Various sentiments have been expressed here today, sentiments which are being discussed by people throughout the entire country on many occasions. One need only listen to what is being said at the congresses; to the sentiments expressed by people holding responsible positions. We should regard the most general and most important sentiment, viz. the development of the human resources of South Africa, as the fourth cornerstone of success in future.

These are objectives that have to be pursued by the Government, and by everyone.

On the one hand we speak of labour relations, but another side of the matter, which is just as important and which is being discussed today as exhaustively, is unemployment. This aspect of the matter we also have to discuss exhaustively with one another today.

Hon. members have already come forward with concrete proposals today. In this regard I am thinking, in the first place, of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. I want to come to what he and most of the other hon. members said. I was asked whether we had not reached a stage at which we should take a look at our labour legislation. As I have already said, I think we have reached a watershed. I want to say at once that our labour legislation is good legislation. The statement which was made that it was probably the best labour legislation in the world, was correct. Figures were furnished here to indicate how the truth of this statement emerged in terms of strikes or shut-outs in the labour sphere. This can only happen in a country with good labour legislation, particularly in view of the composition of South Africa. But apart from that, we know that it is very good legislation, because we have been able to maintain industrial peace in South Africa by means of this legislation, in the turmoil and development of recent times, in a country which is developing rapidly without having a long history or tradition of industrial relations. However, that is not the only reason; there are also other reasons for our industrial peace.

We must also remember that this legislation is in fact social legislation. One can therefore understand that as the situation develops in the country constant consideration has to be given to this legislation. When what is involved is physical matters, one can make legislation which can remain in force for a hundred years, but in a developing community labour legislation has to be adjusted. That is why I say that it has become necessary for us to take a look at this legislation, precisely because we are moving rapidly and because the rate at which people are being brought into our labour machine, necessitates our making renewed attempts to effect the necessary adjustments. Hon. members must understand very clearly that when I express these sentiments, I do not mean that we should make new legislation and place South Africa on a cross course. If that is going to be the result, we shall rather leave the legislation as it is. Legislation should seek, particularly in these times, to adapt to the prevailing circumstances, and hon. members will have realized that we are already making certain adjustments every year. But at the same time we should also, on the other hand, try to refrain from constantly patching legislation.

I like listening to the hon. member for Pinelands; I listen very critically to him because I have my suspicions. I have appointed Prof. Wiehahn. We know what he is saying, and we know what ideas he has. When he speaks about a position of dualism in our labour legislation, I believe that this is in fact the case. We all agree that a dualism does exist in a certain sense. However, the bee and the spider draw two different things from a flower, and herein lies the difference. The hon. member for Pinelands should not try to draw poison from the flower now. Prof. Wiehahn is trying to draw honey from it.

I quoted his words.

Yes, I know, and we can discuss it further at a later stage. Prof. Wiehahn has no intention, nor is he thinking on these lines either, of forcing South Africa onto a different course. However, we still have a great deal of time at our disposal to discuss this aspect.

At this stage of the debate I want to say that I do not intend discussing the legislation on the Order Paper today already. We could discuss this matter later. It is worthwhile elaborating on that matter a little. For the reasons which I have set out, I have decided to appoint a commission of inquiry with the terms of reference of investigating, evaluating and bringing out a report on the existing industrial legislation, particularly the Industrial Conciliation Act, (No. 28 of 1956) and the Bantu Labour Act, Act No. 48 of 1953, as amended, as well as other related and relevant legislation, with recommendations on the following matters: (a) The adjustment of the existing system of governing labour relations in South Africa with the object of making it provide more effectively for the needs of our changing times; (b) the adjustment, if necessary, of the existing machinery for the formulation and settlement of disputes which changing needs may require; (c) the elimination of bottle-necks and other problems which are at present being experienced within the entire sphere of labour; and (d) the methods and means by which a foundation for the creation and expansion of sound labour relations may be laid for the future of South Africa. The terms of reference of the commission will also include recommendations for the amendment of existing legislation and recommendations for the drafting of new legislation in which the proposals of the commission will be contained. In other words, the commission has been directed to make recommendations, not to make new laws. That is the task of Parliament. I believe that legislation of this nature is legislation which has to be created by those people who have to work with it in practice.

I do not at this early juncture wish to state who will serve on the commission, for there are still one or two people whom I want to consult personally. Consequently it would be discourteous to make the names public at this early stage. However, I can say at this stage that the commission will be under the chairmanship of Prof. Wiehahn. I also intend appointing people from the industrial sector, particularly people dealing with the negotiating machinery and who know how it works in practice. I also intend involving leaders from the world of labour. I intend constituting the commission in such a way that it will embrace the entire spectrum of our labour, i.e. we want to involve all the people in South Africa in it. I shall probably announce the names of the members of the commission soon. At this juncture I have just set out, in brief, the terms of reference and the object of the commission.

Is Prof. Jacobs also going to serve on the commission? [Interjections.]

In view of the terms of reference of the commission hon. members will realize that we are again returning now to the bottlenecks in the situation. As far as work reservation is concerned, I do not wish to give the commission a length term of reference in that regard, but I do nevertheless wish to give hon. members the assurance that the work reservation question is indeed included in the terms of reference of the commission. However, I want us to understand one another very clearly in this regard. At the time, work reservation was introduced for a very good reason. It was introduced because it was necessary. Over the years it has produced good results because its object was to protect the people of South Africa—not only the Whites, but also all the various groups which were traditionally set against one another in a labour context. That was the object of the measure.

But the situation in South Africa has changed since then. Because the situation has, over a period of 20 or 30 years, changed to such an extent as a result of shifts of workers to and from certain areas of employment, we have to reconsider the situation. That is why I have instructed the Industrial Tribunal to investigate the existing position, for unfortunately it has been a very long time since the various sectors and the determinations were last considered. Since the Industrial Tribunal is still engaged in doing this, I cannot say what the outcome will be. If hon. members ask me why I did this, the reply is that I want to be realistic, because it has never been our point of departure, when we have a law, to preserve it in its existing form at all costs in future. But what are the fundamental considerations? What is involved here is a need which exists in South Africa, and also in Europe, America and everywhere else. It is perhaps best demonstrated outside South Africa in the countries of Western Europe, where they have the “gastarbeiters”, and even in America and in Britain. One gets the impression that people who have traditionally been in a specific labour situation for a long time, regardless of their race or colour, should not be removed from it. Families are involved in this, and there are people who have been in this situation for hundreds of years. The sentiment throughout the entire world is that labourers should be afforded protection. This is the element which is also present here in our country. On the one hand I am directing the commission to examine the legislation and on the other hand I am directing the Industrial Tribunal to examine the situation which exists there. Then we should, in a level-headed way, consider what we ought to do in future.

I frequently receive representations from worried Coloured persons who tell me that I should protect them otherwise they are going to lose their work in the Western Cape to Black labour from elsewhere. However, one should look at such representations very carefully. I do not want to commit myself; in fact I cannot commit myself, since I have now appointed a commission. But if one wishes to do something, one should do what is the right thing to do at that moment, and then one is able to maintain one’s course. However this should not be seen as though we were now going to bring about a change of course in South Africa which could mean that we would create labour unrest in this country.

The second very important matter I want to touch upon and which has already been raised on various sides, is the question of unemployment. Recently more has been said about unemployment than about many other subjects. Feelings have been stirred up to fever pitch in South Africa on the question of unemployment. I do not intend furnishing a series of figures to indicate how many people are working and how many are not. This is done too frequently. I would prefer to point out the danger of attaching an incorrect interpretation to figures. This could harm South Africa. It could create an unrealistic image, and that does not do anyone any good. Let me first begin with the figures now. The figure which the department has for White, Coloured and Indian unemployed states that there are 1,3% unemployed, i.e. something in the region of 27 000 workers. This is the number of workers who come to the registration office and who have registered as unemployed. I want to say that one cannot go by that figure because the actual figure could be far more than that. It is therefore completely unrealistic, and we cannot work on that figure. But it is simply the case that many workers do not co-operate, nor do we have the necessary labour discipline in South Africa to ensure that people, in their own interests, go to a place where they can be registered so that one can count them and know how many of them there are. It does not happen here. A lack of labour discipline is responsible for that factor, and I am sorry that this is the case. The Department of Bantu Administration and Development furnishes us with a different figure. The Bantu Affairs Administration Boards of the department give us the figure of 130 000. That is not correct either. There are far more than 130 000. Now, it is dangerous to use these figures and to say that this is how matters stand, for the figures are not correct because not everyone registers. But we should also be very careful of the other extreme, i.e. the figure of the surmisers. I have figures here before me, but do not want to mention them. One surmiser talks of 2 million unemployed. That is an enormous number of people. The real figure is not 2 million either. I can say that as well. What is the premise? What does one do if one wishes to establish what the unemployment figure is, but does not have the number of people? The responsible and scientific premise is that it should be calculated what the population increase is. Then one has to establish how many people are employed, and one should also consider the number of labour-active people who enter the market every year. That is how scientists do it. One should then conclude from these figures how many it ought to be, more or less. If we arrive at such a conclusion, we find that the figure is in the region of 1 200 000 or 1 300 000. I have also received a figure of 1 400 000. This applies to everyone in South Africa; therefore in the homelands as well. But this does not take one very far either, for even in times of over-employment, even when we were experiencing a period of economic boom, a scientific calculation indicated that up to 25% of the Blacks in the homelands who were capable of working, were not working. Surely it would therefore be nonsensical, in the sense in which the world understands unemployment, to say that the people are unemployed, because there is another factor. In the Republic of South Africa there is this factor that the attitude towards labour on the part of so many Black people is still so different that it is difficult to describe them as unemployed. What is an unemployed person? There are many definitions of unemployment. If one asks a jurist what an unemployed person is, he gives one definition and if one asks a labour economist what an unemployed person is, he gives a different definition. Ask a sociologist what an unemployed person is, and he gives yet another definition.

From Keynes, who wrote about these things, all down the line, one finds a whole series of definitions. I think a practical approach which we can use here across the floor of this House is that if a person is able and wants to work and is looking for work, but cannot find it, he is unemployed. That is a simple definition: People who are looking for work, but who cannot find it. But when one begins to apply that definition, one begins to come up against quite a number of factors, because there are a great many people who are underemployed. They are to be found in their tens of thousands, in their hundreds of thousands in the homelands, those people who go out to work at harvest time and who are not subjected to strict labour discipline—those are the underemployed. In addition a great deal is being written about a different type of unemployed person who is allegedly present in the Peninsula and who does not want to work. All of us know that there are a large number of unemployed persons in the Peninsula who are voluntarily unemployed. It is of no use our becoming emotional about it. Recently an attempt was made to find 3 000 people to help us as labourers at Mitchell’s Plain. Hon. members probably read about this in the newspaper. One particular morning a hundred persons had to be found and 82 Coloureds were available at the registration offices, and when they saw the bus which was to convey them to the work site quite a number of them left. After the rest had boarded the bus, a number of them alighted again. At the first stop street, still more of them left, and when they alighted at the work site, a few others left. The next morning there were only 14 left. In other words, there are a large number of people who do not want to work. Therefore one has the underemployed and then of course those who are voluntarily unemployed. Having said all these things, I still do not have a figure to give hon. members. I just want to say that we should be careful not to juggle with this kind of figure. However, I do want to admit at once: Firstly, that there is unemployment; secondly, that there is major unemployment, which is something we regret; and, thirdly, that unemployment is probably going to increase. The obligation rests on us to try to counteract unemployment. There is no question therefore that unemployment does not exist.

All I am asking is that, in a country such as South Africa, which has an entirely unique labour set-up, we should not make the mistake of misinterpreting figures which are in fact speculative figures, and I like to confine myself to scientific calculations. It could create the impression abroad that there are tens of thousands, yes, hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa queueing up every day, people in the direst straits because there is no work for them. That is not the case. There is unemployment, but no hardship. It is still a fact that there are sectors, areas and types of work or labour in which there are labour shortages. This applies, inter alia, to agriculture and to forestry. There are certain areas in which the prejudice is so strong that workers do not wish to enter these fields. One has to take all these factors into consideration. I do not in any way wish to try to create the impression that there is no unemployment. In fact, I am extremely concerned about it, and I hope and trust that we shall succeed in future in causing this figure to drop.

Against this background I want to associate myself with those hon. members who said that unemployment in South Africa constitutes a very serious threat.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred to the fact that a break-through in certain respects was made a few days ago—I consider it to be a break-through in certain respects. The private sector, which was on the verge of major wage demands, came forward voluntarily with a statement in which they declared that they would modulate their wage demands considerably. I think that in this regard this House is not only indebted to the Confederation of Labour and Tucsa, but should in fact pay tribute to them. I am not aware of all the wage demands which are going to emerge, but those I am aware of will in aggregate amount to R800 million. In this regard I put forward a number of arguments in my talks. Let me say that I spent many hours discussing matters with organized labour. The fact that we were able to reach an agreement last week, made it possible for the two strongest organizations to come forward jointly and set South Africa this example.

Perhaps it is necessary for me to state here in this House what we had to say to one another. I think it would be a good thing to have it placed on record. If we consider the labour situation we find that we are confronted by an important fact. We are confronted by the fact that the economy has moved into a valley, not only in South Africa, but throughout the world. Throughout the world there are millions of unemployed and in addition bottlenecks such as those which occur in South Africa are being experienced. South Africa, of course, has been very hard hit recently. The position is that if the economy declines and the total production of a commodity diminishes, that product cannot be burdened with wage increases of R800 million without two irreparable and dangerous occurrences taking place.

The first is that if one were to burden a reduced domestic product with that amount, one would price oneself out of the world market. South Africa cannot afford that. This is the first and fundamental occurrence. Before I come to the second point, I just want to point out certain figures. Between 1970 and 1976 the total real production per worker in South Africa showed a 9% increase. In contrast to that increase in production, there was an increase in the wages per worker of 97%. In other words, the production increased to a lesser extent than the wages. If production is over-burdened in this way, steel and other products which are exported will eventually become too expensive. With that South Africa irreparably loses the possibility of participating in an export-orientated economic recovery. Then South Africa irreparably loses its trading partners, for no one in the world is so fond of us that they will continue to buy our products if they are more expensive than those of another country. For this reason alone, something which could have a very serious effect, the employees of South Africa grasped this point. They were sensible enough to grasp it, for a second thing would have happened if they had not done so. The second point is that we would then have the situation in South Africa that the diminished production would have another effect as well, it would give rise to greater unemployment. Factories would have to close down, and certain sectors would simply not be able to remain in operation. In this regard I am referring, inter alia, to the mining sector. The mining sector is the sector which has to bring about the economic growth of the future, but if a number of marginal mines are now created as a result of wages alone, or if other mines have to close down, they will probably have to be closed down permanently. If certain industries cannot get off the ground, the opportunity might perhaps have passed for all time. This is the terrible effect it could have. But there is another effect as well, which is that if there is a smaller production which is trying to stay in the market by sacrificing some of its profits in order to compensate for the increased wages, the product becomes unattractive and no further capital is invested in it. In addition to that the position arises that the Exchequer is not able to obtain its revenue. This would also create an image of South Africa abroad which could place it in a very serious position. These were the arguments which were mentioned to our friends in the labour world. It could, in addition, be said that South Africa at present finds itself in a position where it should become more self-generating as far as capital is concerned. We cannot continue to borrow from the outside world. We must build from within; save from within. But if one in fact saved from within and one has spent one’s savings, then there is nothing more to save, one cannot create any more and one cannot go any further. We could end up in a situation in which, as a result of this, we eventually had to cut down on fundamental items such as defence expenditure, and South Africa will not be able to afford this. It cannot endanger itself as far as its security is concerned. The employee’s organizations have now come forward and considered this matter and have behaved in this extremely responsible way. For that they deserve the thanks and tribute, not only of this House, but also of South Africa.

I want to add that if the workers of South Africa come forward and do this, then I think this country owes it to them to do two things as well. The first is that everyone who is able to do so should restrain the prices in South Africa. If we are not able to restrain prices, we cannot expect wages to be restrained. I, as Minister of Labour, say that as far as this matter is concerned, I am on the side of the employees of this country. While they give their co-operation, all of us should make a contribution from our side as well. We must at all cost restrain prices. If we do not do so, it could be regarded as a breach of faith and we shall not be able to go back to our workers the next time. I think that the country owes the workers a second thing as well, viz. that we should try to return our employees to our factories in a practical way, viz. if the people of South Africa buy South African, those goods have to be manufactured in our factories. The products to the value of hundreds of millions of rands which are being imported, can be manufactured in our own factories. I think that if there is one thing with which we can make a start, it is to say to South Africa: We can beat unemployment by buying South African so that we can set the standing capacity in motion again. “Buy South African so that our people may work”—that should be our motto in future.

I believe that, if everyone responds to this appeal, we shall have no need to resort to all kinds of gimmicks. It would mean that the possibility exists of producing value to the tune of hundreds of millions of rands in our own factories. This is something which need not begin tomorrow. It can begin this very evening, at the nearest café. All of us can participate in it. I therefore put it that there is an answer, and this answer lies in our hands, and in the hands of the country. We can keep the wheels turning.

With that, I think, I have properly elucidated the two most important matters which were discussed this afternoon. In addition, I just want to refer quickly to the other matters which were raised here. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred to the committee system. He said several very important things about it. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark wanted to know whether the committee system could not be applied on all levels. I could point out to the hon. member that this is already being done in practice. But it is in fact one of the reasons why a commission has been appointed. The commission can investigate how this can be done. I am certain that the commission will also give consideration to the recommendations of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark.

I believe that I have already replied adequately to the question of work reservation. I also referred to the legislation which will now have to be examined. The hon. member for Brakpan referred to the congress of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. I can assure the hon. member that I appreciate the discussions which took place at this congress. I also appreciate the six aspects which the hon. member touched upon. I have also made a note here to the effect that the hon. member for Brakpan referred to the poor understanding displayed in the past in regard to health interests in the private industry sector. In this respect the hon. member raised a very important matter. It is true. We are inclined to ignore this kind of thing, apparently because our industrial tradition is so recent. However, it is also true that the mines are taking excellent care of their people. The hon. member will also know that a commission was appointed—the Erasmus Commission—and that the commission made certain recommendations, recommendations in regard to which negotiations are at present being conducted. I therefore think that what the hon. member was concerned about, are matters to which attention is now going to be given. Attention will definitely be given to the recommendations of the Erasmus Commission.

The hon. member for Pinelands elaborated on quite a number of matters. I think that I have already referred to the remarks made by the hon. member on unemployment. The hon. member suggested that we should create labour intensive industries in the urban areas. This is easier said than done. Another hon. member has already replied to him on that aspect. I wonder whether the hon. member knows what it means to establish a labour intensive industry in Johannesburg, for example. There will be an influx of tens of thousands of people. Does the hon. member realize what tremendous costs, capital costs per worker, will accompany that? The figures are known. The hon. member ought to look them up. I think the hon. member would get the fright of his life if the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration were to furnish him with those figures. I think that we should remain realistic about these matters. In any event, what the hon. member for Pine-lands had in mind was a long-term enterprise. It is not something which can be established in one year. As far as its short-term effects are concerned, I have already clarified the matter. The economic adviser to the hon. the Prime Minister—he is also the chairman of the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister—is giving attention to this entire matter in any case. Special know-how in this regard has been co-opted onto the Economic Advisory Council in order to effect consultation in all spheres to establish what course should be followed to cope with unemployment in future. The Government is really concerned about unemployment. I assure the hon. member that the Government is doing everything in its power to alleviate unemployment.

But unemployment cannot be solved overnight. Before the process can get properly under way, a year or two have already passed. Hon. members must also understand very clearly that it is of no avail to attempt to combat unemployment by way of projects in which millions of rands are invested. Anything of this nature could create tremendous problems. It must be borne in mind that, if the combating of unemployment in South Africa were to mean that hundreds of millions of rands have to be risked, our balance of payments will also be affected by it. Therefore this will not be an answer to the problem either.

The hon. member for Springs referred to unemployment, and I want to thank him for his contribution. I have tried to associate myself with what he said, and have therefore replied in part to what he said. I agree with the hon. member for Sasolburg that our workers are responsible people who have an understanding of the problems of the country. Were it not for this, any Minister of Labour would have had problems. Can hon. members imagine a Minister of Labour in a European country talking to the people there, who then issue a statement such as the one we received? It is simply impossible, because the conflict situation has already built up to such an extent that it is no longer possible to overcome it. That is why I say that the developments which are coming should also be determined by the legislation. The legislation has to be adjusted, and we must ensure that in South Africa we never build such a conflict into the relations between employer and employee that they cannot accommodate one another. If that happens, it is all over with us.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Maitland. He spent a long time discussing the commission, and I want to thank him for his contribution. I think the hon. member is satisfied with my reply. The hon. member for Welkom referred to illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are controlled and dealt with by the Department of the Interior and, if necessary, also by the Department of Justice, the Department of Foreign Affairs and many other authorities. In passing I want to say that it is really very strange that one can rise here in a debate in 1970 and say to the Minister of Labour that something should be done because the whole world is streaming into the “hell” which allegedly exists in South Africa. That is the interesting aspect of the matter. I think hon. members who travel frequently abroad should explain what our difficulty is for a change. Our difficulty is to keep people out of this “terrible place”, South Africa. The world should come to this country and see what is happening. People do not want to remain in our neighbouring countries, but are coming to South Africa.

The hon. member for Stilfontein made an appeal to all of us to work harder. I have appreciation for the hon. member’s plea. The hon. member is a former miner; he spoke to the miners. On this occasion I do not want to discuss matters relating to the miners. A commission was appointed, the Franzsen Commission, which prepared a report on this matter. I do not think that this is the occasion to discuss it. I shall perhaps deal with it under the Mines Vote. However, it is a good thing that my hon. friend raised the matter. The fact of the matter is that we in South Africa should look a little further afield. At this stage we cannot begin to speak of less work. We are not going to make it out of the woods with less work. We can only give more by working harder, and I think that if this is the attitude in South Africa, it would make a great contribution. I think the hon. member was quite right in that respect. No one ever suffered any ill effects from hard work. What matters is what happens in a person’s heart. It is not always simply what is stated on paper. What one does is frequently determined by the way one’s heart beats. I hope that our hearts will beat in such a way that we put South Africa first in future.

Mr. Chairman, the intervention of the hon. the Minister announcing the appointment of a commission to examine and evaluate the labour legislation of the country is, I am sure, unquestionably welcomed by all sides of the House. I must say that it is a very timely step on his part. Obviously the matter is becoming very crucial, and it has become important to consider a great deal of the policies of the Government in regard to its approach to labour problems. Furthermore, one notes with interest the facts that the hon. the Minister has acknowledged despite the extraordinary efforts of those members on the Government side who tried to defend the situation, that unemployment is a real and important, and is, in fact, a very serious problem in South Africa. However, to assign it purely to the fact …

I have acknowledged it.

You have acknowledged it. We have noticed with a great deal of interest that you have acknowledged it. This is, however, something which is not entirely due to a recession. It is due to many factors, and for many of them the Government has been responsible in the years gone by. Even a person like Dr. Loots, who is on the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Committee—he is a research officer there—states that at the climax of our economic upswing in 1974 there were some 850 000 to a million—according to his assessment—people in South Africa who were unemployed, the majority of whom were Blacks. This figure applies, of course, in all the areas, the homelands as well as rural and urban areas. I accept what the hon. the Minister says with regard to these forms of assessment by research workers. Because of the lack of provision for it in our legislation, they do not have the best opportunity to correctly assess the proper figures of unemployment. They must necessarily be guilty of some form of speculative evaluation. Nevertheless, I think it must be accepted—as the hon. the Minister has acknowledged—that that situation is a serious, an evergrowing and a difficult one.

I hope that the commission will have an opportunity to examine many other factors which are very important. I think these factors must be taken into account when discussing this particular Vote. I am very pleased to note further that the hon. the Minister has also drawn attention to the fact that job reservation will be considered by the commission. I only hope that the commission will sit soon and that it will complete its work speedily, because this is a factor which is of very great importance in our labour situation today.

On the other hand one must bear in mind that this step has been brought about by the growing protest or expression of opinion contrary to Government policy. This expression of opinion has been increasing in volume over the last few years. We have had it from all organized forms of economic activity in this country. We have had it from chambers of commerce, from chambers of industry, from the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and from every forum where academics have had an opportunity to express their opinions. They have been critical of the situation and have, in fact, been warning the Government for some years of the dangers of leaving these issues unattended and unresolved.

Let me give a simple example of one particular issue raised in the very admirable speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow this afternoon. I quote from an article which appeared in Die Burger of Thursday, 12 May 1977. Dr. Jan Hupkes, assistant managing director of Federale Volksbeleggings said at the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut congress a day or two ago—

Here is an example of an expression of opinion by an important leader in industry in our country. One can go even further and draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the point of view of Dr. Du Toit Viljoen, who is the chairman of the Bantu Investment Corporation. He said that the Black could not identify his aspirations with the economic and political systems in which he lived and that that gave rise to the current unrest. He went on to warn that this was one of the dangers threatening the maintenance of a free enterprise system in South Africa. The involvement of all races was needed in further development. He then went on to suggest the following to help the Blacks achieve greater identification and participation: The progressive removal of discriminatory laws; the improvement of educational and training facilities; movement to more productive spheres of employment and the enhancement of personal mobility; promotion from lower to higher grades of work; job enrichment and a role in determining working conditions; membership of pension and profit-sharing schemes. “The trend should be a move away from the web of administrative controls which impede the Black worker’s mobility and his will to work,” he said. This is an indication of the thinking by the so-called electorate which the hon. member for Springs, I think it was, boasted earlier on as being expressive of the Government’s policy because of a by-election that took place yesterday. Here is evidence of what a man in the important position of chairman of the Bantu Investment Corporation has to say. Other people have stressed similar points of view. This indicates the urgency of dealing not only with the labour laws as they stand, but also with many other aspects which can interfere with a normal attitude towards labour, such as personnel and labour conditions which affect people in the social field and to which the hon. the Minister referred.

Of the other issues which he raised, productivity is a very vital factor. This side of the House has for years dealt with the very aspects to which I have drawn attention. I cannot see how the appointment of a commission of inquiry makes these issues redundant. It is important to realize that steps will still have to be considered by the hon. the Minister to deal with the unemployment situation today, even if it is an ad hoc scheme and even if it is something which will tide us over the next year or so. I do not think that all our labour problems can now be relegated purely to a situation where a commission has been appointed and where we simply sit and wait. Nevertheless, I welcome its appointment particularly in view of the fact that these different points of view and different opinions which have been uttered will now be able to be placed before the commission for consideration. I am sure the commission will be able to publish a record of its proceedings and that it will, at the same time, be able to evaluate what the feeling is amongst those who are associated with industry and commerce. The hon. the Minister is also aware of the fact that the Transvaal Chamber of Industries sent a special memorandum in July of last year to the hon. the Prime Minister, particularly dealing with these very issues, in which they drew attention to some very important factors. In fact, they stressed the need for training non-Whites to enter positions in our economy, positions previously held by Whites, but for which Whites in sufficient numbers are no longer available. They also dealt with the issue that Blacks were genuinely frustrated by the lack of training and particularly by the limitation on levels of training which inhibited their reaching the full potential earning power which they had. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Jeppe that South Africa is a developing and fairly prosperous country. If he asks for control measures to be done away with, I want to tell him straight away that this would lead to chaos, because people from all over would descend upon White South Africa and the White cities. Furthermore, I want to tell him that it is true that we have problems in South Africa. However, I want to add that we must not lose sight of the fact that it is a world phenomenon that the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.

When one listens to the Opposition, it sounds as if the Government alone is responsible for the problems which we have concerning the question of unemployment, the fact that our growth rate is not what it should be, etc. The future of South Africa will depend on one thing only, and that is that the whole economic situation, the labour market and everything which is related to it, must receive the attention of every citizen of this country. A national attempt must be made on a national level, involving all interested parties, in order to overcome this problem. It would be absolutely impossible for a Government to attempt something like this on its own. The Government can take as many measures as it wishes, but it will never be able to solve these problems unless it has the co-operation of the entire nation.

It is true that the Government must do its share and there are various ways in which it can do so. It may create labour sources which are less inflationary. I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister announced this afternoon that he wants to appoint a commission to investigate certain matters. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister announced it before I had a chance to speak, because I had a warning or two up my sleeve.

Since the announcement is still so fresh in our minds, I want to emphasize that we must be very careful with section 77. If we lose all control over the orderly regulation of labour, we will have problems before we know where we are. Job reservation has served its purpose and I am not saying that we should not change it. The Industrial Conciliation Act, especially section 77 of that Act, has been responsible for the fact that we have enjoyed so much labour rest and industrial peace over the years.

This measure does not only protect the Whites, but the Coloureds too. It also protects the Asians and even the Blacks. The Blacks are protected in the sense that people from outside do not stream into the country to be exploited on the labour market and that people who are legally employed are not crowded out. That is why we must be very careful of how we approach the matter. I say that it is not the duty of the State alone. It must also be done on a national level, and then I think of the employers first. The employer must consider his employee a partner in his business. He must consider him a partner in the sense that he must give his employees the opportunity of talking to him, and even to top management, in a sound way. He must be prepared to inform his employees of problems and he must also take note of their needs. The employee must not only be consulted; he must also receive recognition. The employee wants security; he wants certainty; he wants to feel that he is being protected. Good relations constitute a very important part of his happiness. The employer must understand the problems of his employee. He must understand why an employee feels unhappy. The employer will be forced to take a look at transport facilities and must be prepared to make a contribution towards the transport facilities of his employees as well as towards their accommodation. These are things which are very important, in view of the fact that an employee spends one-third of his working life at this place of employment. That employee must be a happy man. His working conditions, his safety, his comfort, welfare, and so on, should enjoy high priority. Better working methods are always being invented, but some thought must also be spared for putting better facilities and equipment at the disposal of these employees. His training must enjoy priority and here the employer must assist him in becoming more proficient and skilful in his work. Then there are certain economic and financial measures. Overheads should be combated as far as is humanly possible. There is also the question of spending essential capital. There is the question of realistic profits. These days we find that people are forever insisting on higher prices. Continual price increases are not healthy for the economy. There must be better production, but a better product as well. Then there must also be the maximum utilization of the available labour.

Now I come to the responsibilities and duties of the worker and to begin with I just want to say that we have a great appreciation for the responsibility with which the trade unions and trade union leaders approach the matter of wage demands. Their attitude towards wage demands is as sensible as can be at this stage, taking into consideration what they can afford. Just as the employer must regard the employee as a partner, so must the employee regard the business which he serves as his vocation in life. He must regard it as his own, as his business too. Only then will the business undertaking make progress. Since we all rode at the crest of a wave of progress during the ’sixties, and are now experiencing a recession, we shall have to work much harder, save much more and lead a more modest life.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with an issue raised by the hon. member for Hercules. He expressed fears with regard to section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. I think it is time that members of this House realized that this particular bogey should once and for all be laid to rest.

I do not want to reiterate what has been said, but it has already been pointed out that no less a person than Prof. Wiehahn, who is after all a man of very high standing not only as adviser to the Minister of Labour but also by virtue of his academic activities and his application to these problems, states quite clearly that the present Government policy of job reservation is a state curtailment of the right to work and to associate and is therefore not in accordance with the basic rights of democratic labour. The point which I think must be brought home is that the White people of South Africa no longer have to fear any possible encroachment on their particular preserve of labour. The hon. the Minister himself last year—hon. members can verify this if they wish—painted a rather glowing picture, saying that there was enough on the drawing-boards to keep the country occupied for many years and to absorb every form of labour possible. At that time he was of course unaware of what the next 12 months held in store for him, and for us. There is room for everyone in the labour field in this country, and there is room at every level. What we are mainly concerned with is the dangerous situation that can arise where there is mass labour which is frustrated because it cannot express itself to the utmost of its skill and ability and which is frustrated in its opportunities of rising to the level it can command by virtue of its ability. Those are the important factors, and that can be a flash-point in labour problems not only here but in any part of the world and in any form of society where labour plays a part.

This is a matter which has been the concern of many industrialists in this country. They realize the time has come for urgent action. I think the applicable figure in the area concerned is now barely 2%, but the very fact that a regulation of that nature appears on our Statute Book is in itself virtually an insult to the normal promotion of labour and the demand of any country for the utmost productivity from labour. I hope the hon. members will realize once and for all that if the hon. the Minister wishes to put an issue like that before a commission, they should let it rest there, because I think that that is its right place and I am sure it will be dealt with accordingly.

I want to draw attention to another fact with regard to unemployment, a fact which I think members should know about. They should also realize that we have in the past, because of our policies, been somewhat responsible for the present state of affairs ourselves. The EDP for the period 1974 to 1979 projected that the employment of Blacks alone in the mining, manufacturing, construction and trade sectors should increase by 173 000 between 1973 and 1975 in order to absorb the oncoming number of labourers and so reduce slightly, as they then said, the existing unemployment amongst them. In fact, employment in these sectors only increased by 25 000. There was therefore a shortfall of 148 000. As the hon. the Minister is aware of that, I am not going to press that point any further.

I should, however, like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to certain conclusions which the Transvaal Chamber of Industry arrived at and which to some extent may also help him in the formulation of his full terms of reference. They recommended that, as a first priority, a central co-ordinating manpower-planning policy must be designed to overcome the present lack of a coherent, flexible, national manpower policy. That is a matter which I think could possibly receive the hon. the Minister’s attention at this stage, well before any commission reports.

Just repeat that.

I shall give the hon. the Minister a copy of this document. The next point that is made in the document is that there must be not only an overall master plan for the future in respect of the removal of existing frustrations amongst the non-Whites, but also a complete policy covering manpower utilization for all groups of our population. Hopefully—and this is the point I made earlier—those Whites who think their livelihood is endangered by Black progress will be made to realize that their fears are groundless, following such logical planning. That, I think, is the point we have to consider. They go further and say that immediate steps must be taken to widen the skills and training aspects of these people, and that the restrictions on them must be removed. The overall usage of Blacks must be improved in order that the necessary full utilization of the available manpower of the country can be achieved, both in the fight against inflation and in meeting the known future needs in the South African economy for the required skilled manpower upon which the economic growth of the country will depend.

So, Sir, we see that from all directions, from all sections of our community, there is an ever-growing volume of dialogue, discussion, suggestions, recommendations and pressure, all aimed, in one concerted effort, at bringing home to the Government the necessity of immediately dealing with this particular problem. Although the commission is important and is going to play a most valuable part in this whole matter, it is essential that we do not delay and that we proceed as speedily as we can in dealing with these various problems.

Furthermore, on the question of wages and other factors, I think the hon. the Minister is aware—I do not want to enter into an economic discussion with him now—that productivity lies at the basis of everything. I think, even now, the department can possibly examine that situation and see if it can bring about a speeding up or a more efficient …

That is why I have given you that important figure of the growth of productivity.

Yes, I realize that, but the question of productivity depends on all the issues I have raised, namely the removal of restrictions, the better mobility of labour, etc. In fact, one of the points of view which has been expressed too by these various South African bodies, who represent the bulk of the commercial and industrial life of this country, is that we restrict labour to the areas of the Bantu Administration Boards. Entrepreneurs are restricted in their choice of persons because of the areas to which people are confined, and they are limited when it comes to filling posts, because of the limitations on these particular board areas. So there are many avenues which can be pursued at this very stage. I realize that this matter has already been referred to, but it cannot be overstressed that unfortunately the whole question of labour, particularly in the field of Black labour, is divided amongst a number of departments. I think it might be helpful to the hon. the Minister if he had an interdepartmental committee which could bring about some co-ordination, at least of reports which deal with the activities in the various fields of education, training, mobility, availability of labour and the opportunities that can be afforded. We find, for instance, that young men who matriculate today are completely frustrated in that they are unable to find jobs in the towns. I have just recently had an experience where I sent a Coloured man who had passed his matric to the labour bureau in Cape Town. Unfortunately, they could not provide him with work, although I am sure they tried to do their best. Of my own accord, I then phoned three employers of labour and I managed to find him employment. I found him employment with one of the big supermarkets in the city.

We have had a buyers’ market for a very short time now.

I persuaded the supermarket to give this man an opportunity to be trained. One other critic, who dealt with this whole question of the Coloured people, to whom I hope some reference will be made later, called them the golden product of South Africa, because there are many thousands of them who are available for work. I quote from a newspaper article—

He is also a professor at the University of Stellenbosch. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what was said concerning the statement issued by the leaders of the S.A. Confederation and of Tucsa. I have here the report on these discussions which appeared in The Citizen. It is a much more detailed report than any other which I have read on the subject. In connection with the statement issued by the leaders, The Citizen reports as follows—

It is true that the leaders have promised their co-operation. I want to express my appreciation for the requests which the hon. the Minister addressed to the leaders in this regard. However, there is a sting in what I have just read. An accusation is made against employers, the people who, together with the authorities, naturally have the power in their hands. Of course it is generally known that the trade union leaders are often accused by employers of being the very people who fan the flames of inflation. They are denounced as incompetent leaders of their people and potential destroyers of our progress.

However, if we take a look at the role played by workers in history, the role played by workers in building up our entire civilization, we find that their role was actually a very large and important one. Historians today actually consider the workers to have been the rubbish heaps upon which civilizations with their imperial kingdoms were built. However, we are faced with circumstances which have a fundamental effect upon the workers, circumstances over which they actually have no control. I am referring now to the tremendous increase in the prices of foodstuffs and materials which are used everywhere in our national economy. The question which I ask is: What has the ordinary working wage-earner to do with inflation in any event? Is the increase in the prices of foodstuffs not far beyond the control of the worker? I want to allege that the role of the worker in this regard is practically negligible.

I have been renting a flat in Three Anchor Bay since 1966. The rent of that flat has doubled in the 11 years since 1966. Another aspect which I should like to refer to is bus fares. In 1966, a bus ticket from Three Anchor Bay to the city cost 4 cents. Today it costs 20 cents. What control do the ordinary worker, the bus driver and I myself have over the increase in rent and bus fares? However, in the meantime it is true that all these price increases have a direct effect upon the living conditions of the workers. I am no economist. However, in analysing these facts I come to the same conclusion as the one at which George Bernard Shaw arrived in the early ’thirties. He said—

A man like George Bernard Shaw could not understand the situation, and I cannot understand it either. I really cannot understand how most of the workers will ever understand this situation either. That is why I really cannot identify with the many statements which are often made to the effect that the workers are always being unreasonable in their requests for an improvement in their standard of living. People like to allege that inflation can be attributed to specific circumstances, for example the importation of essential goods, of which oil is one. However, the same circumstances exist in other countries. Switzerland, for example, has an inflation rate of 2%; Germany, 6%; the USA, 12%; the United Kingdom, 25% and Japan, 30%. Surely the same factors cannot have such divergent results. It is beyond me how one is going to explain these economic anomalies to the working community. If we want the employee to have faith, the people in control, the authorities and the employers who are so keen on telling the workers to control their rising expectations, should first practise it themselves. A Press report reads—

My question is: Was there no justification for that request for an increase in wages? How is the worker to support his family? What control does he have over the increase in the prices of the necessities of life? Under the heading “Selfbeheersing vir base sowel as werkers”, Dawie wrote in Die Burger—

When one examines the facts, one finds that the employee has very good reasons for mistrust and doubt about the whole situation. One can take the mining industry as an example. One of the most interesting reports which I ever read in connection with mining affairs is the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Five-day Working Week. The problems of the mining industry are set out very clearly in this report. The commission, which consisted largely of economists and technical people from the mining industry, says the following in its report—

The report gives a long list under the heading “Effect of inflation on the working cost”. They give the increase in the inflation rate for the various years. According to the report, the inflation rate increased by 1,3% in 1946. From 1965 to 1969 the inflation rate increased by 0,6%; from 1971 to 1972, by 14,62%; from 1973 to 1974, by 25,4% and from 1974 to 1975, by 25,8%. If one compares the percentage of wage increases with the inflation rate normally prevalent in the cost of the mining industry, it is scarcely … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have the same problem with Bernard Shaw as the hon. member who has just sat down. I do not follow that argument at all, and would rather not comment on it. [Interjections.] I would like to comment on the hon. the Minister’s speech though. I would like to say how much I welcome the news about the commission he is going to appoint to investigate labour legislation. There is one aspect about labour legislation to which I want to refer to particularly today. That is the apprenticeship system in South Africa.

The apprenticeship system is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory to the apprentice and it has not proved satisfactory to the employer or to South Africa. I think the legislation in this connection needs complete revision. It has not proved to be satisfactory to South Africa because we are not getting the tradesmen or the standard of tradesmen that we require in South Africa. The country is looking for instructors, particularly trade instructors, because with all the legislation in the world we will not get tradesmen unless we have men to train them. It is no good talking about teaching them; they have to be trained by practical men, and this is where there is such an alarming shortage in South Africa. I know that a great deal has been done for apprentices. When I think back and compare the apprenticeship system in South Africa of 40 years ago with what it is today, I see a marked improvement in conditions for apprentices. I wonder, however, whether we have had the same improvement in the standard of work and the dedication to their work which the old tradesmen had who started and worked under much more adverse conditions.

The hon. the Minister spoke about the lack of productivity in South Africa and the pushing up of wages. Of course, we agree with the hon. the Minister. Pushing up the wages will not solve the productivity problem. Moreover, one also does not solve the problem unless one has the necessary means to train men to do the work in the most productive manner possible.

The present so-called lull in the economy offers a golden opportunity for us to catch up with the shortage of skilled tradesmen in South Africa, a shortage which we have experienced for many years. Since the last war there has been a shortage of skilled tradesmen in South Africa. We have never caught up with the backlog. This is the opportunity to catch up. We know there is a shortage of work for skilled tradesmen, but has it made any marked difference to us? Is the plumber or the electrician one calls in or the mechanic who repairs one’s motor-car any more keen to do the work and does he do it any quicker or for less than he was doing it a year ago? It is not so. He does it in a more slap-dash fashion, charges more for the work and he is far more reluctant to come and do the job. It also takes him longer to do the job. What is the problem? The whole problem lies with training.

Apparently, full advantage has not been taken of training facilities. According to the report which has been issued, 4 700 boys registered for skilled trades—I only refer to skilled trades—last year. That does not apparently represent a drop on previous years. I also see that there has been a marked improvement in the taking in of Coloureds and Asiatics. More than 1 000 Coloureds and 117 Asiatics registered for skilled trades in 1975. I welcome this. I should like to see this figure increased many times. One point which worries us is that this report does not concern itself with Bantu apprenticeships. I realize that this is not the responsibility of the hon. the Minister. It is probably the saddest thing of all that Bantu labour is not handled by the Department of Labour. I hope this will be corrected.

We also see that there is a marked improvement in the educational qualifications of the boys in the trade today. I see, for instance, that of the boys who enter the Railway service today more than 25% have Std. IX or higher. It seems to me that the Railways is still the step-father or, if you like, the step-child, of the apprenticeship system, because today the engineering sector is drawing boys of a higher quality; 33⅓% of them have Std. IX or higher, and at Escom over 50% of them have Std. IX or higher. This has a marked effect on the trade pass-out figures. No doubt the hon. the Minister knows that from this report. Escom has virtually an 80% pass rate in the trade tests, whereas in the outside industry, where the entrance qualifications are lower, only 31% of the boys pass their trade tests at the first go.

This proves that the prejudice against blue-collar jobs is dying out in South Africa and that we shall therefore be able to place boys of a higher calibre in trades today. I see, however, that of the 4 000 that were placed in the trades, 880 were cancelled. This is very sad. Eighteen per cent of the contracts were terminated before they were finished and more than 30% of these boys failed their trade test. Perhaps the hon. the Minister knows what the cause of this is, because despite all the added inducements, the added fringe benefits which the apprentices get today, e.g. technical classes on a block scheme release system, the shortening of their indentureship to perhaps three years of four years as opposed to five years and very much higher starting wages, there still seems to be a large percentage of failures. This is indeed an alarming tendency.

Another alarming tendency in South Africa which the hon. the Minister should look into, is the tendency to fragment trades in South Africa. Far too much of this is going on in South Africa and many employers seem keen only to train apprentices to specialize in certain branches of the trade, and therefore they do not become fully conversant with their trade, with the result that they easily become unemployed when the field in which they have specialized, encounters difficulty. Many employers are turning out these specialists, and by doing that, they are not only doing the industry a bad turn; they are also doing the boys and themselves a bad turn. I served on an apprenticeship committee for many years, and I realize the difficulties—there were difficulties in those days—the hon. the Minister has in getting suitable boys for suitable trades. I think a lot more attention should be paid to the placing of boys and particularly to the firms or business to which they are to be apprenticed. For instance, there should be far more thoroughness in inspecting the theoretical and the practical knowledge of the worker or the tradesman employed by the firm which asks for apprentices. I do not think that sufficient attention is being given to this. More attention should also be paid to the condition and the range of equipment which is available at that business. More attention should also be paid to the field, or the variety of the work which that particular business is engaged in. The motive of the employer should also be given more attention as to whether he wants an apprentice only because he is looking for cheap labour or whether he really wants to train tradesmen for his own use and for use in industry.

This problem is not unique to South Africa; it is a world-wide problem. I was interested to see how West Germany approaches their problem, which is very much similar to ours. They also have a big migratory labour problem and use a lot of migrant labour for doing the work in industry. The tradesman in West Germany is the instructor, the man who has to train all these migrant labourers. They approach the problem in a different way than we do. There technical trade education is done very much on the same basis as ours. They also give approximately the same amount of technical training, although they do not believe in the block scheme; they have rejected it and are now back to giving instruction during a certain number of hours per week. Also their practical system is much like our in-service training, for instance in the Railways or Iscor, organizations have their own schools and their own instructors for training their tradesmen. But the smaller employer contributes to a pool where there is a practical and technical collective school which all these apprentices attend. All the smaller businesses as well as the Government contribute to keeping these vocational and trade schools going. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast must pardon me for not wishing to become involved in an argument with him. My ten minutes are precious to me and I should like to use them fully. I want to agree with the hon. the Minister who said this afternoon that we must have clarity as to what constitutes unemployment and what person might be regarded as being unemployed. To my mind a person who can find employment, no matter what employment, even if it is outside his professional field and his field of interest, and he does not want accept such employment, is not a victim of unemployment, but rather a person who may be considered to be work-shy. I want to risk making a qualified statement this afternoon running counter to the general trend. I shall try to define it. As the hon. the Minister said, everybody is talking and writing about widespread unemployment in South Africa today. Having considered the facts before us as well as comparative facts, I must say that South Africa does not have an unemployment problem or, to be more specific, does not have a major unemployment problem. The hon. the Minister quite rightly said that it was difficult and dangerous to quote figures, as they were not reliable. I want to quote figures nevertheless, because I am fond of doing so. As the hon. the Minister said, according to certain sources—I think those are the most reliable sources—statistics indicate that the unemployment figure in South Africa is 1,3%. Because of the doubts the hon. the Minister has, I want to add another 0,7% of this figure which will bring it to 2%. That brings us to the norm of 2% which is accepted worldwide. It is said all over the world that if one has an unemployment figure of 2%, one may regard that as reflecting a situation of full employment.

Therefore I want to associate myself with the hon. the Minister because he implied that if a joiner was unable to find employment for which he had been trained, but was able to find employment as a lorry driver, it did not mean that he was unemployed at all. If a Black man working in a factory is dismissed from that job and finds a job on a farm as a farm labourer and he does not want to accept that job, I cannot regard him in any way as being unemployed, but I can indeed regard him as being work-shy.

If we compare the unemployment figure of 1,3% in South Africa with that of other countries, we find that the figure is 8,3% in the USA and 7% in Canada. In Australia it is 4%, in the United Kingdom 3%, and in Germany it is 4%. It is true that figures are not available as regards the number of unemployed Blacks, but I take as basis the fact that many of our Black mine-workers in South Africa come from neighbouring States. That means that the Black worker in South Africa does not show sufficient interest in the mining industry and that we still have to obtain workers from our neighbouring States for this purpose. This indicates, as far as the Black worker is concerned, that we do not have a very big problem.

A building contractor in my constituency told me last year what happened when the latest wage adjustment in his industry was announced. As this obliged him to pay his Black workers more, he assembled the ten workers in his employ. He explained to them that he had to pay them more, but since business did not justify this, he would have to lay off five. The remaining five workers would have to do the work of ten. They told him that they were not interested in more money, in retaining their jobs. This confirms what the hon. member for Springs said here this afternoon. The contractor told them, however, that he had no choice because the Act applied to him. He requested five of his workers to leave, while the other five were prepared to do the work of ten workers. He then told the five workers he had to dismiss, that he was aware of the fact that the brick-makers from whom he purchased his bricks had a shortage of Black labourers. He offered to phone and to ask whether they could be employed. They said, however, that they were not interested as brick-making was hard work. That type of worker I do not regard as being unemployed either.

I am not the only one who says that, because I can produce evidence that people who may talk with more authority on this subject than I, confirmed this statement. I quote the following from a report under the heading “Port Elizabeth se werkloses wil nog kies en keur”—

I shall quote some more to prove what I have just put to you—

That is why I do not believe this problem to be such a major problem as some people profess it to be. What is the position in other countries as compared to South Africa? Again I quote a report—

These figures refer only to the teenage unemployed in Britain. Do hon. members know what I think the problem is in South Africa? It was mentioned by the hon. member for Welkom this afternoon. We in South Africa have experienced such an exceptional golden period that we have become spoilt. Our people are too spoilt to return to normal circumstances or circumstances which may possibly be subnormal at present, but which will return to normal. We know that it happened yesterday and the day before that if an employer looked askance at a worker, the worker took his jacket and said that he was going across the street to take an easier job at a higher wage. We must overcome this problem. The situation has changed and from this slight set-back we are experiencing at the moment, we have to emerge victorious. We can, by doing the following. To make our contribution on the labour front, our workers have to be more productive, or—to use a better word—more efficient. They can them make their contribution by producing cheaper products to be used in South Africa itself. They can also make their contribution by producing export goods which will be competitive on the export market. To do so, we must consider, inter alia, longer and more productive working hours. One may even reconsider a longer working week. I hope the commission which is to be appointed, will consider the laws, rules and regulations which seek to prohibit people from working as hard as they wish to work and from working the long hours they wish to work. These laws should be reconsidered. If possible, they should be abolished, or otherwise they should be relaxed. It has been said here this afternoon, but I want to repeat that people have eaten and drunk themselves to death but nobody has ever worked himself to death. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think that the coach on that side should have prepared his team a little better, because the hon. member for Meyerton, who has just sat down, tells us that there is just a little bit of unemployment. Yet the hon. the Minister of Labour tells us that there is unemployment, that, in fact, there is a lot of unemployment. Perhaps the hon. member for Meyerton and the hon. the Minister can sort out their problems. I also think that the hon. member for Meyerton is being a little naive if he expects that people who are trained for a particular job should just change the occupation that they now have. For instance, in the field of building, construction, architecture and quantity surveying, many people have no work at all. In fact, some of them are being forced to leave the country to find work, not because they want to leave. It is not easy for people who have been trained for a job suddenly to do something else. If we reach that stage in South Africa, we shall find ourselves in a very serious situation, because if people cannot use the skills which they have acquired, at great expense, in the way they should, I think it will be very unfortunate.

As a young member in Parliament many people ask me just exactly what I think I will achieve and whether I do not get terribly frustrated. This afternoon was, from the point of the Opposition, a most fascinating afternoon. We have had the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark questioning the whole labour structure created by the NP over the past 20 years. I wonder if that hon. member would have dared to bum a fire-break for the Minister if the HNP had polled 2 000 votes yesterday in Westdene. In fact, we have had a very quiet debate, except for the hon. member for Hercules, who I believe has acquired a new nickname—“Krampie” for short. He is the only one who has come forth with a slightly different note from the one that the chairman of the NP’s labour group has introduced. In fact, it was quite encouraging for me as a young member to feel that at last we are succeeding in getting a measure of reality into the members opposite and that they are now prepared, in the light of the changing circumstances, to move as fast as the people of South Africa want them to move. I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for moving out in this direction, for giving such a pleasant parting gift to the hon. member for Hillbrow and such a pleasant welcoming gift to his colleague and family member, even though distantly related, namely the new hon. member for Westdene.

I believe that we have indeed taken a great step forward in South African labour relations. I would, however, like to raise one or two things with the hon. the Minister about this commission. I believe that anybody who is involved in the labour field and is concerned about it, has to be conscious of the view of the whole labour-capital conflict which exists in Marxist thinking. We realize that today there is virtually no part of life which is not being influenced by this view, no matter how much we may disagree with it and may regard it as an oversimplification. In fact, in a recent parliamentary conference in Europe, serious concern was expressed about the impact of labour movements on the sovereignty of parliamentary government. Indeed, it seems to me that we must realize that this is one factor—the others being multinational and pressure groups of various kinds—which can affect the very sovereignty of the State and of Parliament. In this country we have, through good legislation, generally been able to resolve the difficulty and to maintain the sovereignty of Parliament vis-á-vis the labour movement. Yet I believe that we would be naïve if we were not aware of the fact that there are people who, in many cases for ideological reasons, seek to use the labour movement, not to get a better deal for the ordinary man, but for political purposes. I think it is therefore important that the commission the Minister has given notice of should in some way consider this aspect, and I hope that it will do so. I believe every society has skeletons in its labour cupboard and fears in their minds. In the United Kingdom it is fear of unemployment, because of the great hardship that unemployment has caused. In this country our hang up is the position of the White worker—in many cases the poor White worker. I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has emphasized the importance of utilizing our human resources in South Africa because he knows, as does everybody who thinks about South Africa, that we are never going to be able to develop this country by using only Whites in skilled positions. I welcome this statement. Indeed, I regard it as a sign that the hon. the Minister has rejected the spirit of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. It is a matter of our human resources, especially our Black people, untapped wealth, having to be utilized.

In this respect I want to support my friend the hon. member for Welkom: When we go to a five-star hotel in the centre of Cape Town, we have to speak English to the immigrants working there; the only restaurant in that hotel where we can get decent service in Afrikaans is the one where the maître d’hotel is a Coloured man. I fail to see why we have to use Whites all the time, whether they be immigrants or South Africans, when we have people in our own country who are competent and able to do the work. I fail to see why it is necessary, for example, to import fitters and turners from overseas when our Brown, Indian and Black people can do this kind of job for us. It is true that they are in fact doing the job, but they are not properly qualified to do it. Sir, my family was engaged in the building industry, and I can remember when in the late 1940s there was a strike throughout the building industry because a Black man was prepared to pick up a hammer. What is the position today? The standard of workmanship in the building industry generally has dropped because the White artisan is no longer doing the work himself; he is supervising 20 or 30 semiskilled Black men who are doing the work he should have been doing. The reason is that the Black men are not allowed to make use…

We know that. We have done that—not you.

Mr. Chairman, there we have a classic example. The hon. member for Hercules cannot see further than his nose; he has now cut off his nose to spite his face. He has undermined the White worker by bringing in semi-skilled people to undermine the very trade itself. The job reservation we support is job reservation based on skill as opposed to colour. Had they demanded properly qualified journeymen and carpenters, irrespective of whether they were Black, White, Coloured or Indian, we would have had a much higher standard of workmanship in, for instance, our building industry and in our whole technology in this country.

I believe hon. Ministers realize how desperately shortsighted the Government’s policy was. In 1948 there were many Blacks indentured as apprentices in the plumbing in dustry, for instance. The minute this Government came in, they kicked them out. If that had not been done, we would not today have had half the problems we are faced with. We would have had a much better technological base for our whole country. We would not have been pricing ourself out of the export market either. We would have been another Japan. We could have been much, much wealthier. Were it not for the Government, despite or in spite of the advances that have been made, we would not have been in the embarrassing position where this hon. Minister had to explain to the two major trade union groups last week a little bit of simple economics which, I noticed, he was teaching his class sitting behind him in the House as well. I believe that this is what we must do. I believe the hon. member for Hercules has got to do a little bit of hard thinking because that kind of mentality and approach to White workmen is not going to work any more. There are simply not enough White workmen to do the job. I would rather have a properly qualified, competent, intelligent Black man on the job than a useless White man simply because he is White. I do not believe it is in the interests of South Africa to carry on like that.

Sir, I believe we have to look very carefully at section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. In this connection we are very pleased that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has led the progressive, verligte, realistic revision of our labour policies. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member and the members of his party are obsessed with what we are supposed to be doing wrong. He spoke of the “desperate shortsightedness” of the Government. He tried to indicate to us that if it had not been for that we would have been a rich country like Japan. He does not realize that it is precisely because of the Government’s labour policy over many years that we experienced a period of unprecedented economic prosperity. It is as a result of circumstances completely beyond our control, and also beyond their control, that we are saddled with these economic problems today. He also says of us: “You are obsessed with colour.”

Do you want section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act repealed?

The hon. Minister replied to him with regard to section 77. We on this side are satisfied that the committee to which the Minister referred that will investigate the matter, will make recommendations to the Government in terms of their findings. We are not concerned about that. The hon. member says we are “obsessed with colour”.

The hon. member should now listen carefully because if he did he could perhaps understand what I want to say to him. In the USA—perhaps the hon. member for Pine-lands should also take note of this—they distinguish on the grounds of colour only between the Negro and the White. There is no other criterion. In America there is no Act defining a Negro. In statistics in America the term “Negro” is used. It is a distinction on the basis of colour alone. A little article which appeared in The Star of 9 December 1976 says with regard to these people—

I can quote reports from the USA to the hon. member in which it is stated that the unemployment figure among Negroes is twice as high as that among Whites. Indeed, in America they have the expression with regard to Negroes: “last hired, first fired”. The hon. member for Pinelands knows that. He knows quite a lot about labour relations in America. It is quite interesting that he spoke of an “Employment Opportunities Commission.” Perhaps he should tell the House that this “Employment Opportunities Commission” is an idea which he stole “as is” from America. Various commissions in America that investigated the problem of Negro riots, etc. referred to, and made recommendations concerning, “employment opportunities commissions” in their reports. He can have a look at the report by the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. With reference to some civil rights legislation they spoke of “Equal opportunities and Employment commission.”

That is a very different thing.

No, it is the same thing. I do not want to waste my time on it. I can give the hon. member several examples of things that he has put forward here as their original ideas. They are, however, things which they take over unchanged from the depths of American liberal thought on race matters. I do not want to fight with the hon. member for Pinelands, but I want to put it to him that when we are dealing with race relations I share the concern of the hon. the Minister. I am not quite sure if the pleasant and friendly attitude of the hon. member for Pinelands—the attitude he displays in the House—has the required effect when he moves among the workers outside. On the contrary. I have a suspicion—a suspicion which I believe we all share—that when he is dealing with Black people in the field of labour, for instance people from the Black People’s Convention, the Christian Institute, Sasco and others, he wants to use those people, especially the people in the field of labour, purely for his own ends. [Interjections.] The hon. member should do some soul searching.

The hon. the Minister indicated today in a very interesting way how closely labour is interwoven with the economy as a whole. To me this is vital. We spoke, amongst other things, of unemployment. The hon. member for Meyerton indicated, quite rightly, to the hon. member for Pinetown that unemployment in South Africa represents a concept completely different to the meaning he attaches to the word. Actually, the hon. Minister also pointed this out. Unfortunately I do not have the time to quote to the hon. member what Prof. Nathan Young, a well-known American sociologist, says about the Negroes. Basically, it amounts to the same as what the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Meyerton said. This is that in point of fact, the so-called state of unemployment is not merely such a state. What it in fact also amounts to, is a state of job preferences.

When we deal with job preferences in South Africa, we are saddled with an immense problem. I only want to devote a few moments to this aspect. The hon. the Minister indicated how closely the labour situation is interwoven with the economy as a whole. In this debate we are discussing labour relations and legislation in that respect. What concerns me most, however, and what I regard as the root of the problem, is the enormous inflow of people onto the labour market. That is something which we cannot pass over lightly. Unfortunately I did not hear a single hon. member of the Opposition saying anything about this. It is a problem facing not only South Africa, but the whole world. It is true that the problem is far more specifically applicable to South Africa.

If we note what is taking place in Southern Africa, the question arises whether we are going to be able to handle the influx onto the labour market, in view of the limited capital inflow which we are going to experience in the years ahead, and with the limited economic resources at our disposal. The hon. member for Meyerton rightly referred to the thousands of unemployed teenagers in the USA and in Europe. It is of course a problem which one encounters all over the world. Everywhere there are millions of young people, very highly qualified, and still they are unemployed. The Opposition is always maintaining that people should obtain higher qualifications. In spite of this their contention in this regard is contradicted in a certain sense by the situation which clearly prevails all over the world. Unemployment is a universal problem. Throughout the world there are at present 300 million unemployed people. It is a figure which is growing daily. The highest unemployment rate occurs in the age group between 14 and 25 years. 45% of Black people in South Africa are under the age of 15 years. Therefore, if we take note of the fact that young people who enter the labour market are ever better qualified, especially in the academic field, the problem becomes more and more complicated. It gives rise to the problem of unemployment, especially in South Africa, assuming dimensions and a character that could prove unmanageable in the long run.

If we consider the vast dimensions of the problem of the chaos of numbers on the labour market, we actually find ourselves at the heart of the matter. I tend to get the feeling that in all our planning, we do not always quite manage to reach a plausible solution. I therefore want to request the hon. the Minister also to pay attention to the problem of the great number of Blacks from the homelands who enter the labour market. It affects the labour planning in particular as cast in the mould of separate development. It is a matter which requires the urgent attention of the hon. the Minister. In one way or another, job opportunities will have to be created for those Black people in the homelands. In the process we shall have to investigate a way to resolve efficiently the problem of unemployment within the framework of the policy of separate development—that is in fact the only policy which can serve as basis for this. A programme will have to be devised in terms of which we will be able to handle the growing number of people entering the labour market with due regard to our future economic development. In the long run it will be of prime importance not only for the Whites, but also for the Black people, that this problem should be fully resolved. It has been said—and I believe it bears repeating—that if the Black people cannot do something themselves about this problem, every Black labourer in South Africa will be doomed to poverty in the years to come, despite all our efforts and despite all our crash programmes.

It is, however, not only the Black people and individual Black workers who will be doomed to poverty in the future if this problem is not resolved; that also applies to the Whites. The Black people are making growing demands on the capital means of South Africa, growing demands on the resources of the country and, as in the rest of Africa, the question is whether the labourers whose socio-economic welfare we should so much like to secure, will be able to experience the peace and the happiness of labour prosperity and of labour progress in the long run if their numbers increase to such an extent that ultimately they exhaust all the available resources. I want to request the hon. the Minister to pay special attention to this in the future planning in respect of labour, and to investigate more scientific methods with regard to population growth in South Africa. We must remember that in the final analysis, the peace and order in the field of labour goes hand in hand with the question of numbers.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.