Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Committee Stage of the Transport (Co-ordination) Amendment Bill will be disposed of. After that the Vote of the Minister of Agriculture will come up for discussion. We shall then proceed to deal with the Second Reading of the Common Pasture Management Bill and the Marketing Amendment Bill. On Wednesday we shall proceed to deal with the Second Reading of the Status of Bophuthatswana Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I briefly want to refer to a comment I made in respect of clause 2 during Second Reading. A person who conducts prospecting in South Africa—a very valuable activity in South Africa at the present time—was initially required to submit details of any prospecting plan only to the Ministry of Mines. He is now required, in terms of this clause, to transmit this information also to the Atomic Energy Board. I believe that, since the Atomic Energy Board falls under the control of this hon. Minister, it is surely unnecessary for the Ministry of Mines to insist that the prospector who has done this valuable work should also be required to provide all these documents—they might be very extensive documents—in duplicate, at his own expense, to the Atomic Energy Board as well.

I would have thought that the examination of such applications could take place within the aegis of one department, including those bodies falling under the department, without putting the onus on the applicant to provide duplication or a multiplicity of documents. I believe this is perhaps not a very important point and I will not press it very hard, but I want to bring it to the hon. the Minister’s attention that where a prospector is not only serving his own purposes, but is also making a contribution to the country, the conditions under which he operates and under which he applies for permission, should not be made too onerous. In a case like this, the department itself could easily provide for those duplicate copies which need to go to the various officials and departments and organizations falling under the Ministry, rather than put the onus on the applicant.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member’s point very well. This matter was discussed by the Atomic Energy Board. My department also investigated the matter. Now, the hon. member should understand that prospectors, or companies that were given such rights, also regard it as particularly important that this should be kept as confidential as possible. It is also very important that the time factor be taken into account. It was felt that it was easier, in view of the confidential nature of the information too, for the company to duplicate the documents it submitted to the Minister and to submit them to the Atomic Energy Board itself.

It should be remembered that when one speaks of the Atomic Energy Board and of the Minister, it is the Minister and at most the Secretary for the Department who take cognizance of these matters. What we do want to avoid is that highly confidential and top secret documents be handled in this way in the process of duplication. What we are asking in this instance is that the documents, in view of the confidential nature of the information, rather be submitted directly to the head of the Atomic Energy Board. The co-operation of all the parties concerned has already been obtained in this regard. There is general consensus on the matter. The head of the Atomic Energy Board therefore receives the documents at exactly the same time as the Minister.

I want to point out to the hon. member that the proposal actually came from groups and companies that have an interest in the matter. Therefore, I am in point of fact giving them the assurance that things are being made easier for them in this way. I ask the hon. member kindly to accept it this way. This was not simply dreamt up. The decision was taken after due consultation.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The hon. member for Von Brandis and I discussed this matter and the amendment is in effect a kind of consensus which resulted from our discussions.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister for his willingness to discuss the matter with me and to effect an amendment which to my mind solves the problem altogether.

†I should like to refer to further subsections of the proposed section 28. The proposed section 28 contains substantial amendments to the existing section. In subsection (2) we have a reference in lines 27 and 29 to the “enrichment of source material or special nuclear material”. This reference constitutes an exemption or an exception in the context of the section. I apologize to the hon. the Minister for not having brought this to his notice earlier, but I noticed only this morning that the wording of this exemption could, in fact, lead to a misunderstanding. I do not ask for an amendment, but merely want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the possibility that there is room for misunderstanding which could be obviated by means of a small textual change.

I refer once again to the reference in lines 27 and 28 to “the enrichment of source material or special nuclear material shall vest in the board solely”. Special nuclear material is not enriched. It is processed, but that is altogether different from the enrichment of source material. However, as the text stands, this exemption seems to apply to the enrichment of source material or special nuclear material, a concept which is scientifically incorrect if not impossible. I believe the text could be cleared up and the intention would be clearer if the text were to read—

It will then become perfectly clear that there are two processes envisaged which differ quite considerably and that the provision does not deal with “the enrichment of either source material or special nuclear material” as the text now reads. I take it no further than that. I believe the text can do with this clarification, and I shall be very happy if the hon. the Minister will, at his convenience, have this looked into with a view to having the Bill improved in the Other Place.

I shall do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

For some considerable time now, stricter control has been advocated to combat the exporting of tiger’s-eye in its unprocessed form as effectively as possible. The matter was also raised during the discussion of the Mines Vote during the 1976 session of Parliament. I said at the time that instructions had already been given to various departments, such as Mines, Customs and Excise, Transport and to the S.A. Police, to see whether the machinery for combating the abuses which might arise from the distribution and the handling of tiger’s-eye could not be improved. I also undertook, as soon as we had acquired the necessary knowledge concerning and the motivation for this, to come forward with legislation which would be aimed at preserving our unique tiger’s-eye resources for South Africa.

In regard to the exploitation of tiger’s-eye I want to inform hon. members that the position is that the right to tiger’s-eye on the land on which it is being exploited is privately held. In terms of the provisions of section 2(1) of the Mining Rights Act, 1967, the right of prospecting and mining for and disposing of base minerals on any land is vested in the holder of the right to base minerals in respect of the land. Tiger’s-eye is a base mineral for the purposes of the mining Rights Act, 1967, and it follows therefore that the holders of the right to base minerals in respect of the land in which tiger’s-eye occurs in the North-West Cape need not obtain any licence, permit or other authority from the Department of Mines to exploit and otherwise dispose of tiger’s-eye on such land. For the information of hon. members I should like to say that according to a survey carried out towards the end of last year, there were then approximately 46 tiger’s-eye producers in the PrieskaNiekerkshoop area.

The fact of the matter is that the State has no statutory control over the exploitation of tiger’s-eye or the removal or the conveyance thereof from the place where it is exploited, and it is these circumstances which are extremely favourable for smuggling. Hon. members may now ask me how there can be any question of smuggling if there is no statutory control over the exploitation and disposal of tiger’s-eye. Hon. members must therefore allow me to explain another aspect of the tiger’s-eye industry.

In order to protect the local gem-cutting industry and to prevent crude tiger’s-eye from being exported at unrealistically low prices, processed abroad and then re-imported at very high prices, export control regulations were promulgated in 1971 under the Import and Export Control Act, 1963, in terms of which tiger’s-eye may not be exported from the Republic or South West Africa without an export permit, except in the form of certain processed articles.

In spite of the export control regulations, tiger’s-eye is still being smuggled out of the country on a large scale. Hon. members are probably aware that, except for the occurrences in the North-west Cape there are, as far as can be established, no other occurrences of tiger’s-eye of gem quality in the Republic or any other country in the world. I want to observe that it is erroneously thought that there are other countries that have tiger’s-eye of exceptionally good quality and that we have to compete against these countries. That is not in fact the case. The tiger’s-eye which is exploited in other countries is of considerably poorer quality and cannot be compared with that of South Africa. The export control regulations are being circumvented by exporting tiger’s eye under the pretence of exporting properly processed articles which may be exported without a permit. Overseas the so-called “processed” articles are sawn into smaller pieces which are only then, in fact, actually processed. Crude tiger’s-eye is also being exported illegally on a large scale on the pretext that it is another mineral, or else the tiger’s-eye is concealed among other minerals. Persons found guilty of offences in terms of the export control regulations, readily pay the fines which are imposed, because the fines are frequently trivial compared with the large profits which are being made from smuggling. As a result of this contraband trade and the circumvention of the export control regulations, the Republic is annually losing large amounts of foreign exchange.

Owing to the Customs Union Agreement between the Governments of South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, in terms of which, inter alia, free traffic of goods is maintained between these countries, no export permit is required for the conveyance of crude tiger’s-eye to Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. A provision to this effect has consequently been included in the export control regulations. It is known that large quantities of crude tiger’s-eye are being taken over the border into Botswana and Lesotho. Once crude tiger’s-eye ends up in one of our neighbouring States, the control over the export thereof to overseas countries is a difficult matter and a thorny issue.

Talks on the proportions which the contraband trade in tiger’s-eye has assumed and on measures which could be introduced to counteract it, were held between officials of the Departments of Mines, Customs and Excise, Commerce, Transport and the Police. The Police are unable to be of much assistance, since there is merely a prohibition on the export of crude tiger’s-eye without a permit and there is no legislation making provision for internal control over the movement of tiger’s-eye. It was concluded that the export control regulations on their own were not sufficient to enable proper control to be applied.

It appears that internal control over the tiger’s-eye which is exploited, viz. control over the removal of crude tiger’s-eye from the place where it is exploited and over the conveyance, purchase and sale thereof, is essential to prevent the illegal export of this mineral in such large quantities.

The measures which are now being proposed in this Bill to control tiger’s-eye internally are not aimed at restricting the exploitation thereof, but at controlling the flow of tiger’s-eye after it has been exploited. In other words, the effect of the application of the measures which are now being proposed will be to enable the department to ascertain who is exploiting tiger’s-eye and how it is subsequently disposed of.

Clause 1 of the Bill contains the definitions, and all I should like to explain to hon. members are the meanings given to the terms “tiger’s-eye” and “processed tiger’s-eye”. The other concepts in clause 1 are already defined in existing legislation.

I want to add that in the definition of “processed tiger’s-eye” it is provided that it is any properly tumbled and polished piece of tiger’s-eye having a mass not exceeding 10 g. After thorough consideration it has been decided that it is perhaps wise, without this making any material difference to the object of the Bill, to alter the provision from 10 g to 20 g. I shall move an amendment to this effect.

The measures will be applicable to all tiger’s-eye, i.e. crude tiger’s-eye and semi-processed tiger’s-eye, with the exception of processed tiger’s-eye. If semi-processed tiger’s-eye is not also controlled, the object of the proposed measures may be defeated. If the proposed legislation is made applicable only to crude tiger’s-eye, crude tiger’s-eye may be treated at small expense at the place of exploitation or partially processed in such a way that it may no longer be regarded as crude tiger’s-eye. This is the crux of the matter. In the absence of any control measures in respect of semi-processed tiger’s-eye the object of the legislation may be defeated. A definition of “semi-processed tiger’s-eye” is an almost impossible task, and therefore “processed tiger’s-eye” is preferably defined and excluded from the operation of the envisaged legislation.

With reference to clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, hon. members will agree with me that full control may only be applied if one begins at the place of exploitation. If tiger’s-eye is exploited without the Department of Mines being aware of it, control cannot be applied. Therefore the provision is being introduced that no person shall mine for tiger’s-eye unless he is the holder of a certificate issued to him by the Secretary for Mines. Clause 3 provides for the issuing of such a certificate to any person who satisfies the Secretary that he has the right to mine for tiger’s-eye on the land in question. As hon. members will note, a certificate may be cancelled under certain circumstances.

In clause 4 it is being proposed that no person shall during any month in the aggregate purchase or in any other manner receive or acquire more than 2 kg of tiger’s-eye unless he is the holder of a permit Clause 5 makes provision for the issuing of such a certificate to a bona fide cutter of or dealer in tiger’s-eye or to any person who processes tiger’s-eye or is a person or belongs to a category of persons designated by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. I should just point out that the entire measure is aimed at controlling the movement of tiger’s-eye.

Hon. members are probably aware that there are many people in the Republic who practise the hobby of cutting tiger’s-eye and other semi-precious stones at home. This is a commendable practice which one should like to encourage. I myself advocate that our children in particular should take an interest in this hobby. It is not being envisaged to make the proposed measures applicable to these people. That is why the provision in clause 4 has been introduced to the effect that a permit is only required when a person purchases in the aggregate more than 2 kg of tiger’s-eye per month. During the talks to which I referred earlier on it was decided that 2 kg of tiger’s-eye per month is adequate for those practising this hobby. Also in terms of other clauses in the Bill these people are exempted from keeping a register, submitting returns and from conveying tiger’s-eye in the matter prescribed. In other words, we want to insert a special accommodation for people practising the cutting of tiger’s eye as a hobby.

Clause 5 also makes provision for the cancellation, under certain circumstances, of a permit to purchase tiger’s-eye. Provisions of this nature are necessary to serve as a deterrent to people who do not comply with the provisions of the Act.

For effective control it is necessary that any person who sells tiger’s-eye may only sell it to a person who is the holder of a permit to purchase. I cannot allow people to sell tiger’s-eye at will to builders, for example, who ostensibly use it as fill material for foundations, and so on. The seller will therefore have to ascertain whether a prospective buyer is in possession of a permit. Clause 6 makes provision for this.

Clause 7 makes the making of entries in a register in respect of the quantities of tiger’s-eye which are mined, sold or purchased every day obligatory. A copy of the entries in the register shall be forwarded to the Secretary for Mines every month. This will enable the department to control the movement of tiger’s-eye.

Cutters and dealers in tiger’s-eye may have certain quantities of tiger’s-eye in their possession on the date on which the proposed legislation comes into operation. It is essential for control purposes for the department to know how much tiger’s-eye each cutter or dealer has in his possession on the date of commencement of the measures. For that reason a provision is being included in clause 8 which provides for the submission of a statement of the quantity of tiger’s-eye on hand on that date. If provisions in this respect do not exist, anyone may unlawfully acquire tiger’s-eye and then allege that he was already in possession of it before the Act came into operation. One can understand this.

The provisions which are being proposed in clause 9 relate to the conveyance of tiger’s-eye and are among the most important in so far as the internal control over tiger’s-eye is concerned. The position is that complete control has to be established over the conveyance or removal of tiger’s-eye from the land on which it has been exploited. This clause therefore provides that tiger’s-eye may only be conveyed by road from the land on which it has been exploited and only to the nearest railway station and from that railway station may only be despatched by rail. It is foreseen, however, that this provision could entail great expense and inconvenience in some cases. However, if we do not do it in this way, we cannot retain control over the movement of tiger’s-eye. For example, the supply of tiger’s-eye of a cutter in Kuruman will have to be conveyed by road from a farm in the vicinity of Niekerkshoop to Prieska, the nearest railway station, and from thence per rail via De Aar and Kimberley to Sishen and again by road to Kuruman. The route is approximately three times further than the direct road route between Niekerkshoop and Kuruman. To overcome problems such as these it is being provided in clause 9(4) that, if the Minister is satisfied that in any particular case reasonable grounds exist for tiger’s-eye not to be conveyed or despatched in the manner prescribed in clause 9(1), he may on such conditions as he may think fit, determine the manner in which such tiger’s-eye shall be conveyed or despatched. While we are therefore making a law which in certain cases may prove to be cumbrous in practice, we are also making provision for the insertion of an accommodation in the legislation. I think it is very fair. What is being envisaged in such a case is to impose conditions in regard to the quantity of tiger’s-eye so conveyed, from whence it may be conveyed, the destination, the permit number, etc.

Other important provisions in clause 9 are that the number of the permit to purchase tiger’s-eye shall be affixed to the consignment note for control purposes and that the station master concerned shall forward a copy of the consignment note to the Secretary for Mines. As I have said, these provisions are important for control purposes. I can inform the hon. members that the South African Railways has also been consulted in regard to these provisions, and that the Railways has accepted them.

The provisions proposed in clause 10 are extremely essential for the application of proper control over tiger’s-eye. The Police are being empowered, in the case of any investigation in regard to suspected illicit trading in tiger’s-eye, to enter, examine and search any place or premises, or stop and search any vehicle or to seize any package or holder found in such a place or premises or on such vehicle. Hon. members will note that throughout the Bill reference is made to any member of a police force which has been established by law. The reason for this is that it is essential that the Railway Police should also be involved in the control of tiger’s-eye. It is also necessary that the Police may, during an investigation in connection with illicit trading in tiger’s-eye, board any train, vessel or aircraft. Similar provisions also apply in the Precious Stones Act, 1964, in regard to illicit diamond trading. In the absence of these provisions the S.A. Police and the Railway Police will be powerless to assist the Department of Mines in the proper internal control over tiger’s-eye.

Provisions have also been included in the Bill to the effect that a certificate to mine tiger’s-eye, or a permit to purchase or a register shall be produced to the Police whenever requested.

The provisions that are being proposed in clause 11 are aimed at giving any person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Secretary for Mines the right to appeal to the Minister.

Clause 12 provides for the making of regulations by the Minister in regard to the form of a permit, certificate or register and other relevant matters.

Clause 13 contains the penalties. The fines which are being proposed are grouped according to the seriousness of the offence of which a person is found guilty, for example—

At the instance of the S.A. Police and other bodies a provision to the effect that the court which finds any person guilty of an offence may declare any tiger’s-eye in respect of which such person is convicted and any vehicles used for the conveyance of such tiger’s-eye, to be forfeited to the State has been inserted as a deterrent. The position is therefore that the forfeiture is not compulsory.

To eliminate considerable inconvenience to the State if an accused alleges that an object or material is not tiger’s-eye, a provision is being inserted to the effect that it is presumed that an object or material is tiger’s-eye until the contrary is proved. The onus of proof will rest on the accused, as is the case in the Precious Stones Act, 1964, as far as diamonds are concerned.

I have now sketched to hon. members the contents of the Bill in broad outline, and as I indicated at the outset, the internal control of tiger’s-eye has become essential in order to counteract a flourishing contraband trade which entails an annual loss of great value in foreign exchange to the Republic. I do not want to take up the time of hon. members by quoting numerous examples to indicate what major proportions the smuggling has assumed, but perhaps I should nevertheless mention that, according to reports confirmed from two sources, a total of 50 tons of crude tiger’s-eye from the Republic arrived in another country towards the end of February this year without export permits for the consignments having been issued. At approximately the same time 1 ton of crude tiger’s-eye was illegally exported to yet another country. In respect of only these 51 tons of tiger’s-eye we lost thousands of rands in foreign exchange. This does not include the losses suffered as a result of the illegal exports which we do not get to hear about. The local cutters and dealers who have the interests of their country at heart are now pinning their hopes on us to do something about the present dissatisfactory state of affairs.

In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think that I am not only doing so with the consent of members on both sides of this House, but also with the acclamation of many people who have for many years now been asking why the Republic does not retain this exceptionally important resource for its own people and why control is not being introduced. That is why it is a privilege for me to move the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are aware of the circumstances surrounding tiger’s-eye, as set out by the hon. the Minister. We are also particularly aware of the fact that a black market trade in tiger’s eye has evolved and that there are also certain other undesirable practices which have to be brought under control. We therefore have no objection in principle to the introduction of a Bill such as this and we shall be prepared to support the principle of the Bill. Before we agree to the Second Reading, however, we would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would clarify certain matters.

My first question is whether the hon. the Minister and his department have held adequate negotiations and discussed the problems with the leading commercial exploiters of tiger’s-eye, with particular reference to a provision such as the one contained in clause 9, which concerns the matter of conveying tiger’s-eye to the railways and from there to other destinations where the tiger’s-eye is received. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would make it clear whether adequate discussions did in fact take place and whether the commercial undertakings concerned were consulted.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising merely to convey the gratitude of this side of the House to the hon. the Minister and the department for the expeditious presentation of this legislation, which we in the Northern Cape regard as so important for South Africa, to this Parliament. Japan has its pearls, Burma its rubies, Australia its opal and South Africa its tiger’s-eye. As the hon. the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech, tiger’s-eye is found only in the Northern Cape. We believe it is the task of the Government to utilize South Africa’s mineral wealth, and that includes mining and processing tiger’s-eye, in the interests of South Africa. I believe that the legislation before us at present will serve that purpose. I believe that South Africa’s cutting industry in particular will greatly benefit by this. During the past few years those people have been very concerned about the large amounts of tiger’s-eye that have been leaving South Africa illegally every year. I hope and trust that this legislation will result in that illegal outflow of tiger’s-eye from South Africa being restricted to a minimum and that the cutters of South Africa will be able to become the only manufacturers of tiger’s-eye products in the world.

I believe our ideal should be that everyone who wants an ornament, ring, or whatever, made from tiger’s-eye should be able to obtain it as a product which is manufactured only in the Republic of South Africa. I believe this legislation will contribute towards preventing tiger’s-eye from being sent out of the country illegally to the detriment of South Africa. We also believe that this legislation will contribute towards stimulating the processing industry in South Africa. We in the Northern Cape express our gratitude to the hon. the Minister for the fact that this wonderful industry may be protected for South Africa by means of this legislation and that it may be applied in the best interests of South Africa. We also trust that the cutters of South Africa will make the best use of the protection that is being offered them. On behalf of the cutters of South Africa, I ask the hon. the Minister to take a look in future at the sales duty which is levied on the processed tiger’s-eye products. In most cases it is jewellers who are affected and the sales duty on jewellery is high. We would appreciate it very much, therefore, if the Minister would give this aspect some consideration so as to stimulate the production of tiger’s-eye ornaments, because all the cutters tell us that they cannot keep up with the demand—even from overseas. We trust that this legislation will enable the cutters of South Africa to obtain the best tiger’s-eye that is produced here and to manufacture products from it which will not only mean a great deal to South Africa, but will provide South Africa with a very important trade mark in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in the House agrees that the tiger’s-eye industry in South Africa needs looking at. I think the situation at the present is unsatisfactory in so far as tiger’s-eye comes from a number of mines; that a lot of it is smuggled out, as the hon. the Minister said; that the money South Africa is getting for its tiger’s-eye at the present moment is virtually minimal, especially when it is related to the retail cost of the final product; and that our own industry to work this tiger’s-eye is in fact suffering and not being able to get off the ground.

Sir, we accept that it is important that this industry should be protected. We think this is a step by which not only the producers will benefit, but, as has been mentioned, also the people who work with tiger’s-eye. We hope this Bill will enable us to build up a reasonable industry in tiger’s-eye in South Africa and that the country will benefit as a result. However, whether some of the issues in the Bill itself will not cause certain frustrations and difficulties such as the ones mentioned by the hon. member for Von Brandis is another matter. There is for instance the difficulty in clause 9 regarding the transport of tiger’s-eye. Like the hon. member, we shall be interested to hear the hon. the Minister’s comment in that respect. We in these benches will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be able to stand up here in the knowledge that by means of this legislation tiger’s-eye will finally be controlled, particularly since it is a product which comes chiefly from my constituency and surrounding areas.

I just want to refer briefly to what we have from the past as far as tiger’s-eye is concerned. It was in 1800 that a certain amount of interest in tiger’s-eye arose in our country for the first time. Apart from that little else happened. Tiger’s-eye elicited no further attention. It was only in the ’sixties that the local bodies showed an interest in the discovery and processing of tiger’s-eye. It is only in the past decade that the production and export of tiger’s-eye have been increased but in the year 1966 the turnover and export of this product amounted to only R88 000. The role of tiger’s-eye in the South African economy was negligible. It made a relatively negligible contribution. In 1966 I led a deputation to the then Minister of Mines, Dr. De Wet, to request him to exercise some control over the tiger’s-eye industry. In response to our request, a departmental committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Dr. W. P. de Kock. The other members were Senator W. H. van Zyl, Dr. H. J. Hanekom, Mr. L. Taylor and Mr. C. Muller with Mr. W. P. Viljoen as secretary. The report presented by that committee made the Government, the department and the Minister of Mines realize that positive action had to be taken. A deputation was also sent to the previous Minister of Mines, Dr. Koornhof. This was because there were so many irregularities taking place that the regulations in force at that time were not adequate to control exports in such a way that everything could be done in South Africa as had been expected. At the beginning of the ’sixties only R60 per ton was paid in our part of the world where tiger’s-eye is found. If we think of the steps that have already been taken to bring the development to the stage where we can now get R5 000 per ton for high quality tiger’s-eye, then I can see that down the years our own producers in South Africa have suffered tremendous losses and made other people rich whilst our people remained poor.

I trust that this legislation will succeed in its objective and that the industry will make its contribution to the benefit of the economy and the people of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether what I have heard is true, viz. that one of the walls of his house consists partly of tiger’s-eye?

One mishears many things in this Parliament. So it is in this case, because it is not only one wall but three. I should like to express my gratitude today to the hon. the Minister and his department for the sustained efforts they have made down the years in taking this industry towards success. I am pleased to see that whereas the hon. the Minister has received so many requests recently, requests to make concessions, he has withheld himself from granting those requests and has adopted a strong standpoint in the interests of South Africa, the cutters and our people in general.

I want to thank the department, and particularly the Secretary, for the efforts they have made, for the fact that they have not made concessions either, and for having assisted us down the years in strengthening and developing this industry.

Finally, I just want to say that at that time we attempted to establish a corporation to control tiger’s-eye and failed because we did not receive everyone’s co-operation, but now that we have the co-operation of the producers, now that they have learned their lesson, we have made a renewed effort to establish a corporation so that it will be possible to export the local tiger’s-eye in terms of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very welcome, particularly to those of us who have interests in the Northern Cape and Griqualand West because we are very proud of this exceptional and unique product which is to be found in the asbestos mountains, in areas such as Prieska and Niekerkshoop. We are often dismayed at hearing tiger’s-eye referred to as South West African tiger’s-eye. It definitely does not come from South West Africa, although it might be cut there. I think most people regard it as coming from South West Africa, a view which is absolutely incorrect.

We are aware of the fact that tiger’s-eye is being smuggled. Often tables and ashtrays made of tiger’s-eye which have been polished on one side are sold. These tables and ashtrays are broken up overseas and smaller pieces are processed further and sold as jewels; rings, for example, beads, or whatever. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is not perhaps possible to restrict that type of smuggling as well and whether we could not perhaps make the price of a large piece of tiger’s-eye such as an ashtray, so high that it would no longer pay to break up that ashtray into small pieces, process it further and still sell it at a profit abroad. In my opinion, these ashtrays which are polished on one side only with uncut stone around the edges—they are very attractive and valuable—can be exploited and one is not eager to deny South Africans or other serious buyers the privilege of being able to own such a masterpiece of an ashtray or a table whose surface top has been cut and polished and consists of small pieces of tiger’s-eye. I also feel it is necessary that we should possibly find a better definition for tiger’s-eye. I feel that abuse could perhaps occur because the present definition is not adequate. We know, for example, that the various colorations of tiger’s-eye are marketed under different names. One of these is falcon’s-eye; just another form of tiger’s-eye. I wonder if we could not formulate a more scientific definition in this regard—something like silicified crocidolite. After all, in truth, tiger’s-eye is a type of asbestos—crocidolite asbestos—impregnated with silica. I wonder if we would not possibly improve the control over the stone with a name such as silicified crocidolite.

There is another aspect which troubles me, one for which I should like to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister. I am referring to the many farmers who have collected tiger’s-eye over the years. On numerous farms in Griqualand West one comes across pieces of tiger’s-eye in farm houses—on window sills, in lounges, next to fireplaces, and so on. Could it not perhaps happen that those farmers will get into trouble if they possess more than a certain quantity of tiger’s-eye? I am referring, for example, to the hon. member for Prieska. He has three walls of tiger’s-eye in his house. I should just like to obtain the assurance from the hon. the Minister that the hon. member for Prieska will not require a permit to possess tiger’s-eye in such large quantities.

Yes, so that he will not have to go to jail.

Yes, I should not like to see innocent people get into trouble. Moreover, there are also Coloured contractors who exploit tiger’s-eye on various farms. I wonder whether this Bill will not perhaps encourage monopolistic conditions, particularly amongst people who exploit tiger’s-eye in a sophisticated manner. I am thinking, for example, of the Griquas and Coloureds in Griqualand West who, as contractors, exploit small mines on numerous farms. Will they not perhaps get into trouble now? I should like their rights to be protected too.

I now refer to the issue of the conveyance of tiger’s-eye to the nearest railway station. This is something that could possibly give rise to problems. For example, I know of buyers and cutters who like to select their own tiger’s-eye. They do this at the mine where the tiger’s-eye is exploited. Human nature being what it is, many of them wait until the last minute, until their stocks are depleted or they suddenly receive a large order, before they rush off to Niekerkshoop or Prieska with their pick-up trucks to select the gold, blue or red tiger’s-eye personally. It could happen that such a person experiences problems in obtaining a permit, as well as with the delivery of his tiger’s-eye to the nearest railway station. As far as the railways are concerned, of course, there is also the problem that very valuable consignments of tiger’s-eye could be looted and stolen and that often the entire consignment might not reach its destination. This is another front on which we are vulnerable: We could lose valuable tiger’s-eye by having it stolen in transit.

In connection with the export of tiger’s-eye from South Africa to South West Africa, I should also like to know from the hon. the Minister whether any restrictions will be enforced in this regard. Is it regarded as export or is South West Africa, as far as this legislation is concerned, still regarded as a part of the Republic?

Mr. Speaker, although I do not have a particular interest in the North-west, I do at least have an interest in South Africa. Therefore, I am most certainly interested in the Bill which is now before the House. I am particularly pleased that the hon. the Minister had introduced this Bill at this juncture. It is a Bill in terms of which control is going to be exercised, not only over the mines, but also over the movement, purchase and sale of tiger’s-eye. A few problems exist, of course. We shall discuss those in greater length during the Committee Stage. At this stage I should just like to point out that the present wording of the Bill will, in fact, give rise to problems. The exploiter, conveyer, purchaser and seller of tiger’s-eye are going to experience problems.

However, I feel that the article we are dealing with here, is so sought after, so rare—particularly since it is to be found only in South Africa—that the related problems are not of such a magnitude that they cannot be overcome. The existence of problems ought not to deter us from exercising control over tiger’s-eye. Of course, I also foresee a problem in relation to our neighbouring States. I am not sure what the hon. the Minister envisages in this regard. For example, what are his views on the situation as far as South West Africa is concerned? Then there are the other neighbouring States as well. I also predict problems in relation to the finished article, one which is perhaps tremendously large and which could entail a considerable financial loss for the country when exported. I also have a problem as regards the stocks people have in their possession at the moment. These are stocks which are by no means involved in the trade. Then there is the smuggler, the man who nobody knows anything about. That is why he smuggles, of course. He could well be sitting with a few tons of tiger’s-eye in his back-yard. As the Bill now reads, no control is being exercised over it, and this is another aspect which I shall discuss with the hon. the Minister during the Committee Stage. Sir, this is a good Bill. I agree with it in principle and I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister has introduced it.

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said in my introductory Second Reading speech, I do not expect hon. members to disagree with this legislation because down the years the principle of the legislation has been discussed at length by both sides of the House and both sides have, in fact, asked for legislation. There are a number of matters to which I should like to reply at this stage. This will possibly eliminate discussion during the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Von Brandis wanted to know to what extent we had held discussions. The discussions were really hard going. According to our calculations, there are approximately 46 people who may be regarded as producers. They do not belong to an organization, however, and it was difficult to get them altogether. Over the years we have held discussions with small groups of them or with individuals. We took a lot of trouble to contact these people. In this regard I am grateful to the hon. members for Prieska and Kuruman. They have been very helpful down the years by coming along to talk to the department and bringing some of those people along too. The hon. member for Maitland has also shown a particular interest from time to time. In that way we reached consensus. For the rest, we consulted those people, whom we knew to have an interest in this, about the matter. During the past few months we have been in contact with various persons. I am satisfied that the people concerned, are aware of two things. They know that it is going to be more difficult for them to obtain transport and, secondly, that in future it will be more difficult for them to mine and sell tiger’s-eye due to the control which is going to be introduced. All those people we have spoken to agreed with us that if we could exercise slightly better control and prevent smuggling, this would eventually push up their production as well.

There are many people who possess tiger’s-eye but have no conception of its value. It is as if they cannot fully realize what the future value of a product such as this can be. As the price of tiger’s-eye increases, so its value will increase. I want to give the assurance that we did our best to consult everyone we could, despite the fact that there was no organization with which we could hold discussions.

Will the provisions and restrictions relating to the conveyance of tiger’s eye not give rise to problems which will be unacceptable to the producers?

I do not think that will happen. That is not the producers’ problem. They understand full well that if one wants to have control, there have to be restrictions which will make conveyance difficult. It will adversely affect the producers, but they understand that the adverse effects which the intricate procedure entails will be amply compensated for by the higher price they will eventually receive.

This is new legislation, as the hon. member for Maitland has said. It could happen that after we have implemented the legislation in practice for a year or two, we shall have to come back to this House to amend it. We have done the best we can and I think this is the right legislation to be coming forward with now.

The hon. member for Kuruman asked us to have a look at sales duty. We shall have a look at it in due course. I do not think one should discuss it further during this debate. I think that in general I have already replied to the points the hon. member for Randburg raised. The hon. member for Prieska also referred to this matter. I did not know that the hon. member had a tiger’s-eye house. That was news to us all. I wonder whether one should not rather call it tiger’s-eye palace. In the past the hon. member for Prieska has visited me from time to time and brought some of his people along with him, not only people who were involved in the production of tiger’s-eye, but people on the sales side as well. I think the hon. member and his people are fully aware of the fact that it is essential that we implement these control measures.

The hon. member for Benoni raised quite a few aspects, one of which was the question of the semi-processed product. This is where the problem lies. I could refer to so many cases of so-called processed products leaving the country. This is nothing but camouflage which people use to export the product. For example, there is the case of a huge piece of tiger’s-eye being used as a door-stop. The bottom is levelled off a little and covered with felt. This is so obviously a way in which smuggling is taking place. I want to tell the hon. member that we have begun to turn on the screws. We have introduced much stricter control measures. We are now trying to control this sort of thing. A while ago, there were people who wanted to export tiger’s-eye. At the first glance I, who am no expert in that field, could see that this was a method of export aimed at circumventing the law. We are trying to make the legislation as strict as possible. After the implementation of the control measure, time will tell where the loopholes are so that in future we can make the necessary adjustments.

The hon. member also asked for a definition of tiger’s-eye. I think that the definition of tiger’s-eye we have now is good enough. Time will tell whether we ought to have a description that is more scientific. The hon. member may have a point there.

The hon. member also asked whether the farmers and the people with “palaces” would not get into trouble. The hon. member for Prieska need have no fear. People who are not obviously trading in tiger’s-eye or have some of it on their farms, need have no fear. It is in regard to the export of tiger’s-eye and in its conveyance away from the point where it is mined that the control has to be exercised. I do at least want to give that reassurance.

The hon. member also referred to protection of the rights of the small miners. We shall try our level best to do that. After all, there are many more potential miners than that handful of people to whom I have just referred. One will therefore naturally have to give consideration to this. The hon. member asked whether this could not lead to a form of monopoly. I do not know. At this stage it does not seem likely, but we shall cross that bridge when we come to it. The hon. member also referred to the question of the loss of tiger’s-eye in transit. As I have already said, we are trying to implement control at the receiving point in the railways, and at the off-loading point. I believe that once we have introduced the control measures, that sort of thing will not happen that easily in future. However, if there were to be losses in transit, in my opinion that would naturally be a case for the Police. By means of the legislation we are trying to control the movement of tiger’s-eye as far as possible.

The hon. member asked what would happen about South West Africa. Under the present circumstances there ought not to be any problems in the case of South West Africa. We have heard that the people of South West Africa do not want us to say that tiger’s-eye is found only in Prieska. They say they have their own tiger’s-eye. If hon. members had listened carefully, they would have heard certain hon. members saying that South West Africa’s tiger’s-eye is better than South Africa’s. Whether that is true or not, I cannot say. South West Africa is not giving us any problems. If I am to judge on the basis of my present knowledge, it seems to me that we will experience export problems, not in the harbours in South Africa, but in export via the homelands and neighbouring States where the tiger’s-eye could easily sprout wings. I could tell you some very interesting stories. There are stories about contractors who enter into contracts to construct buildings in neighbouring States. Large loads of stone are transported over long distances and at great cost, supposedly for use in laying foundations. We know for a fact, however, that it will not be used for that building’s foundations, but that this is simply another way of getting the stone over South Africa’s borders. In the past there have been many ways of exporting it and contravening the regulations. I hope we shall be able to plug up all the loopholes by means of this Bill.

It seems to me that I have now replied to all the aspects which hon. members raised. I think we understand each other, with particular reference to the fact that the Bill is the first step towards getting the entire industry under control. This is the path we shall tread in the future. In two or three years time we shall know whether it is working as we intended it to. If it does not work, Parliament will have to take another look at it and rectify it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, there are certain problems which may possibly emanate from the definition of “processed tiger’s-eye”. In the first place, “processed tiger’s-eye”, as described in this clause, is excluded from control under this legislation. Paragraph (a) of the definition refers to “properly processed and polished articles made from tiger’s-eye accepted in the trade as fully and finally processed and polished finished articles”. Such an article can be exported without falling within the ambit of this legislation. For argument’s sake, let us accept that I am in the trade. I have obtained a permit and may export finished articles. But now I have made ten articles of a different type. Who is now to judge whether these articles are properly finished articles in terms of this definition? This is the first point. Someone must be the judge. The Bill says that the trade must be the judge, but who in the trade is it referring to? Does it mean that the cutter or the exporter of such an article must approach the State? What body must he approach in order to determine whether a specific article falls within the framework of this definition?

I think that there is a second source of concern. If I am in the trade, I can make a finished article like a big ashtray, which may perhaps weigh 10 kg. The trade, as well as the hon. the Minister’s department, would then approve it as a properly finished article. However, what am I doing? I am actually sending a large piece of tiger’s-eye out of the country, in full accordance with the provisions of the legislation. That piece of tiger’s-eye can then be sold abroad and cut up into 50 or 60 pieces, of which other articles can be made. In this way we will actually be harming our own industry. Then what is the answer, Sir? Even a properly finished article …

Like a house for instance!

I am pleased that you mentioned that point, Sir. I think that the hon. member for Prieska is in difficulties, but we shall come to him later. The point I should like to make is that a properly finished article of tiger’s-eye ought not to exceed a specific mass. Let it be 2 kg, or whatever, for argument’s sake, but if we allow finished articles of unlimited weight to be sent out of the country, we are going to do the industry an immense amount of harm. I do not know what the mass should be, but I do think that the hon. the Minister should attend to the possibility of imposing a limitation of mass even in the case of finished articles which may be exported without falling under the provisions of this legislation. If we do so, it will not be possible simply to send this sought-after stone out of the country where it can be cut and possibly imported again at a high cost.

Mr. Chairman, the aspect which the hon. member has raised is a technical matter and we shall first have to see how the matter works in practice. We have the restriction for the ordinary man who cuts tiger’s-eye as a hobby. We tried to introduce a restriction for reject tiger’s-eye which is tumbled into small sizes. This brings one to the point which the hon. member made, namely the question: When is an article processed and when not? When is one circumventing the Act? In that connection we are going to try to exercise control as strictly as possible. We shall see how it works in practice and whether there are any difficulties in this connection. The department will have to co-operate with the customs to see to it that the type of product indicated as processed products are products which comply with certain standards. In any event, one will soon see where the loopholes are and how to turn the screw. For the present we think that we shall be able to do so to a fair degree. I tried to set a standard myself in regard to certain pieces which were brought to me in order to determine whether they should be rejected, because this is such an obvious circumvention of the Act. What do we want to do? We want to process the product as well as possible so that it can bring in the highest possible price. We do not want the measure to be circumvented by exporting so-called processed or semi-processed products. For instance, a large ashtray can be made which has only been hollowed out slightly and when it reaches the other side it can simply be cut up into a number of small pieces. Therefore standards will have to be set so that the Act cannot be circumvented in this way. Hon. members must give us a chance to see how things are going so that we can try to control matters properly.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I have already pointed out that I am concerned about the smuggler, for instance the man who has a half ton or a ton of tiger’s eye in his garage. The Bill provides that only those who are bona fide traders, have to submit inventories of their stocks. That is all very well. But if my neighbour has a quantity of tiger’s eye in his garage, he must also make an inventory of his stock, even if he is not a trader. This is the only way in which we are going to clamp down on smugglers because we are now going to allow this man to get rid of a ton of this stuff on one occasion at least. I think that the Bill should be framed rather more widely so that provision can be made for all people who have stocks above a certain quantity, say 100 kg on hand, to submit an inventory of that stock, whether he is in the trade or not. In this way the hon. the Minister can know precisely who the people are who have stocks and what is going to happen to those stocks. I do not say that this should be done for every person; nor that it should be done by a person who puts a stone behind his door, nor by the hon. member for Prieska. But we shall have to provide that every person in South Africa who has a specific mass of tiger’s eye in his possession, whether he is in the trade or not, must make an inventory of it. I should think that quantities over 100 kg should perhaps be the minimum weight for which inventories of stocks should be submitted.

Mr. Chairman, I can see the point. However, the man is in difficulties as soon as the tiger’s eye gets into circulation. However, we shall hold consultations on this aspect once again and perhaps look at it subsequently in the Other Place.

Clause agreed to:

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments to the Mines and Works Act, 1956, which are being proposed in this Bill briefly comprise the following—

1. (1) General mine workers are no longer daily paid workers, and it has therefore become necessary to amend the reference to them as daily paid workers in so far as their representation on the mine safety committee is concerned; so this is purely a consequential amendment
2. (2) To allow the performance of work in a particular case or in general on a Sunday and certain other public holidays in the national interest; and
3. (3) To authorize the State President to make regulations designed to protect the soil and to prevent or to combat as far as possible the disturbance of the soil.

Clause 1:

I should like to point out to hon. members that section 2bis of the Act provides, inter alia, that the Minister shall appoint three members to the Mine Safety Committee who are representatives of the daily paid workers employed at mines. As a result of the present wage agreements and the monthly wage system, general mine-workers are no longer daily paid workers, and the amendment in clause 1 is merely designed to rectify the position. However, provision had to be made for a continued distinction to be drawn between employees, i.e. general mineworkers, and the other officials employed at mines.

Clause 2:

Section 9 of the Act prohibits the performance of work at a mine or works on Sundays and certain public holidays. However, certain essential kinds of work, such as maintenance work, are excluded from this prohibition, and this clause proposes that work which is in the national interest should also be allowed on Sundays and public holidays.

The need for this amendment to the Act arises from the country’s rapidly expanding energy requirements and the important part played in this regard by the mining of coal. Coal production capacity is not what it should be and drastic steps have to be taken in the national interest to increase production. Power failures and the coal shortages periodically experienced by secondary industry illustrate the need for such steps. By mining coal according to the open-cast method, up to 90% of a coal ore body can be won, as against the approximately 25% made possible by conventional methods, but the open-cast method requires vast amounts of topsoil to be removed by means of mechanical shovels before the mining operations can begin. These shovels cost approximately R8 million each and require a recovery of capital outlay over a period of 30 years at a rate of approximately R300 an hour if they can be kept working continuously. In addition to the cost aspect, it will only be possible to maintain adequate coal production if sufficient topsoil has been removed by these shovels in advance, and this will be possible if the topsoil is removed continuously. The proposed clause will enable the Minister of Mines to allow the performance of work of this nature on Sundays and public holidays if it is in the national interest.

I just want to point out that this means that there has to be an authorization and that the authorization has to be given by the Minister. This will only be done in special cases when it is in the national interest. That is what we are concerned with here. It will not be a general authorization for work on Sundays. I realize that this could easily be interpreted as a removal of all control. We may also have a reaction from the Church. I want to assure the House that I had discussions with interested parties about this matter, so that there could not be any misunderstanding about the meaning of this. I pointed out that this provision was concerned with special circumstances and that the Minister has to decide, when it is recommended to him, whether it is in the national interest. I want to assure hon. members that the matter will be investigated and that there is no misunderstanding about this clause.

Clause 3:

The amendment proposed in clause 3 is designed to provide legal authority for the making of regulations to prevent or to combat, as far as possible, damage to and disturbance of the soil, especially where coal is mined by means of the open-cast method. As hon. members know, the mining industry in the Republic is constantly expanding, and the need has long been felt, especially by agriculturists, nature-lovers and planners, that measures should be placed on the Statute Book with regard to the protection and restoration of land at, for example, open-cast coal mines. However, the proposed wording of the clause will also authorize the making of regulations to prevent and to combat damage to the environment at mines and works in general. This clause simply says that the Minister has the power to look into the matter and to make the necessary regulations, in co-operation with others, to combat any abuses which may occur. I just want to take this opportunity of adding that in recent times, there has been excellent co-operation in this connection between my own department and the Department of Planning and the Environment, the Department of Agriculture, the agricultural unions, etc., so that we are able to comply with the provisions of this clause and the Minister is better able to take certain steps in the national interest.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the amendments brought to the House by the hon. the Minister in this amendment Bill. We welcome most particularly the amendment contained in clause 3. It is now some years since we on this side of the House first began to discuss these matters with the hon. the Minister’s predecessor in regard to the very important question of the restoration of land after open-cast mining operations had taken place. I remember that on the last occasion when an amendment was introduced to the Mines and Works Act there was no provision for such preservation of landscape as we now see before us. In a conversation with the then hon. Minister of Mines, he made the promise that on the next occasion when an amending Bill was brought to the House he would ensure that provision was made for the kind of protection of the environment which we have before us today. Therefore, on behalf of my side of the House, I am particularly happy to see that this undertaking has been fulfilled and that we now have adequate provision for the maintenance and preservation of the landscape, particularly in view of the great extent to which open-cast mining is being developed in South Africa.

There are examples in other parts of the world, notably West Germany, where one has had the opportunity of seeing what is in fact done to the landscape after large-scale opencast mining has taken place. There is a very large area west of Bonn where brown-coal is mined on the surface by excavators. These giant excavators remove the earth to a considerable depth and would leave behind them a totally devastated landscape if there was not provision in the law for the restoration of that landscape. As I have said, they excavate to a great depth, but before they do so, the excavators are used to remove the topsoil and put it carefully on one side. Then the coal is taken out and, when the whole of the coal bed has been taken out by this giant excavation process, the land is ploughed up with great care; it is levelled and turned into lakes, valleys, recreation areas and, in fact, into an ideal landscape to replace what before the mining operation was a very depressed and squalid or marshy area.

Not only does the mining operation in such circumstances make its due economic contribution to the country, but the effect of the mining operation, instead of leaving devastation in its wake, is to produce a new landscape, a new way of living for the people of that area, new opportunities and a better quality of life after the completion of such mining operations. The amendment which the hon. the Minister has brought here today does not necessarily mean that this is what we envisage in all cases. There are certain places where open-cast mining will not justify expensive re-landscaping for dense populations, but in other places it may well prove possible. In all cases we should ensure that the heritage of South African landscape does not suffer permanent damage in consequence of wide-scale open cast mining. It is in this spirit that that we welcome and support the main amendment in this amending Bill.

I should like to refer very briefly to one or two others. With regard to clause 1, we accept that because of changes in the manner of payment in the mining industry, this amendment has got to be effected. The question has been put whether this amendment will have the effect of further excluding the participation of non-White miners or their representatives in dealing with matters affecting safety on the mines. In putting this question one is well aware that the safety committee is a technical committee involving a high degree of skill. On it the more technically advanced employees of the mining industry serve. It is nevertheless a fact which is recognized on both sides of the House, that the time is coming when non-Whites will have to be consulted more closely in matters affecting their own interests, whether it be as labourers or as participants in various common services. I think that nobody will deny that safety on mines is a matter which intimately concerns the very large percentage of Black mine labour which is involved and that some representation of Black mine labour in respect of safety aspects of mining would contribute to the confidence of Black miners, to their willingness to accept dangerous employment and to the promotion of better relations and more confidence between the various sectors of the mining industry. It may be said that what I am saying is premature in view of the technical nature of safety services. Nevertheless, I think this is something which requires thought and that it is better to be too soon with this kind of thing than too late.

It is better to anticipate while we have the initiative than to wait until we have lost the initiative and then to have to act under pressure. Therefore I hope that the hon. the Minister will accept that the time is coming that we will have to think of these things. While I am ready to accept that the amendment in clause 1 is not designed to exclude non-White participation in mine safety, because it is perhaps not yet a relevant factor, 1 hope the hon. the Minister will confirm that and perhaps give some indication that he is aware of the necessity of associating that very vast majority element of Black labour in the mining industry with such matters as safety and with such matters as require confidence and the co-operation of all who participate in the mining industry. While I shall not press it any further than that, I would like the assurance of the hon. the Minister on that point.

Apart from this we have no particular difficulty with the Bill and shall not raise any objection to the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this party I welcome the Bill. We realize that it is in the national interest that people should work on Sundays in some cases. Therefore the hon. the Minister should have these powers. In the second place we particularly welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister is being empowered to protect the environment against defacement by open-cast mines. This is something which is very necessary and consequently we welcome it. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I merely want to state the support of my party of this Bill. The hon. member for Von Brandis dealt in great detail with the safety aspect in clause 1 and the environment aspect in clause 3. I am sure everybody agrees with him there. Clause 2 also deals with an aspect which, to my mind, is of great importance and should not be forgotten. Clearly, labour relations are important in South Africa, and there are many aspects which have to be taken into consideration when taking up a pragmatic approach to using labour on Sundays, holy days, and public holidays. However, the capital which is becoming involved, in mining industry, is astronomical. Quite clearly, in certain circumstances, the hon. the Minister is going to have to think about how this capital can best be utilized in the national interest and in the interests of the economy. It could well be that in certain instances, in certain operations, because of this huge capital involvement, that capital will have to be employed virtually on a 7-day week basis. It might be that at some stage in future the hon. the Minister will have to consider that, in which case we will all have to accept that a solution will have to be arrived at out of consensus by the various interested parties. The hon. the Minister mentioned the Church. Quite clearly, the Church is to be considered. That is very important. However, as the hon. the Minister is heading in this direction, in making it possible for him or the State President to decide that, in certain circumstances, it might be necessary and in the national interest, for exceptions to be made. I think we must start thinking about the possibility that in this regard exceptions might have to become the rule rather than the exception.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the views expressed by the hon. member for Von Brandis. However, I would particularly like to refer to clause 3. As regards this clause, I believe it is a great step forward, but I do not believe we have gone far enough as far as this particular aspect is concerned. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what kind of regulation he has in mind and what kind of control he hopes to exercise as far as the protection of the environment is concerned, especially in cases where old mines have to be cleared up, where the rubbish, the superstructure, the various installations, and so forth have to be cleared away. To what lengths would the hon. the Minister be prepared to go? In large areas of South Africa we are often faced with old alluvial diggings, with dumps that were left lying, now marring the landscape over many square miles. We know that is something of the past, but at the present moment, mining activities of a similar nature are still being carried out and we know of enormous ventures on the coast of South West Africa—and the same applies to many coal mining areas—where one does not only have open-cast mining, but also shallow underground mining, where the surface of the land subsides, leaving sinkholes which render that area completely unfit for farming, because the stock fall into the pits.

In my constituency we are faced with areas which are absolutely unsafe for the public to enter, areas with open-hole mine shafts which have been abandoned in that state for many years. I believe that such land could be reclaimed as useful agricultural land if some of those holes were filled in by those who previously occupied that mining area. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister, first of all, what he intends doing about disused and abandoned mining areas from which the people have all departed, as well as alluvial diggings and areas on the Witwatersrand, and also coal mines that have been abandoned by the previous companies? What does the hon. the Minister intend doing in order to restore those areas to farming areas and into more attractive landscapes?

The second point I want to raise is the question of people who apply to prospect in areas that should be conserved for future generations as unique natural resorts. We have had instances of this. For example permission was granted to mining companies to prospect on the Mapellan dunes, and now that quite a few million rand has been spent, the hon. the Minister is faced with a situation where he can hardly refuse subsequent mining operations to recover the amount of money invested in prospecting.

I feel that before licences are granted for prospecting there should be discussions with the Department of Planning and the Environment to ascertain whether areas of particular natural beauty will be affected. If a person, for instance, wanted to prospect in the Kruger National Park the first reaction would be to refuse an application like that. However, if he wanted to prospect for oil, which is such a very important resource, I think one should consider it. There are, however, occasions where one has applications for mines of dubious economic value where it could encroach on areas of particular beauty. In these cases I feel that the hon. the Minister should first have discussions with the Department of Planning and the Environment. I would like to see provisions of this nature embodied in the Bill.

I would also like to know to what extent the hon. the Minister would be prepared to go to limit present mining operations to restore the landscape. I do not believe it is enough just to remove the super structures and just to conserve the environment. I would like to see the hon. the Minister spell it out a bit more specifically. I know he can do that by regulation, but I do not see him being compelled to do so. I think one should go so far as to insist that the indigenous and natural ecology should be restored. Once again we have the case of Mapellan and the ilmenite mining. In Natal there is a case where they want to restore the landscape by planting gum and pine trees, but those magnificent acacia Karoo trees and thorn trees, most unusual views and forests, will be destroyed. Despite the agreement of the company undertaking the mining to restore the vegetation, trees of 3 ft. thick cannot be replaced. Unusual indigenous vegetation cannot be replaced or restored by just waving an arm. Therefore, I feel that one should get more specific assurances from companies to restore a particular area again, be it prairie grasses or forests. It can be done. Gum trees can be replanted. They might not be as old as the trees removed, but I believe the natural ecology can be restored. I would like to see the hon. the Minister insisting on aspects of that nature. If one drives from Kimberley to Johannesburg, one is faced at Christiana with enormous dumps all along the main road. North of Pretoria these dumps of top-soil have been left next to the road. Someone has to level that off and replant the original vegetation. I would like to see that the hon. the Minister insists on regulations of that kind.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank those hon. members on the other side of the House who have participated in this debate. To start off, I want to tell the hon. member for Von Brandis the good news that a committee which was appointed some time ago has completed its code of conduct in respect of the practice—which we are now talking about—of open-cast mining. It was completed only yesterday. The various bodies which participated were the Department of Mines, the Chamber of Mines, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Planning. As I indicated to hon. members on previous occasions, the idea was that the code of conduct should be drawn up and everybody should observe that code. I think that in future it is going to help a great deal. Apart from that, there will of course be a standing committee which will look into these matters. If it is necessary to introduce further amendments to put some teeth into the endeavour, we can naturally come back to it again. I should like to tell the hon. member what happened some time ago, just after I became Minister of Mines. I remember there was an application for a huge excavation to be effected in the Pretoria area. It was very important from a scenic point of view. An application was submitted for a permit to proceed with the excavation. I decided that before I issued the permit I should like to hear what the landscape people had to say about it and what the landscape would look like once they had completed the excavation. They came forward with a wonderful plan. As a matter of fact, the surroundings will look much better after the excavation and after the landscape people have had a go at it. I think this is the sort of policy we shall adopt in future. I think the hon. member’s sentiments fun along this line, and if we can evolve a policy whereby we can ensure that the landscape is left in the same shape in which we received it from our Creator, we shall all be very happy. The committee’s code of conduct is actually to facilitate this idea. I hope I have replied to the hon. member for Benoni in this regard. I am not sure that this will be the last word we shall hear about it. The point is that we must get everybody to co-operate.

A question was put to me with regard to the old mines. Of course, we have a lot of old mines, but where do we find the title to the old mines if the people do not exist any more? In the case of companies we may be able to go into the matter. I am afraid we shall have to think very hard about the very old mines. We cannot allow this sort of thing which happened 50 or 100 years ago to happen again. We still see these traces of excavations all over South Africa. That poses a real problem. We shall hold the position with regard to current developments. We shall have prescription with regard to old mines which are being abandoned. However, the people who hold title to these old mines will still be held responsible. We can keep them responsible. How far we shall go, I am not prepared to say at this stage. All I can say is that I am happy that we are now in a position where we have a code of conduct and where we have a committee which will look into these matters. We did not have this sort of thing in the past and, as a matter of fact, we did not have the cooperation of the mining companies which we have today. I was very impressed with the Egro project I saw in the East Rand the other day. The hon. member for Brakpan knows very well about this project. I visited the area with the hon. member for Brakpan. I was very impressed to see how in this process—especially in the Witwatersrand area—of removing huge mining dumps to some other place, there will actually be a re-shaping and re-designing of the Witwatersrand area. However, it does not take away the fact that we have a lot of outcast places scattered all over South Africa. It is a very sore point with everybody.

The hon. member for Von Brandis said that the Black people working on the mines are also involved in the labour situation. As a matter of fact, when I was in Western Transvaal yesterday I again found that education and training is becoming a very important aspect in this field. This is a very technical matter. There is a very large turnover and people do not stay on the mines for long. That situation is not satisfactory. The future policy to be adopted by the mines is a very sound, reasonable and a very wise one, i.e. that the training should not only be to get people to do the work properly, but should also include safety-training. Safety-training is becoming very important. I have no objection to have some or other kind of machinery whereby Black people will be placed in the position where they can teach their own people and to assist in the training of their own people in safety measures. The hon. gentleman did not suggest that I should alter the Bill as it stands. The sentiment of training Black people in safety measures, is indeed very important, and I think the important thing to do in future is to keep on assisting in the training of Black people in the environment and in the work situation. That is being done already. In fact, it takes a position of priority. While I am not prepared to change the Bill as it is before us, I do know that the sentiments the hon. member has put forward, are being pursued by most of the mining companies. I believe that is the way in which we should do it in future. I am sure that if an occasion arises where it becomes necessary to create special machinery for the Black people, we can look at the measure again.

*The hon. member for Benoni wants to know what we are going to do with regard to the parks. The hon. member referred, inter alia, to the Kruger Park. That is a hot potato and hon. members should not doubt that for one moment. As a matter of interest, I just want to mention that the metallic titanium compounds, such as zircon and rutile, occur in arenaceous combinations. One of the most important sources in the world is the large coastal dune which extends right across Natal to the north. The dune is very rich in these metals. They are found there in particularly large quantities. As an export possibility it is estimated to be worth something like R200 million or R300 million in foreign exchange. It will be possible to export these metals for a very long time to come.

The Department of Planning is very closely involved in this. It is an enormous treasure which we possess. But how are we going to exploit it? The hon. member is right when he says that we have to restore the vegetation, but what does one do with a large tree? I think that in future, when we are faced with such problems, it will be my policy and that of the department not always to give big firms the opportunity to prospect in nature reserves, because after they have incurred the expenses of prospecting, the assumption is that because I issued a permit to them to find out what is in the ground, I cannot prevent them from developing it if they find something. That is our problem, and that is also why we are having geological surveys made. I know of a case where a certain large group was very keen to prospect for minerals in one of the large parks. I had to devise a rapid and ingenious plan when I saw it coming. I then explained to them that the Geological Survey Division was there to render a service to South Africa and that they had nothing to gain or lose by it. So, instead of having the companies go there, find something and raise a hue and cry, I would rather send Geological Survey to go and prospect on their behalf, and then we can discuss it again. That, in my opinion, is the way to go about it in future, until somebody can devise a more intelligent plan than mine. On the other hand we cannot refuse to investigate these things, because we have to investigate them. I therefore give the Geological Survey Division the special assignment to see what is available in those nature reserves to avoid having disputes at a later stage with people who want to go in there with drills because they think that an important discovery is to be made, while the public is against such action. If we do what I have said, the public and South Africa will know that prospecting is being done under proper control and that the Minister will not do anything wrong which could impede further development.

With these few words I have replied to the speeches that were made. I thank hon. members for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At the outset I should like to point out that the principal Act was placed on the Statute Book as early as 1953. Minor changes were introduced in 1955 and 1956, but during 1973 comprehensive amendments were introduced, amendments calculated to establish a more efficient channel of communications between employers and their Black workers by way of works committees and liaison committees.

During 1975 consideration was given to a further extension of the Act in relation to negotiations concerning wages and other conditions of employment. The chief characteristic of the draft Bill, which was submitted to interested parties for comment, was to make provision for the establishment of industrial committees which could enter into agreements, on an industrial basis, in the absence of industrial councils.

The comments received, however, principally indicated that the idea of “industrial committees” was unacceptable to organized industry and the trade unions, and the measure was therefore not taken any further.

Further attention was subsequently given to the development of the committee system, and the Bill now before the House is chiefly aimed at that.

I have tabled an explanatory memorandum, but I should now like to explain the proposed amendments further.

The amendments can be divided up under five headings, i.e.—

1. (1) amendments in terms of which the committee system is developed;
2. (2) amendments in terms of which Blacks can also be appointed in certain spheres;
3. (3) amendments which will grant protection to workers participating in the activities of certain committees;
4. (4) amendments that will facilitate the administration of the Act; and
5. (5) consequential amendments.

For the sake of clarity I shall deal with the five groups of amendments separately. I shall begin with the first group that I mentioned, on which clauses 5, 6, 7 and 11 have a bearing.

Clause 5:

In terms of this clause the existing section 7 of the Act is replaced by a new section to extend the establishment and functions of liaison committees. In terms of this it will be possible to establish a liaison committee in respect of a single establishment, in respect of some or other section of an establishment or, where an employer has more than one establishment in the same trade, also in respect of such establishments.

Liaison committees will now be able to negotiate and enter into agreements in relation to wages or other conditions of employment where no co-ordinating liaison committee exists. However, where such a committee exists, a liaison committee will only be able to make recommendations in regard to wages or other conditions of employment to the coordinating liaison committee. Furthermore, a liaison committee will be able to consider matters which are of mutual interest to the employer and his employees. Agreements entered into shall have to be reduced to writing and shall be binding on the employer and employees concerned. A copy of the agreement will have to be retained in safe custody by the employer and another copy will have to be affixed and kept affixed in some conspicuous place upon his premises, failure of which will constitute an offence.

Clause 6:

Section 7A of the Act provides for the establishment and functions of works committees. In terms of the proposed new subsection (10), works committees can also negotiate and enter into agreements in relation to wages or other conditions of employment where no liaison committee exists. Where both committees exist, however, the works committee will only be able to make recommendations in regard to wages and other conditions of employment to the liaison committee. Similar provisions apply in respect of agreements entered into in terms of this clause as in the case of liaison committees.

Clause 7:

Section 7B of the Act provides for the establishment and functions of co-ordinating works committees. In terms of the proposed new subsection (4), co-ordinating works committees can also negotiate and enter into agreements in relation to wages or other conditions of employment where no coordinating liaison committee exists. However, where such a committee exists, the coordinating works committee will only be able to make recommendations in regard to wages or other conditions of employment to the co-ordinating liaison committee. Similar provisions apply in respect of agreements entered into in terms of this clause as in the case of liaison committees.

Clause 11:

This clause envisages the introduction of a new section in the Act which provides for the establishment and functions of co-ordinating liaison committees. Such committees can negotiate and enter into agreements in relation to wages or other conditions of employment. In addition they can also consider other matters affecting the interests of employees. With respect to agreements that are entered into, the same provisions apply as are applicable in the case of liaison committees

I now come to the second group of amendments, i.e. those in terms of which Blacks can also be appointed in certain spheres, as contained in clauses 2, 12 and 17.

Clause 2:

Section 3 of the Act provides for the constitution of the Central Bantu Labour Board. In terms of this the board consists only of Whites. In terms of the proposed amendment, however, the constitution of the board will not be confined to Whites.

Clause 12:

Section 8(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may appoint any White officer as a Bantu labour officer. However, provision is not made for the appointment of assistant Bantu labour officers. In terms of the proposed amendment, the appointment of Bantu labour officers is not confined to Whites, and provision is also made for the appointment of assistant Bantu labour officers which will also not be confined to Whites.

Clause 17:

Section 13(1)(b) of the Act provides for the administration of an order by a body constituted in such manner as may be specified in the recommendation of the Wage Board of which all the members shall be Whites. In terms of the proposed amendment, the constitution of such a body will not be confined to Whites.

The third group of amendments, i.e. those aimed at granting protection to employees taking part in the activities of committees, are contained in clause 23 of the Bill. In terms of these amendments, employers are prohibited from making it a condition of employment that employees may not be members of committees established in terms of the Act or that they may not take part in the establishment, election or functions of such committees. In addition employers must grant employees, who are members of such committees, every reasonable opportunity to carry out their duties in connection with such committees. An employer who contravenes these provisions will be guilty of an offence.

I shall now deal with the fourth group of amendments, i.e. those which will facilitate the administration of the Act and which are contained in clauses 1(d)—i.e. clause 1(b) in the Afrikaans text—4, 13, 14, 15(b) and (c), 16 and 19.

Clause 1(b):

The expression “trade” is not defined in section 1 of the Act, and in terms of the said section it has the same meaning as that ascribed to it in the Wage Act. The latter definition furnishes problems when it comes to the implementation of this Act, and for that reason a definition has been inserted.

Clause 4:

Section 6 of the Act prescribes the duties and functions of regional committees. In terms of subsection 1(a) a regional committee shall, inter alia, maintain contact with employees with a view to keeping itself informed as to the conditions of employment of employees. Throughout the Bill reference is made to “wages or other conditions of employment”, and the envisaged amendment is aimed at bringing about uniformity.

Section 10(2) of the Act provides that the Bantu labour officers shall, with the assistance of the regional committee, endeavour to effect a settlement of a dispute which arises in any trade in his area of jurisdiction. The proposed amendment provides that a regional committee shall also be able to assist in the settlement of labour disputes at individual establishments.

Clause 13:

Section 9 of the Act provides, inter alia, that the Central Bantu Labour Board and any regional committee shall be notified of any meeting of an industrial council where conditions of employment affecting Bantu are to be discussed. In practice it does happen that notices are sent out too late, and then the industrial council meetings cannot be attended. In terms of the proposed amendment the notices shall be sent out not less than 14 days before the date of the meeting in question.

Clause 14:

Section 10 of the Act prescribes the procedure which has to be followed in connection with the settlement of dispute. However, the Act does not make provision for the fact that an employer must notify the Divisional Inspector of Labour of a dispute, and this consequently causes delays in the settlement of disputes. In terms of the proposed amendment, an employer will be compelled to give notification of such a dispute.

In addition provision is made for the fact that disputes which arise in “essential services” and cannot be settled, shall be referred to the Wage Board, i.e. disputes arising, inter alia, with local authorities, with employers who supply lighting, power, water, sanitation, passenger transport or a fire brigade service within a local authority area or with employers who are involved in the fruit and vegetable canning industry.

Clause 15(b) and (c):

Orders published in terms of section 11(6) of the Act, viz. those resulting from disputes in a trade, are declared binding for a period not exceeding three years. All other orders, i.e. those resulting from proposals by employers about wages or other conditions of employment, are published for an unlimited period and remain in force until they are replaced by a new order or wage-regulating measure. With a view to bringing about uniformity, the proposed amendment provides that orders resulting from disputes in a trade will also apply for unlimited periods and remain in force until they are replaced by another order or wage-regulating measure.

Orders made in terms of section 11 cannot be amended, suspended or cancelled either. This is an omission and the proposed amendment rectifies the position.

Clause 16:

Orders made in terms of section 11A of the Act, i.e. orders that result from proposals from employers about wages or other conditions of employment, cannot be amended. This is an omission and the proposed amendment rectifies the position.

Clause 19:

Section 15 of the Act makes provision for legal proceedings to be instituted against employers who neglect to comply with the provisions of orders. However, the section does not provide for the fact that moneys due to employees by employers in respect of contraventions of orders of wage-regulating measures shall be paid to Divisional Inspectors of Labour for payment to the employees concerned when such an employer, for example, acknowledges that he underpaid the employees. All such cases must therefore be taken to court, a long drawn-out process. This is an omission in the Act since the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act already contain provisions such as those set out in the proposed amendment, i.e. that such moneys can be paid to Divisional Inspectors for payment to employees when employers acknowledge that they have been guilty of contraventions.

I now come to the last group of amendments, i.e. the consequential amendments contained in clauses 1(a), (c) and (d), 3, 8, 9, 10, 15(a), 18, 20, 21, 22 and 24.

These amendments chiefly arise out of the clauses I have already dealt with and are also set out in the explanatory memorandum. I shall therefore not elucidate further.

Mr. Speaker, those are in the main, the proposed amendments, and I trust that they shall meet with the approval of the House.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the state of the Order Paper there seems to be a sense of urgency in our discussions today and you will therefore understand that where I have to deal with certain matters I shall attempt to do so as expeditiously as I possibly can. I want to say at the outset that we find it somewhat unusual—I use the word “unusual” euphemistically—that where the hon. the Minister has appointed a commission to review and inquire into the contemporary industrial scene, he should at this point in time come forward with this amending legislation. As we understand it, it will be precisely the function of this inquiry to inquire into the need for this kind of legislation or not, but be that as it may.

From what the hon. the Minister has said, it is clear that apart from certain peripheral issues, this legislation is designed to do certain things. It is designed primarily to extend the present committee system of collective bargaining. It does this mainly by the addition of a co-ordinating liaison committee. This coordinating liaison committee becomes one of the most important constituent elements in the machinery that is provided for in this legislation. I shall deal with this later.

The second aspect, according to the hon. the Minister—and he referred particularly to clauses 2, 12 and 17—is that this legislation purports to eliminate discrimination. It does so in the sense that particularly when it comes to appointments to the Central Bantu Labour Board, etc., it provides that non-Whites, indeed Bantu, can be appointed to these positions. It should, however, be noted that these clauses are permissive; they are not mandatory. It states that it is possible for the Minister to do so, but it does not compel him to do so. However, to claim that this legislation does away with discrimination would certainly be a euphemism, because the whole measure in its totality is obviously highly discriminatory.

Thirdly, we find in the Bill certain administrative and consequential provisions, but more particularly measures that are taken to ensure that there will be no victimization in this situation.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned I was trying to draw attention to the probable effect of this legislation which is now under consideration. I think the first effect will be that we are going to create an absolute plethora of committees. Now, already the Government tells us that there are some 300 work committees and some 2 500 liaison committees. Thus, the legislation which is before us now will not only perpetuate this system, but will in fact accelerate it. If one wants a complicated system, I believe we are certainly succeeding in achieving it if we proceed along the lines which are outlined in this particular measure.

To have committees is one thing. I think there is the other aspect, which is that each and every one of these committees can now negotiate, and can, in many cases, enter into agreement. In one industry alone, the engineering industry, it has been calculated that there will be 300 different kinds of agencies that can enter into agreements. These agreements can obviously conflict. If I think of how we were to proceed along these lines, I can only come to the conclusion that we will create a veritable tower of Babel. Then, there is a second aspect of this. I believe the Government is inclined to judge the effectiveness of the present bargaining machinery in terms of the number of committees that exist. That is why these statistics are continually trotted out.

Sure enough, these committees are being formed, because companies and organizations are virtually obliged to do so. It becomes fashionable; it is part of the industrial ethos that they should create these committees. However, are they effective? That, surely is the answer we must seek.

In this regard we find continually from the Government side that they claim that these committees are in fact very effective. They say there is higher efficiency. They say there is a lower turnover rate. They claim all sorts of advantages to flow from this system. Government members then invariably quote a study which was done at the University of the Orange Free State to sustain this argument. However, I want to suggest that I think we have a totally different set of factors that operate here. I think one must remember the old classical Hawthorne experiment which was conducted many years ago, an experiment in which, for the first time, they came to look at working conditions, and initially, as hon. members will remember, they improved working conditions. They put in better lights. They introduced music. Every time they found that the workers were producing more, that there was a greater degree of job satisfaction; everybody was happier.

Then, however, they started reversing this process. They dimmed the lights. They made them worse. They produced all sorts of other factors, but they found that workers were continuing to produce better than they had done before. The explanation was in fact a very simple one. It was because management was taking notice of the workers. For years they had been completely neglected, but as a consequence of the experiments done management took notice of them, and hence their effectiveness increased. I would suggest that this sort of factor might even operate here too.

We have never been opposed to work committees or liaison committees. I do want to emphasize this point. We feel that they serve a particularly useful function. We believe that they are complementary to normal trade union activities. We have never seen them as a substitute for normal trade union activities. The Government will continually tell us that in Japan and Germany they have committees of this kind. Everybody knows this. Those have been in existence for years. However, they do not operate on their own. They are part of, and a subsidiary to, normal trade union activities. To try to create the impression that this is not so introduces a completely wrong impression.

Those are some of the effects of the legislation that we have before us. What then are our criticisms? I think in the main they are these. This legislation, as the hon. the Minister knows, has been opposed by most of the trade unions. They will do so, because they will say that what we are busy doing here, is to introduce discriminatory factors and, in fact, entrenching them.

It is on these grounds that the trade unions oppose this kind of legislation. They must of necessity plead for a common system in industrial and labour relations because the trade unions are naturally scared that they will lose their bargaining power. They are becoming completely diluted. In the engineering industry, for example, one finds today that only about one-seventh of the people who are actually employed in engineering are members of the recognized trade union. So the trade unions obviously see this sort of legislation as something that is aimed at undermining their position and diluting their power. Hence they will oppose it as some of them have indicated to the hon. the Minister. They also hold the view, and I believe they have conveyed it to the hon. the Minister, that this legislation will lead to a deterioration of race relationships. It is difficult to speculate about this, but I think the views that they have expressed are important and the House should take note of them. I want to refer to the comments, particularly referring to this legislation, that came from the Black National Union for Clothing Workers. There are 23 000 clothing workers and they happen to be one of the more articulate unions we have. I quote from what they said in a report—

According to the report they say there have been many cases of victimization, even in the garment industry which is known for its good employer/employee relationship. The report further quotes them to have said—

I think there is another aspect that the Government should bear in mind. This comes from the Union of Distributive Workers. They claim that the committee system provides that you can only have committees where there are 20 or more employees. The report quotes them as saying—

I think these are legitimate factors which the Government should take into account.

The trade unions have criticized this Bill, and others will do so as well, on the grounds that it does not meet the basic requirements for bargaining. We have pointed out before that these requirements were established towards the turn of the century in the Trade Disputes Act in Britain where it was clearly specified that workers had certain fundamental rights. The first of these is the right to unite and to organize. Implicit in this is the fact that they should be able to do so on a national basis. However, the measure before us specifically excludes this. Whilst the Government contemplated at one stage allowing bargaining on an industrial basis, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, this was excluded. This particular requirement is therefore not met. A second right is that they should have the right to collective bargaining. This certainly is conceded in this legislation, but of course it is completely fragmented. It is done on an absolutely fragmentary basis. A third right that workers enjoy in terms of the basic understanding is that they should have the right to strike.

This, of course, is agreed to in this legislation. However, another criticism will be that we perpetuate here the two-stream approach to industrial bargaining. On one side one has a set of regulations which determine how Whites and others will be dealt with and then one has a completely different approach as far as Blacks are concerned. By implication again one can then begin to bargain from conflicting situations. What one does not understand is how the Government reconciles this kind of approach with their stance to the outside which is that there will be no discrimination and that where discrimination exists, it will be eliminated.

Those are some of the criticisms. What are the advantages of the legislation as it is before the House at the moment? I think they are these: In the first instance, Black workers can now act on their own behalf. Previously the Government’s approach has been entirely paternalistic. That has been the essential feature of legislation as far as Black workers are concerned. At least here the Blacks become part of the bargaining machinery. We regard this as a major advance.

Secondly, I think this legislation represents an attempt to improve communication in the work situation. Obviously, this is to be welcomed as well.

Thirdly, I think it will help to speed up negotiations. I think it is important in industrial relations if one can deal with a situation before people get locked in and before they become committed to a particular point of view. It is thus helpful. I think this legislation makes the bargaining process far more flexible. That we shall support.

In the fourth instance I think it will provide Black workers with very useful training in the field of collective bargaining. This is a highly skilled business. One cannot leave bargaining to people who have never had any experience of it. Indeed, in the USA, and in many other major countries of the world, big employers are offering special courses for the training of the workshop union members and others, because they believe and have found from experience how essential it is to have trade union members who are trained in the process of bargaining.

In the fifth place I think this legislation provides for an outlet for strike action. Again this is useful because where one keeps the cork on the bottle one can certainly expect blowups and detonations.

In the sixth place this legislation goes a bit further in trying to stop victimization. We believe that this too is important, because there are Black workers who are industrially not very sophisticated and, therefore, if there is any question of victimization in the work situation, it can have a major spill-over effect. As I have tried to indicate earlier on, what happens on the shop floor often has a spill-over effect as far as human relations, and ultimately political situations, are concerned.

We must look at this legislation in perspective. As I have said, we are surprised that the hon. the Minister introduces it at this point in time, a time when he is going to launch an inquiry into all labour legislation. However, we do not like the present Act. We also do not necessarily like what is being done here, but nevertheless we believe it is an improvement of the existing situation and therefore we from these benches shall support this legislation.

I want to conclude with a note of warning. We are entering a completely new era. Pressures are building up from outside. We must be aware of that. At the moment discussions are taking place in Vienna, and some of these issues are probably being dealt with there. To the outside world we say that we will eliminate discrimination. I believe the quicker the Government work in this direction, the better it will be.

Ultimately there is only one solution and that solution was given to the Government by the Botha Commission of nearly 30 years ago. It was one of the Government’s own commissions. That commission came to the conclusion that we could ultimately do nothing else but provide trade union services as a bargaining instrument for all the workers. The Botha Commission quarrelled, because some of its members thought there should be mixed unions while some of them thought there should be separate unions. In any event, the principle was clearly established many, many years ago, and I do urge the Government to move in this direction as soon as they possibly can.

On the grounds I have specified, we on this side of the House shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow concluded his Second Reading speech by harping on the same matter that that party normally harps on, i.e. Black trade unions.

The hon. member concluded his speech by referring to the Botha Commission. He will surely concede, though, that that commission was established, shortly after this party came into power, specifically because his party, which is today the official Opposition, neglected to review the industrial and labour legislation of South Africa in good time. Even before 1948 the hon. member and his party had the opportunity, but they did nothing about it. In 1953 the Botha Commission had to come to light with all the positive recommendations which appeared in the old Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act and also in the Industrial Conciliation Act.

The hon. member wanted to know why the hon. the Minister was now coming to light with this legislation since he has appointed a commission to review the labour legislation in South Africa. There is one thing, however, that the hon. member must give the hon. the Minister credit for and that is that the legislation before us today has already been in the process of preparation for a long time. The hon. member himself acknowledged that the legislation definitely embodies many benefits for the Bantu worker in South Africa. Must we now leave that in abeyance until such time as we have the report of the commission? It would surely be an absurdity to do such a thing. For that reason the hon. the Minister has now come to light with this legislation in good time. If there are any snags and if matters have to be straightened out, the commission can—they will also be considering this piece of legislation—point these out and the problems can be ironed out during the next session.

The hon. member also wanted to know why we are establishing a committee system for the Black man. He said that what it amounts to is a hierarchy of committees. In my view it is therefore a good thing to have a look at what committees have thus far existed. From 1953 to 1973 there were certain committees under the old Act. The Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 1953, was amended in 1973, and then we had the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act. That is the Act which is to be amended today. In that Act we had the primary works committees in embryonic form. In that Act there were also the co-ordinating works committees. Today there are only three of them in South Africa. There were certain other committees but they were so changed in 1973 as to establish a new dispensation, i.e. that of the liaison committees. In addition there are also regional boards which merely tried to iron out differences when disputes had already arisen. It was not, however, their function to negotiate, consult or discuss. At present there are 17 such boards in South Africa. Above those boards there was the Central Bantu Labour Board to which all disputes were challenged from the broad base of the pyramid.

That organization consisted solely of Whites, and if they could not settle a dispute, such dispute was eventually referred to the Wage Board. The hon. member has mentioned the fact that we are now creating a committee system for the Black man, but if we compare what the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians have on the one hand with these committees on the other, we find that the works committees consist solely of Black people. They are merely organizations that discuss their own problems and which then go to the employer. What happens in the case of the Whites? For the Whites one merely finds staff committees, consisting of employees of those organizations, as one finds in any organization. The committee discusses its own problems and takes them to the management.

Then there are also the liaison committees which we established for Bantu employees in 1973. These committees are similar to staff advisory committees for White employees because half of the liaison committee is made up of representatives of the employees, the other half being representatives of the employers. Exactly the same applies to the Whites and Coloureds where we have staff advisory committees which also consist of representatives 50% of whom are elected by the employees and the other half by the employers. I want to concede that in 1973 we foresaw that our liaison committees would more closely come to resemble the Industrial Council or the Conciliation Board, which is also an ad hoc body. We found, however, that there were unfortunately not enough teeth in the legislation to make the liaison committees effective enough. That is why we are coming along today with this legislation to also give legal force to liaison committees, which could only consult and hold discussions, but could not negotiate and could not conclude agreements which were inter partes. In this legislation provision is made for placing those bodies on an equal footing in respect of the kind of agreements that can be concluded by our conciliation boards and industrial councils.

The hon. member for Hillbrow states that the representation now being granted to the Black man is fragmented representation. What are the facts of the matter? The facts of the matter are that the approximately 300 works committees in South Africa also have the right, under the new dispensation, to enter into agreements that are contractually binding. However, they cannot conclude such agreement where liaison committees already exist because in the hierarchy they are subservient to the liaison committees. These 300 works committees already represent negotiating power for 70 000 Black workers.

The hon. member says we are fragmenting. If the hon. member takes into consideration that 39% of all economically active Bantu in South Africa are represented on the existing works committees and liaison committees, he will have to concede that this is a very great achievement. What are the percentages for the Whites, the Brown people and the Asiatics in South Africa who already have negotiating powers in their organizations? For the Whites it is a mere 29% and for the Brown people and the Asiatics a mere 31%. In this legislation, however, we are giving 39% of the economically active Black people in South Africa the right to negotiate, on their own behalf and on behalf of their fellow-workers, when it comes to conditions of employment and wages. If that is not a very, very positive step, I should like to know what more the Government must do to meet the Black workers halfway and even to accommodate the hon. member for Hillbrow in his plea.

For the first time the worker on the factory floor is being given the opportunity to have a representative, which he himself has elected to speak on his behalf. The hon. member was quite right when he said that about 2 500 of these liaison committees have already been formed and that they represent about 650 000 Black workers in South Africa. The hon. member, however, quoted from a document saying that the Black workers distrust the liaison committees. The fact that there are 2 500 liaison committees does not, I think, endorse what the hon. member quoted. If there were so much distrust, there would surely not already be so many organized, effective and operational liaison committees in South Africa.

However, in this legislation we are going further because, at a level above the liaison committees we are creating an umbrella body, i.e. a co-ordinating liaison committee. This co-ordinating liaison committee is being established as the central negotiating body for various divisions of the same trade or establishment. How are we doing this? Perhaps I could best explain this by way of an example. If one looks at an organization like Iscor, one sees that it has extensive works at Vanderbijlpark, Pretoria and Newcastle and that it can have a liaison committee in Pretoria, Vanderbijlpark and Newcastle. These three liaison committees themselves then have the right, after consultation with the employers, to establish an umbrella body, a co-ordinating liaison committee, on condition that the members of this co-ordinating liaison committee are taken from the ranks of the various liaison committees. These three liaison committees, of course, cannot negotiate agreements themselves, acting merely in an advisory capacity to the umbrella liaison committee i.e. the co-ordinating liaison committee.

The fact, of course, is that these agreements are not published. In all fairness I must say that in the 15 years I have been involved with industrial councils and conciliation boards, no more than 0,5% of all agreements involving industrial councils and conciliation boards have been published. Those are inter partes agreements, contractual commitments that are created. What is involved here is the fact that a situation of trust is created between the corps of employees and the employers, but that it will still be binding just as a conciliation board agreement would be binding. The hon. member for Hillbrow knows very well that even decisions about allocations made by the Industrial Tribunal, the highest appeal body in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, are not published but are merely regarded as having been published.

The agreement which is entered into has in itself a built-in safety device. It is not because of distrust of certain of our employers that this is included. It is merely as a further protection for the Black workers that the hon. the Minister has had it written into this Bill that any agreement which is entered into may never be less favourable to the worker than would an apposite provision of a wage board determination or an industrial council agreement within that trade.

That is a good thing.

Neither may it be less favourable, when it comes to conditions of employment, than the provisions of the Factories Act, the Mines and Works Act and the Shops and Offices Act. This is an additional safety valve built into this legislation for the Black worker in South Africa.

There is also a completely new idea in this Bill. I am referring to the fact that here, in embryonic form, the hon. the Minister is introducing a compulsory arbitration provision into the legislation. Under the old Act, in the past, if a dispute could not be settled by the works committee, the liaison committee, the labour official or the Central Labour Board, it was reported to the Minister with the recommendation that the Minister refer it, at his discretion, to the Wage Board. In the proposed section 10(4) a new dispensation is introduced, i.e. that the Minister must refer a dispute, which concerns workers in essential services, to the Wage Board. I believe this is a very positive step in the right direction. When it comes to essential services, one is dealing with the provision of power, water, and sanitation, the work of local authorities, etc., and it is specifically in those service strata that one does not want strike, interruptions and dissatisfaction. As the dispute of the Whites are referred to the Industrial Tribunal, one also wants the Black people to have the certainty that their disputes will be referred to the higher body, i.e. the Wage Board.

In conclusion I want to point out that the South African industrial and labour legislation mainly aims at having self-regulation within each separate trade, industry, profession or establishment, i.e. with employees and employers jointly negotiating about conditions of employment, wages and salaries. It is true that up to now the Bantu have, to a large extent, been deprived of that privilege. Discussions have been held for him and on his behalf. Now, like the White, Coloured and Asian workers, he is getting the opportunity to negotiate himself or, to put it differently, to participate in the self-regulation within the relevant components. Within his establishment or trade he helps to determine the rules, the regulations and the conditions of his service contract. The labour and industrial legislation of a country is like a living organism. It may never be permitted to stagnate. It must never become stereotyped. I think that by appointing a commission to investigate the labour legislation in South Africa, the hon. the Minister has proved that he can take the bull by the horns. Since he is new to this portfolio, we are grateful for that evidence. I believe that he has proved that he can tackle the labour problems of South Africa with vision and that, backed up by the vitality of the Department of Labour—we know that the department has that degree of vitality—he has approached this very complex problem, with which South Africa is saddled, in a very penetrating manner and with very broad vision. I should like to congratulate him on this effort and I should also like to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria East. A great part of his speech was devoted to matters raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow. However, he finished off by saying that the industrial legislation in this country was orientated towards self-government within each industry. Well, as far as that sort of self-government is concerned, he should remember that there is still separation even at that level between the machinery for governing Whites and the machinery for governing Blacks. This is where our basic philosophy disagrees with what the Government does. We do not believe that what is done is in the best interest of an industry.

What we in these benches find extraordinary as far as the introduction of this Bill is concerned is that the hon. the Minister should have introduced it at all at a time when the whole question of industrial conciliation machinery is to be examined in depth. The hon. the Minister made a major announcement that all labour legislation was to be reviewed. We in these benches, in company with most of South Africa, expressed our satisfaction that such a commission of inquiry was to be appointed to look into the existing system of labour relations with a view to making it more effective and meeting the country’s requirements in changing times.

We have before us a Bill which amends an Act which is very much part of the existing system of labour relations. It is a controversial Act, an Act which we regard as totally unsatisfactory for the regulation of the conditions of employment of Black workers. It has always been our standpoint that the Bantu Labour Relations Regulations Act of 1953 is unsatisfactory and inadequate and does not meet the minimum requirements of industrial conciliation machinery for Black people. We believe that we run a very grave danger in South Africa of creating a situation where because Black people do not have political rights and are not able effectively to express their political viewpoint with any hope of meeting their aspirations, it is quite possible that the field of labour could become a political battleground. Mr. Speaker, you and I as Whites are in a situation where if we are dissatisfied with the status quo we at least can express an opinion through the ballot box. We can vote for or against parliamentary or provincial candidates in elections. We can vote for city or town councillors of our choice. We can join a trade union. Our representatives meet in bodies which have political power in real terms. Blacks, and in particular Blacks in industrial areas, do not have any political machinery with real power. Denied political power, Black people might perhaps be tempted to use another power, namely economic power, by the withdrawal of their labour.

This is why it is vitally important that our industrial conciliation machinery for Black workers should meet certain minimum requirements. Even with the improvements contained in this Bill—and we believe that there are certain marginal improvements—this machinery is inadequate.

What additional requirements do you want?

I hope to go a little into our basic philosophy and the hon. the Minister will see. The Act which this Bill seeks to amend provides an alternative to democratic trade unionism for Blacks. We believe that this alternative is not adequate.

What do you want?

I feel sorely tempted to oppose this Bill. We believe, and I think that hon. member knows it too, that Blacks should not be denied trade union rights. It is discriminatory to deny Blacks trade union rights. It is only the fact that the commission of inquiry will shortly be in operation that makes us give very grudging support to this measure, only on the basis that it is a temporary measure and we hope that it will not be in operation for very long. We believe that any commission of inquiry sitting and examining in depth the situation of industrial machinery in this country could not under any circumstances support a measure of this nature. It is our belief that as long as industrial legislation is devised on the basis of different systems for workers of different colour, there is a tremendous potential for conflict. If the interests of different groups are considered from different angles, within any industry, from inside that industry conflict on the basis of these different group interests is inevitable. One might find a co-ordinating liaison committee coming up with a totally different viewpoint from the viewpoint of the White trade union. This will inevitably lead to conflict within that particular industry, and that is not desirable.

One hopes that this commission will drive home to the Government that we have an integrated economy and that industrial legislation like this measure, devised to maintain separation between racial groups, is harmful to individual industries and harmful to the economy as a whole. Measures such as this Bill do not meet the necessities of our present-day situation in South Africa.

I would like to look a little more carefully at the whole idea of the establishment and functions of co-ordinating liaison committees. I think I would be correct in saying that a co-ordinating liaison committee in an industry may well conflict—as I have said already—with the interests of the White trade unions in the industry. Then I believe that they are placed in an untenable and potentially dangerous situation which could result in complete chaos in that industry. I think that the hon. the Minister knows that the Trade Union Council of South Africa and many other trade unions are totally opposed to this measure on that basis. They feel that when workers in an industry negotiate, they should be able to negotiate on behalf of the whole industry for the benefit of that industry. But when they negotiate as one little group or one little committee or negotiate for the interests of only a section of the workers, inevitably the varying interests of those various sections must clash.

Would you prefer the model of the British trade unions?

This is a very broad question indeed. The hon. the Minister wants to know whether I would prefer the British system. I think the answer is very simple. I would say that in South Africa we have industrial conciliation machinery which is very good, which is very fine. Our system at the moment, as it applies to White workers, is very good indeed. The reason why we do not have many strikes in South Africa is because of the advanced nature of our industrial conciliation machinery for Whites. It is good, but we say that it is discriminatory and wrong for this to be denied to Black people. As the hon. the Minister knows, our industrial conciliation machinery is not like the machinery they have in Britain. We have many-stage negotiations before we get to a strike situation. This is fine. Why do we then deny it to Blacks?

If one were accepting that works committees, liaison committees, were a step towards trade unionism I would be a bit happier. If the hon. the Minister would commit himself to that and state that he sees works committees and liaison committees as, not an alternative to trade unions, but an adjunct to, I would go along with him all the way. Strangely enough we have a situation where Whites are almost being discriminated against, because they do not have the machinery that Blacks have. It is a paradox.

Now you are talking!

We are now in a situation where White workers can operate through a trade union, but where they do not have works committees and liaison committees. Black workers, on the other hand, do not have trade unions, but works committees and liaison committees.

I think it is an attitude that has been expressed by hon. members in these benches before. We would like to see the two operations going side by side. Going through this Bill in detail, there are many clauses with which one could quarrel. There are many undesirable, even dangerous, aspects which we would regard as being an issue even in normal circumstances. However, the appointment of the commission of inquiry indicates to us that this is nothing more than a temporary measure. We certainly regard its introduction in the face of the commission’s inquiry to be inopportune, but hopefully it will not be with us for very long. In these special circumstances we will not oppose the Bill at this stage, because it is an interim measure.

We would like to make it clear though that we do not like it at all. The hon. the Minister’s contention that we are moving away from discrimination—in clauses 2, 12 and 17—I am afraid, just does not wash with us. The original Act and this amending Bill are of their very nature so discriminatory that by merely allowing Blacks to become members of the Central Bantu Labour Board, the appointment of Blacks as Bantu labour officers, and so forth, indicate to us that this measure does not help at all in moving away from discrimination. Therefore we cannot accept it. It does not move away from discrimination in any substantial manner.

However, summing up, I would say that the Bill is an improvement in areas where no industrial agreements exist. In areas where established wage determinations do exist, however, it is dangerous because of the conflict that I have mentioned, a conflict of interests. Many of the amendments are of vital importance. We wish—and I suppose this is a pipe dream—that the hon. the Minister would consider withdrawing this amending Bill altogether until the commission of inquiry reports. However, failing that, we will not oppose the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, in expressing their support for the Bill, both the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Hillbrow raised basically the same objections upon which they base their apathy and lack of enthusiasm about this Bill. I do not want us to spend a lot of time reaching consensus, but I nevertheless want to return to a few of the arguments which the hon. members raised. I am doing so because I believe that those arguments deserve a reply. What the one complaint of hon. members—the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Orange Grove—amounted to was that there would be too much fragmentation. According to the hon. member for Hillbrow, there could be as many as 300 different agreements in the engineering industry alone. The hon. member for Orange Grove is complaining about exactly the same problem. He also refers to it as fragmentation.

Due to a lack of time I could not obtain very recent figures, but I want to quote an authority on the position of fragmentation concerning agreements in America. I do not want to try to draw an exact comparison. A learned American professor once said the following about this subject—

He bases his conclusion on the following statistics—

Why the hon. members are now concerned about 300 agreements if America is satisfied with 155 000 agreements, one of which agreements controls an average of a mere 130 workers, I really do not know. It seems to me as if the hon. members themselves are out of step with a country at as advanced a stage of industrial development as America. Hon. members also forget that these agreements, which can be negotiated by co-ordinating liaison committees, or by liaison committees, have as a point of departure certain minimum wages and certain conditions of service, which are negotiated either by the Wage Board or by the industrial boards. This basis of industrial board agreements or of wage board determinations is still continuing. All that is happening now, is that a liaison committee or a coordinated liaison committee come together as a basis in a particular industry or undertaking and mention changes here or adaptations there which they want to make to make it fit in with their specific circumstances. They dot the i’s and perhaps give a little more here or there because their particular circumstances are different They may have problems with travelling expenses because the distance between the worker’s residence and the factory is great, and they have to make allowance for this. I want to predict that the agreements of liaison committees and co-ordinating liaison committees will actually be extensions of the basic minimum wages and conditions of service which are laid down in terms of the general machinery in every case.

A second complaint which both the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Orange Grove came up with, is the question of trade union rights once again, and the hon. members were both of the opinion that the system was all very well, but that it should be complementary to the recognition of Black trade unions. I think that this afternoon is definitely not the time to reopen the whole debate about the recognition or otherwise of Black trade unions. Furthermore, I am going to refrain from doing so. In a nutshell, our standpoint on the question is simply that for various reasons which we have already set out repeatedly, we do not recognize the Black trade unions, but that we are creating something positive in their place. We are giving the Black workers proper channels for negotiation, and now for bargaining as well. By accepting this Bill, we are making the liaison committees no longer merely a place to talk, but an effective channel for competition. This guarantees the Blacks all the basic rights which the hon. member for Hillbrow referred to. He referred to the worker’s right to bargain, his right to strike, his right not to be victimized, and his right to unite and organize. All these basic and fundamental rights which are accepted throughout the Western World as fundamental rights will be built into the Bantu Labour Relations Regulations Act, after this amending Bill has been accepted. That is why I do not know why hon. members are complaining, unless we just agree to differ on the subject of Black trade unions. These liaison committees constitute an effective channel which is the interests of the Black worker. As far as the Black worker is concerned, we in South Africa are in the position that we could start with a clean slate from the very beginning. Many Western countries changed over to the committee system, retaining their trade union systems, because the old trade union system simply did not meet all the requirements.

In South Africa we are in the situation of being able to find unique solutions for the Black worker because we do not have a long history in this regard. We create a pattern which suits the circumstances, a pattern which suits the specific needs at this stage. This is a pattern which will now be looked at fully once again by a commission, with a view to changed circumstances. I think that we must see this Bill as something which has been introduced in the spirit of the appointment of the commission. I shall return to this later. Circumstances have changed. A few years we introduced liaison committees. These proved to be a great success. Figures in this regard have already been provided. There are other new circumstances which now make this Bill essential. Every year there is better quality training for the Black workers. A greater degree of sophistication is developing amongst them due to better training, higher school-leaving standards and the general improvement in their standard of living.

All these new circumstances make it essential for the Bill to be accepted at this stage, even before the commission presents its report, because things must carry on in the meantime. In one sense this is a transitory measure which does not necessarily mean the last word. We all know that the commission will publish its report. However, we must bear in mind that when he announced that a commission would be drawn up, the hon. the Minister said that the appointment of this commission should not be seen as a total change in direction. After all, the NP has always believed that the ethnic pattern of South Africa must be maintained and that identity must be secured. The NP still believes that total integration will create serious problems and friction and that for the sake of law and order, identity and self determination, we must not disturb our ethnic pattern and must now allow it to be unnecessarily disturbed in any sphere, whether the labour sphere or any other. If hon. members are cherishing expectations that the NP is going to drop its philosophy as regards labour legislation, they are making a very big mistake and we can tell them here and now that they will be disappointed.

However, in this Bill, as in the commission, the issue is adaptation to changed circumstances. The issue is the four factors to which the hon. the Minister referred when he announced that a commission would be appointed. He said that it would be appointed to investigate the legislation, especially the Industrial Conciliation Act and this Act which we are now amending. He said that this was being done with a view to greater efficiency, the changing requirements, and the elimination of bottlenecks and the development of sound relations.

I have just said that this Bill is in the spirit of the appointment of the commission. If hon. members measure this Bill against the criterion of the four terms of reference of the commission, they will find every one of these four aspects in it The hon. the Minister said that he appointed the commission with a view to greater efficiency. Greater efficiency is assured by these provisions in the Bill relating to procedure, by these categories to which the hon. the Minister referred. Secondly, he said that the commission was being appointed with a view to adapting to changing circumstances. If we take a look at the Bill which concerns liaison committees, and now the institution of co-ordinating liaison committees, we see that we have reached the end of the first phase. The first phase concerned the establishment of the committees. There are thousands of them now. The fact that all these thousands of committees exist, resulted in changed circumstances. It meant that new needs arose, the need to be able to bargain and conclude agreements. This is now being provided for. The third aspect which the hon. the Minister mentioned when he announced the commission, was that it would serve to eliminate problems. Problems in this legislation are being eliminated in that spirit The problems were that only Whites could be appointed as Bantu labour officers and that only Whites could serve on the Bantu Labour Board. These matters became problems due to developments which took place. In the final instance the hon. the Minister said that the terms of reference of the commission in this regard concerned the development of sound relations. The development of sound relations will also be effected by means of the legislation, and I shall now indicate how. Far more extensive opportunities for liaison than there have been up till now will be afforded through the passing and implementation of the Bill. A new dimension is now being added, viz. the co-ordinating liaison committees, where the liaison committees of various branches can duly meet so that large concerns like Iscor, or another large concern which has branches in various places, can effect proper liaison within that whole concern. The implementation of this Bill will ensure a greater degree of interaction between employer and employee and it will further stimulate consultation and discussion at meetings, apart from the bargaining etc. which it incorporates.

The Bill cannot cause the commission any difficulty. The hon. member for Hillbrow raised the objection that there was already a commission and he wanted to know why there should be a Bill as well. The Bill merely adds an additional dimension, which the commission can also take note of and consider. By passing and implementing the Bill, we are even creating opportunities for the commission to observe bargaining within a trade in practice and to test it and then, on the basis of those observations of how the bargaining works within one undertaking, and whether or not it is a success, to be able to publish a more thorough report and make a more comprehensive study than would have been the case if we had not first implemented the Bill in practice for a short while.

Furthermore, the Bill does not impose limitations of any kind on the commission, nor is there any prejudice as far as the terms of reference of the commission is concerned. It is a fine, broadening and creative Bill, and I think that everyone in the House should feel free to support it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vereeniging must not hold it against me if I do not react to his arguments. I should just like to express a few thoughts in connection with the matter, because it has already been discussed at great length.

When I look at the labour system, I bear in mind that we are dealing with two separate streams of labour organization in South Africa. On the one hand we have the organization which is, as I call it, trade orientated, such as that embodied in the Industrial Conciliation Act. On the other hand one finds the second stream which, in my humble opinion, is employer-orientated, or decentralized, as embodied in the Bill before us at the moment. Therefore we are concerned today with the second stream, namely the decentralized labour organizations. Consequently, what we really have before the House—this gives me great satisfaction—is a development of the second type of labour organization, such a development that one can say today that what we have here is virtually a type of organization which can already stand on its own two feet and which has already gone a long way towards achieving a maturity of its own. It is easy to argue that there are many arguments against this form of organization. In fact I mentioned a few just the other day when I said that the first problem concerning the two-stream policy—if I may call it that—is that it is being argued by the PRP that we are discriminating against the Black man. I assume that there are Black people who support them in this point of view. On the other hand, and perhaps with equal justification, it is being argued by the Whites that at this stage the Black man has not yet attained to the degree of progress enabling him to make proper use of the sophisticated machinery of trade unions, as the Western world knows it. These are the two sides of the matter. We are in the fortunate position—and we are pleased about it—that the hon. the Minister appointed a commission which will go into all the facets of the matter. If there is one thing which the commission will definitely pay attention to, it will be this very two-stream labour organization policy followed in South Africa.

Let us accept that the commission will come to the conclusion in a year or two—after all it cannot deal with its work in 14 days—that this two-stream policy is wrong and that the two streams will have to merge at some stage. That possibility will still not prevent me from supporting this Bill for the simple reason that we are here dealing with a Bill which enables the Black man to gain first-hand experience of communication and to bargain. It enables the Black man “to do his own thing”, if I may put it that way. This is what the Bill allows him, and in this sense I think that it is a very good measure. One can speculate at length and argue about the philosophy of labour organization. However, a foundation is being laid here and it will be extended in future. As far as I am aware, it should work satisfactorily because it gives the Black man the opportunity to be involved in his affairs as much as possible. It gives him the opportunity of communicating properly with his employer and it affords us the opportunity of dealing with disputes without delay. Without saying much more, I think that we have made a reasonable start here, the matter is progressing well and my colleagues are quite prepared to support the Bill at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the Opposition parties in this House approach the acceptance of this Bill with a great deal of reluctance. Not only do they approach it with a great deal of reluctance, but they also mirror the opinion of industry, commerce and the trade unions who have expressed very grave doubts as to the efficacy and the value of this form of legislation. They are, in fact, opposed to this form of legislation, so much so that industry has expressed fears that a considerable danger exists that the proposed Bill could lead to chaos in the work situation as the net result of the application of its provisions. I shall deal with some of these points as I proceed. We accept this Bill with a great deal of reluctance because, as has been clearly stated, we are consoled by the fact that the hon. the Minister is placing all labour legislation before a commission of enquiry and that the chairman of the commission will, in the process, be acquainting himself with much of the labour laws and conditions in other countries across the world. As a matter of fact, I believe he is touring countries overseas at the moment. We are furthermore, consoled by the fact that the Government is introducing this Bill merely as an interim measure in order to meet the situation which has arisen in the last two years, a recurrence of which they feel they would like to avoid. In that sense one could well appreciate their attitude.

The hon. member for Vereeniging—the last hon. member on the Government side to speak in support of the Bill—tried very eloquently to convince himself that it was a very sound measure, but he made one or two rather palpable errors in presenting his point of view. He says that most Western countries use the system of works committees because they have found that the trade union principle and machinery does not effectively deal with the whole situation of negotiation. That is entirely wrong, because when the principal Act was introduced, it was quite clear that the intention was to follow the German labour pattern.

I have had an opportunity to look at that pattern and of talking to one of the more senior officials in the labour department of the West Berlin Government. He made it absolutely and unequivocally clear that works committees were regarded merely as an addition to the trade union movement and were established only with the objective of dealing with domestic issues of a personal and intimate nature on the floor of particular industries or trades and in specific undertakings. It does not go further than that. It does not deal with wage systems, nor does it deal with anything involved in the normal negotiation that takes place in and arising …

Are you aware of the fact that in Germany there are only two major trade unions?

I am not aware of the number of trade unions they have. I am giving the House information which I have gained at first hand from a very senior official in the labour department of the West Berlin Government. That is the State Government of West Berlin. I actually have a booklet on the subject, but unfortunately I do not have it with me here in Cape Town. I could have produced it very easily to indicate that that is the purpose of the works committee system. I do not know where else it exists. No other evidence has been produced in this House that it exists anywhere else at the moment than in West Germany. It serves merely as an adjunct to the main basic principle of collective bargaining through the trade union system. The works committee system is not a system for collective bargaining, and that is the issue with which we must confront ourselves, without decrying in any way the hon. the Minister’s attempt to try to do something to move towards the principle of collective bargaining.

The other point that the hon. member for Vereeniging made was that the objective here was to enable the communities to retain their specific identity and to keep them within their separate groups. With all due respect to the hon. the Minister, who is a colleague of mine outside the House, this is absolute nonsense. This is not the hon. the Minister’s objective. His objective is to avert problems that we have had in the past, i.e. problems of misunderstanding, disputes and strikes where thousands of people were on strike and where we were unable to take any effective steps to resolve the situation. We did not wish to take steps to resolve it as we did not wish to aggravate the situation any further. In that sense I can well understand the hon. the Minister’s efforts. The reference to the American situation is far too sparse to warrant any serious consideration. Apart from the very important fact that collective bargaining in the United States does not take place on issues of colour or race or on the question of retaining one’s identity or that of a particular group of the population of the country. It bears no reference and has no similarity to the situation we find in this country, and therefore we cannot make use of that situation to illustrate that there can be thousands of collective bargaining agreements. 20 million people is only a very small number of people who can be said to be actively engaged in industry and commerce, when one realizes that the United States have a population of 220 000 000. I am sure that the economically active population in the United States is far beyond 20 million and that far more than 20 million are involved in trade unionism and collective bargaining in the United States.

The question of numbers is the basic defect in your whole philosophy.

We are very pleased about the fact, and we are glad to see it, that there is common sense and a natural evolution in Government thinking in that they now seem to realize that collective bargaining as entrenched in the trade unions and as expressed by us in our country through a very effective Industrial Conciliation Act, is something which must come about. We appreciate that the Government is taking steps at the moment We do not regard it as sufficient and we do not regard it as the correct step, but it is good to know that the Government’s thinking is changing. I believe that, if we accept what the hon. the Minister told us earlier in the House, viz. that he visualizes an entirely new era in the whole of the labour pattern of South Africa with the emergence and containment of hundreds of thousands of people of various groups in this country and, more particularly, of the emergence of the Black people in the economy which our technological advances and the expansion of our entire industrial life will require, we have to take important steps to meet that situation. That is why he has appointed a commission. I am glad to see that he and the Government are realizing—we do not criticize that; we welcome it—the fact that collective bargaining is the basic principle that has to be employed in maintaining good, sound, harmonious relations in the labour world. This fact has been realized by many people in the outside world as well. Some large companies in this country today have accepted and recognized large trade unions for Black people. They have done so purely for the purpose of this collective bargaining principle. They realize that they are not registered bodies and cannot be accepted in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Nevertheless, they represent in numbers a very representative cross-section in industry today. These companies prefer to make agreements and negotiate with these people rather than to allow it to develop in the haphazard manner in which it has been developing so far with the numerous works committees which have come into being and which together with the liaison committees, add up to some 5 000 in number. They prefer to do it that way because it is the most effective and intelligent way. Furthermore, let me point out that in collective bargaining one cannot take fragmented measures; one cannot divide up an integrated economy to start off with. The hon. the Minister is aware that the Industrial Conciliation Act is such a finely balanced piece of machinery that any effort to amend any section of that particular statute must be undertaken with the utmost care and caution. I remember when an amendment was brought before the House with regard to the collection of trade union dues of members. That provision, a relatively minor provision in the Act, was sent to a Select Committee; that committee spent some months on the subject, taking evidence and receiving documents and representations in order to ensure that nothing would upset that finely balanced delicate piece of machinery, the Industrial Conciliation Act.

I do not believe that with this Bill we can effectively cover the whole issue of collective bargaining satisfactorily. I am not pleading for Black trade unions, as some members on the Government side have suggested. We do not believe in that form of separation. What we believe would be the solution to our problems is that Black people as workers should become part and parcel of the trade union movement. I cannot illustrate at the moment for the hon. the Minister’s benefit the machinery we have in mind, but the objective is that they should become part and parcel of the trade union movement. As has been pointed out by an earlier speaker, we pride ourselves on our present industrial legislation, not with a pride of possession, but because over the years a system has been evolved with the necessary built-in cooling-off phases, a system which has ensured industrial peace in this country for many years. That has resulted from the effective industrial legislation we have. If it is effective for a body of workers, it must remain effective also if the body of workers increases. We have had troubles over trade unions for Blacks before. We know of the political troubles of years gone by. However, that is not a precedent and it should certainly not become the basis on which the Government rejects the Black worker—who is so deeply integrated into our economy that we cannot nor wish to exist without him today—as part and parcel of a complete and comprehensive system of collective bargaining.

That is what I hope the commission will go into and consider very carefully when they deal with this matter. The Government itself has admitted certain things. The other day during the discussion of the Urban Transport Bill, the hon. the Minister of Transport said that we need not fear; there would be integration of passengers on buses. He said that it was the local authorities that would have to take action. He said that he could not put it into the Bill, because he did not accept it. However, it was going to come, he said.

Furthermore, we have been talking about equal pay for equal work and we have been talking about moving away from discrimination. We have advanced tremendously in that field in the last five or six years because we have shed ourselves of certain inhibited fears. We have shed ourselves of that, and are trying to move where we can, and I hope we shall be successful in moving into the more modern era in which the world is moving today. This we can do, because we have a very much more competent, firm, and stable State vis-à-vis the world. That is an important factor. In my opinion South Africa today has the strength, both morally and spiritually, to face these issues and to take the steps that are necessary to bring about collective bargaining instead of the half-way measures which we employ here.

Now some criticism with regard to this Bill. No provision has been made for instance for legal sanctions or for penalties in the event of non-compliance with any term or condition contained in the agreement. The only way in which the agreement can be enforced is by civil action. No provision is made in the Bill that it should be gazetted. There is no provision that it should be registered with the Department of Labour so that they can ensure the compliance with the minimum legal requirements or to ensure that the Department of Labour would be able to take any action about the matter. It can take notice of it if the matter is brought to its notice, but they can do nothing more about it There is no provision for enforcing or policing these agreements. In the absence of such provision, the legal effect of such a “binding” agreement is bound to be the source of judicial inquiry from time to time, because there may be misinterpretations of these agreements which are virtually all private agreements. They have to be placed in the particular factory or on the floor of the particular undertaking and be exhibited for all to see. This must be done in the same way as determinations are displayed. However, this could lead to expensive litigation which could prove too onerous on the people whom the Bill intends to cater for.

Furthermore, there appears to be some uncertainty about the provisions in the Bill for resolving difficulties arising from inconsistencies or conflicts between the terms of this house agreement—as one might call it—on the one hand, and any relevant wage regulating measure, order or determination on the other hand. I know that the agreement cannot provide for anything which is of lesser benefit than that provided for in existing agreements. There are cases where no agreements exist at all, where agreements suddenly have to come into operation, and we are going to have inconsistencies and conflicts. Furthermore, there is one very important factor to remember. There is nothing to prevent a works committee from opening negotiations every week of the year, if it wishes to do so. There is no period to which an agreement can be bound, except by going to the courts of the land. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what that can do to labour relations when one resorts to that sort of measure? Certain people will negotiate an agreement but if they are untrained it will take years to train them how to conduct negotiations on a proper basis. A house agreement might come into effect for that particular section of the trade but which does not cover an industry; it does not cover a trade in the accepted term of the word, nor does it cover a trade as expressed by the Wage Act. It does not cover an industry as expressed by the Industrial Conciliation Act. It is only for an establishment within a trade or within an area, but only an establishment or branches of that establishment. We may have agreements varying every few weeks. This is the sort of thing we have been having in the Middle East where there is a strike almost every day. I do not know what their legislation is, but I should be horrified to think that we might be placed in a position where establishments will have from time to time, throughout the year, be faced with the necessity to re-negotiate. That in itself can bring about a great deal of unrest and conflict.

The other dangerous thing about this Bill, of which I think one should take note is that employees might not want to form liaison committees, but preserve only the works committee system. The works committee system is brought about by the desire of the workers. They inform their employer that they wish to form a works committee, and the employer must then proceed to interview the Department of Labour in order to arrange for a works committee to be established. With the other bodies, like liaison and co-ordinating bodies, it is only a permissive right. Nobody can force that issue. So these workers may suddenly tumble to the fact that it would be an excellent idea if they remained only contained within the works committee system, and on that basis they can do exactly what I pointed out to the hon. the Minister earlier on.

As the hon. member for Hillbrow has clearly stated to the hon. the Minister we are not going to oppose this Bill, however much we disapprove of its terms. For two reasons: firstly, because the commission has been established and, secondly because a little bit is better than nothing; we are not going to vote against it, but we are going to have problems, and the hon. the Minister should be made aware of this. I can only express the hope that for the time this measure continues to be in operation it will be successful. We would be very delighted if it was successful, but we have fears that it will not succeed. Finally, I feel the hon. the Minister will have to give this his very careful consideration and try to find another sort of machinery—perhaps he might be able to—in order to ensure that the principle, the essence, the elixir of collective bargaining is not disturbed, so that that can remain the prevailing principle which could bring peace and harmony to all our labour relations in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Opposition has, with the passage of the years, at least learned something. Hon. members will remember that the Opposition had a great deal to say about the Industrial Conciliation Act in 1954. They slated that legislation as being extremely poor, insignificant and meaningless. Today it was conceded here that South Africa has some of the best labour legislation in the world. From the Opposition ranks, even from the PRP, there was the acknowledgement that South Africa has some of the best labour legislation in the world. This is the same kind of legislation and is a product of that legislation which the Opposition wrote off at the time as supposedly meaningless.

This afternoon I not only want to express my support for this amendment Bill, but I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his far-sightedness in extending the powers and the rights of the liaison committees. The hon. the Minister must also be congratulated on the fact that in terms of this legislation he is giving teeth to the liaison committees. In this amendment Bill I now see an opportunity for employers on the one hand and the employees on the other to stand together, and not in opposing camps, as happens in the case of trade unions.

This legislation offers industries and trades an opportunity to grant representation to their managements, to grant representation to their entrepreneurs and also to grant representation to their employees. Both management and employees can serve on the liaison committees and iron out all the problems experienced in their industries or their factories. If I were to risk a prediction, it would be that this legislation is the forerunner of what may still come, the prelude to good relations, not only in the trades as such, but also between individuals. It will lead to better understanding amongst people and will lead to people having a better understanding of one another’s problems and to such problems being more easily perceived and resolved. With this legislation South Africa again leads the world as far as labour legislation is concerned.

The hon. member for Jeppe has said that in Germany works committees are merely supplementary to trade unions. Here in South Africa works committees and liaison committees are not merely supplementary to trade unions. It would not surprise me if the committee system gains so much ground in South Africa that we shall one day be proud and grateful for the legislation at present before the House. Therefore I have, deep down, no doubts about the good intentions of this legislation and the sound attitudes it wants to create.

Mr. speaker, I shall briefly try to reply to the debate. If one were to endeavour to reply in detail to the arguments raised, one could be arguing for a very long time. However I do not think it is necessary in this specific instance. I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their contributions. Many of the arguments raised are not new arguments. They have already been raised previously and will probably be raised again in future. I nevertheless want to thank hon. members very sincerely for their contributions. There are a few basic aspects which we can perhaps go into at this stage.

Firstly, I want to reply to the question asked by the hon. members for Hillbrow, Jeppe and Orange Grove, i.e. why I am specifically coming to light with the legislation at this juncture. Those hon. members argued that since we are on the eve of an investigation by a commission, in which we have confidence, it is unnecessary to place the legislation on the Statute Book at this stage. That is not my argument, however. We must see this in the historic context. The fact of the matter is that on previous occasions there have been arguments in this House about legislation to resolve specific bottlenecks. Over a long period of time employers and employees have also discussed that with the various parties. My predecessor even circulated a draft. In view of what he has said, what I myself have said and in view of the undertakings that have been given, I am honour bound to take steps as quickly as possible, steps which were earlier regarded as essential and which are today as urgent as ever. What is involved here is the very important point that increasing numbers of Black people are being brought into our industries and that circumstances have simply changed to such an extent that one has to give answers to certain aspects. Therefore, whether the commission publishes a report this year and makes it possible to introduce legislation next year, or whether the commission only publishes the report next year, makes no difference. This matter is completely divorced from that aspect. We are honour bound, as far as the fundamentals are concerned, at least to come to light with a standpoint and to convert this into legislation which will have answers to those bottlenecks.

What is the minimum to which any person—and this includes the Black people in South Africa—is entitled in any work situation? That is the question. It is the fundamental right of people in South Africa, and in every country in the world, to be allowed three things. This legislation is giving those three things to the Black workers of South Africa. The first is the right to organize; the second is the right to negotiate binding agreements and the third is the right to be protected from victimization. Those are the three rights provided for by the legislation.

Hon. members may ask why, after so many years, we are only now coming forward with the legislation. Again one must view the matter from an historic angle. In South Africa we do not have, as far as labour relations are concerned, a tradition stretching back a 100 years or more. On the contrary, it started only a short while ago. That is also the reason why I say that in a situation, which is rapidly growing to fruition, one cannot come to light with the kind of sophistication that is accepted today in many countries of the world. In the Republic of South Africa, under our particular conditions and in the light of our particular needs, we must create something to fit in with those particular conditions. That is my whole argument. The time is now right to introduce the Bill so that it can, in future, lend support to the wall that has to be built. If the commission wants to report on it—and they have every right to look at the effects of this Bill—I would be very grateful to receive a report about that from the commission. However, we cannot bind the commission by telling it not to have a look at the Bill. In fact, that must be a part of its terms of reference. If the commission were to look at this legislation, it would find that it could fit in with the pattern we shall have to consider in future.

I want to deal with a second matter. This concerns the argument that consensus had not been reached by the employers and the employees. That is not so. To those hon. members who say that, I want to say that they are wrong. With all due respect I want to say that I do not think that any Minister of Labour has held such wide-ranging consultations about this matter as I myself have. I personally consulted a large number of these more than 100 trade unions. A while ago I had discussions with no fewer than 46 different trade unions at one and the same time. I met them in Germiston and thrashed the matter out with them all afternoon. They unanimously approved this legislation and told me that they supported it. There were several unaffiliated trade unions and I held discussions with each of them in turn. During recent weeks I devoted many hours to explaining this matter to trade unions. There were trade unions which said that they disagreed with me. They have every right to do so, but they were in the minority. In Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban and Port Elizabeth I personally met employers from throughout South Africa. There were between 600 and 700 of the leading big employers in this country, employers representing more than three-quarters of the total number of workers. I do not think there has ever been personal involvement of this kind. We spoke to the whole spectrum of employer organizations throughout South Africa—if I had asked them, they would probably have given me leave to mention names here. We did not do this by correspondence. I myself spent hours with them. For hours this Bill was thrashed out clause by clause. Do hon. members know by whom these big get-togethers were organized? They were organized for me by the Handelsinstituut, FCI and Seifsa. Their leaders were present. I can therefore say with confidence that this Bill is being introduced here with the full approval of the majority of employers in South Africa.

I have already stated the basic aim. The basic aim is to give the Black people, at this stage, those things I regard as fundamental. Now and in the future we shall have to create a labour situation which is unique to the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. member for Jeppe tried to marshal arguments against the hon. member for Vereeniging. The hon. members for Vereeniging and Pretoria East very effectively countered those arguments and covered the ground well. The hon. member for Jeppe tried to argue that in the world outside the concept of trade unionism, organized labour—vakuniewese—has the same image, substance and content everywhere. However, that is not the case. There is a world of difference. For example, the trade union movement in Europe is totally different to that in Britain, and that in America differs fundamentally from that in Europe. The system in Japan and the Far East differs again from other systems in the world. However, this is not the time to argue that aspect or to give lectures on it. I feel modest about my knowledge of the subject because it is very complex, but I have done my best to determine how the world feels about it. That is why I sent Prof. Wiehahn overseas again to make an intensive study of the matter because there are fundamental differences as far as points of departure are concerned. During the past few weeks leaders from all over the world have been in my office, and today I can rightfully say that as far as the concept and nature of trade unionism is concerned, the world is also moving away from many old standpoints. No fewer than 20 of the states of the USA are trying to create something on a similar basis to what we are doing here today. If one asks them why they are relinquishing the old methods in search of new ones, they say that as the world develops they are creating something new. Because this is therefore a dynamic field of activity, they must create something new, just as the Republic of South Africa is trying to create something new. One thing I do want to concede to everyone in the House who spoke and thought about the matter, i.e. that here we do, in a sense, have a dualistic system. This is so because the system developed historically along these lines and is today still the best system. In future we shall try to see how further development can take place because there is one fundamental fact that we cannot get away from—I said this the other day—and that is that millions of people—Brown people, Yellow people, Black people and White people—are going to be absorbed into our labour machine. I am the last one to be so stupid as to profess that we have finished thinking about the matter.

One can, of course, never finish thinking about matters of this kind because circumstances change. We must therefore take a model, developing it from the point of view of our own situation rather than seeing how it is done in other countries. That is why I appointed a commission, having done so—I have already said this before in the House—deliberately. My object is to bring together, in the commission, people who are thinkers, and not only people who can think about the matter on the academic level, but also people who are actively involved in the situation itself. I therefore want to try to create something out of the practical situation itself. I am not going to prescribe to the commission what it must do. I am the last one to prescribe to a commission what it should think and what it should do. What I can do, however, is to tell them that we have a problem and that I want aspects of the problem investigated. I can then instruct the commission to come back to me, with an open mind, and put forward recommendations, within the South African situation, in connection with legislation that should follow. That I can do; that I am going to do and that is why I am appointing the commission.

I want to thank hon. members very much for the debate. I do not want to argue with hon. members about a lot of detail. I would be able to do so, but I think we already understand one another very well. I brought the legislation to the House because I have the best of intentions towards those who are active in the labour field. If that were not the case, I would not have come to the House with this piece of legislation. At this stage I think it is essential for us to take this one step. Other steps can follow later. We must not, in what we say, try to force South Africa into a course of action which differs completely from what is good and right for South Africa. I want hon. members to understand very well that I will not have myself deflected from my path. It will be the commission’s task to create something that fits in with the circumstances prevailing in the country. I also think that it is essential for us to move quickly with the creation of such a system so that we can create conditions in South Africa for all our workers, conditions which will satisfy them and guarantee security and peace in our industries.

With these remarks I want to conclude, thanking hon. members once again for their co-operation. I believe that we shall have another opportunity to review the matters, which we have discussed today, when the commission’s recommendations are known. Then we shall be able to look ahead in an endeavour to reconcile the social and political implications. On that occasion we shall again be able to thrash out the matter in the finest detail. That can only happen, however, after we have had the labour legislation examined as a whole, as is the intention.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.