reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No. 17.—“Planning and the Environment” and Vote No. 18.—“Statistics”, had agreed to the Votes.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half hour. Since the discussion of this Vote last year there has been the appointment of the new Secretary for Labour, Mr. Jaap Cilliers. On behalf of hon. members of the PFP I want to extend to him a word of warm welcome. In the very short time that he has held this post it has become quite clear that, even though he may not always like the word, he has brought a more “verligte” approach to this department. We are very grateful indeed for the lead he has taken since the date of his appointment.

During the last session of Parliament the hon. the Minister, in the discussion of the Labour Vote, announced the appointment of a labour commission under the chairmanship of Prof. Wiehahn. We strongly supported the move and we have followed with interest the appointment of members to that commission. We have also read with interest the statements they have made, statements they have made, statements that have appeared in the Press from time to time. Subsequently, the hon. the Prime Minister announced the appointment of a manpower commission under the chairmanship of Dr. P. Riekert. We regard this as fundamental to the work of the Wiehahn Commission because the one very clearly overlaps with the other.

It is clear that the Wiehahn Commission is hard at work and is receiving evidence from a wide variety of sources. One noticed with interest that when certain representatives of women in South Africa raised their voices against the fact that there was no woman on that commission, it did not take long for a subcommittee to be appointed, a subcommittee which seemed to be giving special attention to the role of women in labour. I think this is a further verligte step.

Women in labour? [Interjections.]

I was hoping someone would catch the joke! It was the original intention of the Wiehahn Commission to publish an interim report. I understand too that the hon. the Minister hoped very much that it will be possible to have some legislation before this House during this session. However, recently it was announced that certainly no interim report would be available for this debate. This, of course, is a matter of regret in one sense. One could perhaps have looked for a specific area and repealed one particular Act or section of an Act in order to provide for the introduction of some further enlightened legislation. It would have been, I think, an added encouragement and a symbol of hope that the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission would be very wide and sweeping.

However, when one considers the importance of this commission and the wide impact which it is undoubtedly going to have, it seems, to me at least, that it may be as well that there is no interim report, that the commission should rather be left to go on with its job and to report as soon as possible. However, I do not want these words to be taken to mean that we have plenty of time. Quite the reverse. I believe that not only is the work of the Wiehahn Commission important; it is also urgent. I want to underline the urgency of the work of this commission. Expectations in many quarters have been raised by the kind of statement that has been made from time to time by the chairman of the commission, although naturally one does not want to bind him to them.

Expectations have been raised amongst some managements who wish to take the next step that needs to be taken in South Africa, amongst overseas visitors who have talked with people who are directly involved in labour here and elsewhere in the world, and also amongst the workers themselves. Therefore I say that the work of the commission is both important and urgent. The urgency is also underlined by a recent statement made in an article by Professors Bendix, Piron and Swart, all three of them very well known in this field. In the February 1978 issue of The South African Journal of Labour Relations these three professors warned that—

In short, the foreign policy implications of South Africa’s industrial relations system cannot be ignored.

There is, however, a second—and I believe, an even stronger—reason for urgency, and that is that the present industrial relations system as operating in South Africa obviously has needed an overhaul for some time. There is a dualism, a discrimination at the very heart of it, and I believe that if we can get rid of this and move into a new highway of labour relations, our economic system could be one of the greatest forces for peaceful change in South Africa. That is why I believe that their work is both important and urgent.

When one comes into this House as a legislator, looks at the various Acts which govern our labour relations in South Africa and awakes with the thought of a very top-level commission, one finds oneself in somewhat of a dilemma. On the one hand it may be that one simply has to sit back and say: “Let us wait for the findings of the commission.” On the other hand, however, without trying to anticipate the fine print of the Wiehahn Commission’s work, one could set out, in some detail, one’s own policy and what one believes and sees as the responsibility of the Government in labour relations. Government not so much to enforce, although that obviously is necessary from time to time, but rather Government in its role as an enabler with the view to enabling the real partners in industry, namely shareholders and consumers, workers and managers, to regulate their own affairs through the mechanism of the market place.

I want to try to set out what I believe is the role of the State, of the Government. In the first instance I would suggest that it is the role of the State to guarantee the right of the worker to seek work on the open market and for the highest reward he or she is able to command. Every worker, every potential worker, should have the legal right to seek work without discrimination. This is not the situation at the moment. I believe that what should come from the Wiehahn Commission should at least be this first guarantee.

In the second instance I believe it is the role of the Government to promote the effective self-government of industry through voluntary collective bargaining, and a process of worker participation in decision making within the enterprise. This is not the present situation. On the one hand collective bargaining on a legal basis is restricted to White, Coloured and Indian workers and on the other hand direct negotiation on the committee system in the enterprise is limited to Black workers. I believe the role of the State is to provide effective self-government of industry through both these organizations. This will enable all workers to participate in trade unions and in the committee system at the local level. It will ensure that the rules which govern industry will be seen as equitable by those most directly concerned.

In the third instance I believe it is the responsibility of the Government to protect by legislation individual workers against exploitation. The Government should lay down maximum working hours, minimum comfort and safety requirements and the grounds for fair and unfair dismissal.

In the fourth instance I believe it is the role of the Government to encourage the effective training and retraining of both management and workers alike in the skills they require to do the job and also in the skills they need to govern themselves. Wherever possible, obviously, this should be done by indirect means, such as tax concessions, rather than by direct State control of training institutions.

This point simply cannot be over-emphasized. The irony of the present unemployment situation is that despite the large number of people who are unemployed, there still remains a grave shortage of skilled workers. It is further estimated that over the next 20 years 1,5 million skilled workers will have to be absorbed into industry to provide even what has been described as a minimal tolerable degree of growth in South Africa. In contrast there is the awareness that immigration has shrunk, and therefore the skilled workers that have been coming into the market-place from outside are no longer coming. The provision of the skilled workers which South Africa requires, now and for the future, can only be achieved if even greater emphasis is placed on training and retraining and on making the best possible use of our total available human resources. I believe that this is not only the responsibility of management. It is also the direct responsibility of the Government to make it possible for training and retraining to be emphasized again and again.

Fifthly, I believe it is the role and responsibility of the Government to provide speedy, equitable and effective procedures for resolving labour disputes. On the one hand there are disputes of interest involving conciliation, arbitration and mediation and on the other hand disputes of rights requiring, I believe, some form of labour court. If the Wiehahn Commission, in its recommendations, includes some of the above, I believe that their contribution will lead directly to the removal of all employment discrimination and a more permanent and productive work force, which in turn will lead to a growth economy bringing with it mutual benefits for us all.

The principles I have outlined must, however, be given teeth in the formulation of a single labour code. To illustrate this I want to refer to several employment practice codes which have recently appeared. There is, for example, perhaps the oldest or best known of them, the so-called “Sullivan Manifesto” drawn up by a Black American clergyman after a visit to South Africa in 1974. It has six major points and is directed, in the main, towards US firms in South Africa. It has become very well-known in the States and in this country. In my belief it is not nearly as far-reaching, however, as the Wiehahn Commission has been prepared to go, but it is, at least, some attempt to look at the normalizing and humanizing of employment practices.

The second, which is much more far-reaching, is the EEC Code, which is quite obviously directed towards those countries within the EEC which have subsidiaries in South Africa. This code is much more explicit in the recommendation of trade union rights for all and the monitoring of overseas firms in South Africa.

The third, a local product, is the “Code of Employment Practice” put out by the Urban Foundation and by Saccola. The very fact that this code emerges from South African soil and the very fact that it is supported by the major employers in our country gives it added impetus and strength. Even here however— and I am thinking of a recent announcement in the Cape—although a great number of employers have welcomed and endorsed this code, there is no way in which this code can be implemented. It is essentially something which is taken on on a voluntary basis. I therefore believe that the time has come, as we review our labour legislation, for us to have, in South Africa, our own labour code enshrined in law, a code which can be applied throughout industry, for no matter how good and high-sounding the principles of these several codes might be, until such time as they actually can be implemented, they are so frequently prone to fall into disuse, to be put aside or stuck away in drawers. Many well-meaning and well-trained managers and personnel managers find that their daily occupations make heavy demands on their time. It is one thing to receive a code, but it is a different matter altogether actually to sit down to find out how this can be and, indeed, must be implemented throughout the particular enterprise for which the manager, managing director or chairman has responsibility.

When enshrined in law, this labour code takes on a new impetus. Certainly, this has been tried for some time in Canada and France to good effect. I shall not go into a long detailed explanation, but I shall simply deal with the labour code in outline form. Obviously, one would like some response from the hon. the Minister to this, if he is able to respond in the light of the fact that the Wiehahn Commission is still meeting. I would then suggest the following minimal code for South Africa as we move towards the year 2000. Firstly, I believe this code should guarantee the right of workers to seek work without discrimination. One could elaborate a great deal on that, but I am simply stating it as a flat objective and determination. Secondly, the code should provide for a structure within which voluntary collective bargaining can take place and which includes the total labour force. Thirdly, it should provide for effective structures for participation by workers in decision-making within the local enterprise. Fourthly, it should provide for minimum wages, standards and the definition of the grounds on which workers can seek redress for unfair dismissal. Fifthly, it should permit the provision of both skills and industrial relations training. Sixthly, it should provide for arbitration, mediation and conciliation to resolve collective bargaining disputes. Finally, it should provide for the establishment of a series of labour courts to resolve disputes which involve the interpretation and/or the implementation of already existing rights.

If anyone has been following this, it will be seen that the PFP rejects on the one hand the Marxist analysis of a capitalist economy as being one divided into two unsuitable and irreconcilable classes. On the other hand it also rejects the Government’s interpretation of a South African economy hitherto as one comprising four unsuitable and irreconcilable races. We see the South African economy as a partnership between a plurality of groups: Shareholders who provide capital; workers who provide labour; management which brings about the effective synthesis of these two groups; and consumers who provide markets for industry.

We wish the Wiehahn Commission well, and also the hon. the Minister and his department, as we move into what will possibly be a new era in industrial relations where the emphasis will be on opportunities for all, on permanence in the labour force wherever possible, and on training and productivity; a new era free from employment discrimination. We would obviously like to hear from the hon. the Minister anything he can tell us about the progress being made by the Wiehahn Commission and, if possible, when we will be hearing from that commission.

If the new era should come into being along the lines I have proposed, I believe that this could be the strongest force for peaceful change in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to extend my hearty congratulations to the hon. the Minister of Labour on the honorary doctorate that was bestowed upon him by the University of the Orange Free State. When I look to my left, I want to associate myself with the previous speaker and also convey my congratulations to Mr. Jaap Cilliers on his appointment as Secretary for Labour. We want to welcome him in this capacity and we want to wish him all the best for the future in the extremely important post he will be occupying. In the short time he has been associated with the department, we have found him and his department to be very willing to furnish information and to render assistance, if necessary.

A few weeks ago we and hon. members of the Opposition parties, as members of the labour groups in this House, had the opportunity of attending a very historical occasion at Stellenbosch at which the information publication of the Department of Labour, viz. Empact made its first appearance. This publication will appear in four languages in future, viz. English, French, German and Spanish. It will be a quarterly publication and for the first time we shall have the opportunity to make information available in connection with labour matters and labour conditions in South Africa and it will reflect an objective image of conditions in South Africa as far as labour is concerned. For the first time we shall have a link with the outside world for giving an objective image of circumstances as regards labour matters in South Africa. It must also serve as an antipode to the distorted image which is sometimes sent out from this country, even by those hon. members who acted so piously here.

That was not necessary.

I repeat that we want to congratulate the department on that liaison publication which will be distributed internationally in future.

After I have listened to that hon. member for Pinelands, it is very clear to me that the speech he made and the principles he advocated, are actually all contained in the inaugural speech delivered by Prof. Wiehahn two years ago when he was appointed a professor at the University of South Africa. So he did not advance any new ideas, but advocated ideas already contained in the inaugural speech delivered by the professor.

You have finally arrived where we are.

We know them, because they are always trying to plough with another man’s heifer. The hon. member said we had to get a new labour code in South Africa as far as the matter of bargaining was concerned, as far as the matter of settling strikes was concerned and as far as employment was concerned. The labour legislation and code we have been applying over the years, have shown, however, that we have the best code in the world. Had this not been the case, would we still have enjoyed so much industrial peace and quiet in South Africa? In that case would we have had only 8 000 workers participating in strikes last year, as a result of which a mere 54 000 man-hours were lost due to said stoppages? This is equal to a loss of approximately six hours per worker who participated in those strikes. If one takes into consideration the fact that a factory like Siemens, Germany, lost more working hours in one day than the total number of working hours we lost in one year in South Africa, one may ask hon. members what is so wrong with the labour codes which we have in this country.

Then why the commission?

On the contrary, it is this side of the House that appointed the Wiehahn Commission to investigate all aspects of labour and labour legislation in South Africa. We must not be over-hasty and we must not exert pressure on that commission to give a provisional judgment. This is too important a matter, because when proposals are brought to this House and we have to accept and implement new codes, we at least want better codes than we have had up till now.

However, I want to return to the Vote. The hon. member made an oblique reference to a certain matter today—I do not know why he is evading it now for it has sounded like a refrain throughout the session—i.e. that unemployment in South Africa has reached an unprecedented level as a result of the policy of the NP. That hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, are the people who have been saying throughout the session that the unemployment situation in South Africa is to be ascribed to Government policy. They are the people who said that the world had lost confidence in South Africa because capital was not flowing into South Africa owing to the policy of race discrimination. They dragged in home ownership and the citizenship of the Black man in White South Africa. According to them, these are the factors which have led to unemployment increasing in South Africa. Nevertheless, they are the people who are always telling us that we must create confidence in South Africa. However, they are creating a lack of confidence and bruiting it abroad.

Let us take a look at the factual situation in connection with unemployment in South Africa We all admit that unemployment has increased in South Africa; we are not running away from this fact. We all realize, too, what a danger unemployment constitutes to any country in the world. We must not, however, append an element of exaggeration to the unemployment situation. The hon. Opposition are the people who blow up the available statistics which indicate that there are just over 600 000 unemployed Black people to 2 million and then bruit this figure abroad. This is what the Official Opposition does towards this country. We must be realistic about unemployment. Statistics cannot always be trusted, but can be adapted to whichever side suits one’s purpose.

When one discusses the unemployment problem, one must decide for oneself in the first place who is an unemployed person in South Africa and who is merely work-shy. If we analyse this, we shall find that there are thousands of people who are work-shy and registered as unemployed but who do not want to work.

What do you mean?

It is true. The hon. member asks: “What do you mean?” but she does not know what she is talking about. I represent a workers’ constituency, while she sits there in Houghton. I live in the heart of an industrial constituency and during the past recess six people came to me and asked me to help them find a job. After I had interviewed those people, after I had asked them where they had worked before and what their work record was, I want to be honest today and say that if I had been an employer, I would not have employed five out of these six people, because they had never wanted to work. A good example is a Government department in Johannesburg which has been advertising a post for three doormen for months now. No high qualifications are required for this post; all that is required is a good work record, but those posts simply cannot be filled. The people who are being so sanctimonious now and who are always talking about the terrible state of unemployment prevailing in South Africa, would do well to look around them a little. Until two years ago the mines were still working with an 8 to 9% manpower shortage. It was only during the past two quarters last year that the mines were able to work at full capacity for the first time. This is why I say that we should first determine for ourselves who an unemployed person is before we attach any exaggerated value to it. After all, we know these people by this time.

What is the real situation in regard to unemployment in South Africa? Let us take a look at the factual statistics on unemployment in South Africa: I shall take the year 1961 as an example, and now I am referring to the unemployment situation in regard to Whites, Asians and Coloureds. In 1961 there were 30 000 people registered as unemployed in South Africa. That was the year when this young Republic was established. It was also the year when we had the occurrences at Sharpeville and other similar problems. What eventually happened then? The NP had confidence in South Africa and launched major expansion programmes such as Sasol, the Sishen complex, Richards Bay and many others. What was the result? We created so many employment opportunities in South Africa that the unemployment rate dropped to 14 000 in 1976. This figure has risen again and by 1977 it had doubled to approximately 28 000. However, this did not happen as the result of the reasons which those hon. members ascribe and impute to the Government. After all, it is a problem with which the whole world and not South Africa alone was confronted. The position as regards unemployment in South Africa is stabilizing. However, not only is it stabilizing, but the position is also drastically improving in this regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark the opportunity to finish his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip for the opportunity which he is giving me to finish my speech.

The unemployment position in South Africa is stabilizing. If we take the unemployment figures for the months June to November 1977, we observe that it fluctuated between approximately 29 000 and 31 000. After November it rose to 33 000 in February. This was the highest figure. The latest figure for March shows a drop of more than 1 300. However, we also know that at the beginning of the year, during January and February, there is a larger unemployment rate because all the school-leavers enter the labour market. We have also learnt from experience that these work-shy people usually work during the first few weeks of December in order to earn a little drinking money for Christmas and New Year. After that many of them disappear like mist before the sun. We have experienced this in industry. These people work for a few weeks, but after Christmas and New Year they have disappeared. There are people like this. We therefore understand the upward and downward tendencies during certain periods.

I now want to come to the unemployment position of the Black man in South Africa because this is after all the aspect which must be emphasized. I take as a barometer the workseekers who are registered as such at the administration boards. In July 1977 there were 149 000 of these workseekers, but in December the number had dropped to 129 000. This is a drop of 20 000.

Therefore this indicates once again that as far as the Black worker in South Africa is concerned, too, there has been a certain amount of stabilization and improvement. However, we now have these people who want to bruit erroneous figures abroad. This, however, is the factual situation in South Africa.

South Africa is the scapegoat now, the country which has these discriminatory measures in regard to employment, competition, wages and home ownership. However, what is the real position? Let us compare our position with those of countries that do not have all these terrible laws. With reference to these laws the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “We must dismantle old-fashioned apartheid.” England does not have “old-fashioned apartheid”. But what is the position in London? I want to refer to an article in The Star, of 15 February 1978, “Fewer London Jobs for Blacks”, in which it is stated—and hon. members must listen carefully now—that unemployment in London has increased by 120% since 1974. As far as the Blacks are concerned, the increase was 350%. Now I ask: Where are the discriminatory measures? The unemployment position in Britain is the worst it has ever been since the last World War. But surely Britain does not have discriminatory measures.

Let us look at the position of the ally of those hon. members, the country which is such an advocate of human rights now, the USA. What is the position there? According to a report in the Rand Daily Mail of 16 March 1978 under the heading “Employment rate in the United States improves”, the position there has improved too. The report indicated that as far as the Whites were concerned, there had been an improvement of 20% in the employment rate, but as far as the Blacks in America were concerned, there had been an improvement of only 5%. Now I ask you: Is there a wage gap in America? No, Sir, there is no wage gap.

If those hon. members on the other side want to make a contribution to restoring confidence in South Africa, why do they not say that a minimum wage is laid down in South Africa so that even the hon. member for Houghton has the right to pay her servants at the Union Hotel more. She can do it if she wants to, because there is nothing to prevent one from doing so. [Interjections.] However, reports about work reservation are being bruited abroad. Hon. members will not turn round and tell the world that the Government is looking into these aspects. We are dealing here with a traditional practice which has been in existence over the years. No, Sir, those hon. members will not tell the world that the hon. the Minister instituted an investigation and that of the 25 existing determinations, he cancelled 18 and suspended two. They will not tell that to the world.

In America there are four times more Blacks who are unemployed than there are Whites. What discriminatory measures are there in America? I take it that every Negro has American citizenship. Nevertheless there are four times more Black people who are unemployed in America than Whites who are unemployed. From 45% to 47% of the Black students in America cannot find jobs.

They must not tell us and others that the South African Government’s policy is the cause of our unemployment situation. On the contrary, South Africa is one of the few countries which is gradually lifting its head as far as the economy is concerned. The trends are present. The figures which I furnished here, are proof of the fact that not only are we stabilizing that situation, but improving it too.

A survey was conducted by Manpower, but those hon. members will not bruit those findings abroad. They do not want to be that loyal to their country, because they must deal administer a pinpride to their country wherever they can. They take the greatest pleasure in being able to give their own fatherland a kind of stab in the back. What were Manpower’s findings after they had conducted this survey? They discovered that more companies intended employing Black people in the next quarter than had done so during the previous 27 months. They also discovered that there were more companies that intended employing Whites than had done so during the previous 24 months.

The Government has not been asleep. The Government, which realised the real problem of unemployment, has even taken steps. That is why the Government had the foresight to say last year that over the next five years it was going to pump R250 million into the economy of South Africa by providing housing for Blacks, Coloureds and Whites. This will stimulate the building industry. Nor did the Government suggest that that R250 million would be a sufficient contribution on its part. In the latest budget, provision was made for an additional R48 million to be injected into the economy. This is to be used for larger capital loans for housing and public works. In other words, the building sector will be stimulated. Only now will the effect of making that R250 million available be discernible.

The Government did not leave it at that, wash its hands of the matter and say that private initiative should do the rest, but as far as the individual taxpayer is concerned, it did away with the surcharge. Calculated over one year, this means an additional amount of R200 million which the taxpayers no longer have to pay. This is a stimulation of the economy. It favours the entrepreneur who has to create the employment opportunities in South Africa. The Government said that even that was not enough. It decided to repay the loan levy which should have been repaid in 1979, in July 1978, so that the economy could be stimulated in that way. The Government also said that even that was not enough and that in order to balance our accounts, it would withdraw R350 million from the Stabilization Fund this year in order to stimulate the economy, instead of levying it from the taxpayer. For these reasons I have the greatest confidence in the measures which were adopted to improve the unemployment situation and stabilize the economy.

As a result of these injections of capital into the economy by the Government, the thorough investigation made by the Wiehahn Commission and the necessary amendments which we shall make to the legislation in due course, I see nothing but a fine future for South Africa, a future built on a foundation of stability laid by an NP Government, a foundation of peace and quiet in our labour world. I believe that we in this country have a wonderful future ahead of us. I think that hon. members on the opposite side of the House have as great a task as we have to create confidence in South Africa if they want to give practical expression to their patriotism. There are sufficient opportunities for them to do so rather than to try and create a different image of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I think it will probably be wrong to anticipate the findings of the Wiehahn Commission at this stage. I am afraid that the hon. member for Pinelands has in fact done so. He referred to the Wiehahn Commission and the important work it is doing. He called it a “symbol of hope”, as if we in South Africa have a labour crisis. In other words, it is as if we in South Africa are experiencing a labour crisis. Now the hon. member believes that there will be great hope and possibilities in the report and in the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission. I think the hon. member for Pinelands wants to anticipate the commission in so far as he wants to read certain codes into the recommendation of the commission, viz. that there is discrimination towards jobseekers in South Africa. In the second place, the hon. member said that no proper opportunities were created for collective bargaining in South Africa. He also said there were various codes in this regard which have already been drawn up and accepted in different countries of the world, for instance by the EEC and the USA, and he said that there was a code like this in South Africa too. I want to say at once that the hon. member is doing the Wiehahn Commission an injustice.

Just as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark did, I too want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the fact that we have had the minimum number of strikes in South Africa over the past year. At the moment we are experiencing labour peace the like of which we have seldom had in the history of South Africa. Strikes do not occur of themselves; there are specific reasons why these things happen, inter alia, because certain specific codes in the labour sphere in South Africa are being maintained.

The hon. the Minister and his department deserve South Africa’s congratulations in this regard. The labour corps is happy and content. One of the most important reasons for this is the fact that the bargaining and negotiating mechanism of our labour regulations and legislation in South Africa work effectively. I am going to mention one of these regulations in particular, viz. the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act. At the moment there are about ¾ million Black people involved in these labour regulations. I shall just read one paragraph from the report of the Department of Labour in connection with the implementation of this legislation. On page 12 we read—

If this is not healthy competition for employees, I do not know what is.

Why bother with the commission then?

What, however, are the basic principles? A worker must have the right to organize himself and he must have the right to be able to bargain. Now I ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether Black workers in South Africa do not have the right to organization and competition in terms of this legislation. [Interjections.] No, the hon. member wants to try and find all sorts of bogies and unpleasant tilings in South Africa’s legislation.

You are the biggest bogy.

We have a Minister of Labour who is a good Minister, a Minister who wants to create new possibilities as regards labour relations and developments in South Africa. He appointed the Wiehahn Commission to investigate new possibilities in our labour legislation and relations in South Africa, in order to strengthen our labour position in South Africa even more. However, we must not read it as a “symbol of hope”, as if we are in a chaotic condition now.

However, there is a second reason why things are going well in South Africa in the labour sphere. It is due to the fact that we in South Africa have always asked whether our working corps is correctly placed and whether our workers are content and happy. Then it is important to note what the Government and the Department of Labour are doing in this regard. The question must always be asked whether, when a man is placed in a job, full consideration is given to his aptitude, his training, his physical and psychological abilities. In the fourth place, the question must also be asked whether, when a worker is placed in employment, account is taken of his social requirements. It is the fulfilment of these four requirements which make someone happy in his job. This, together with a proper wage, creates a strong, powerful workers’ corps for us in South Africa, something which we do in fact have in South Africa at the moment.

We like to talk about this country’s mineral wealth. However, it is of no value to us if we do not have an effective, purposeful labour corps. I think this is one of our biggest economic assets. In order to fulfil this ideal, I want to request the hon. the Minister, especially in these times, to expand and strengthen the vocational services division in the Department of Labour even more. It is a very major task which rests upon the shoulders of this division. This task also includes vocational counselling.

We note in the annual report—and this is something for which we are very grateful— that, since large numbers of our young men who passed the matriculation examinations with exemption cannot study at the moment, due to the fact that they have to complete their military service, wherever they may be, spread throughout the length and breadth of the country, even in the operational area, they are nevertheless visited by vocational counsellors from the Department of Labour. The vocational counsellors visit them where they are performing their national service, and even on the battlefield, in order to support them by word and deed in connection with an effective choice of career at a later stage, when they have completed their military service.

Furthermore, we are aware of the rehabilitation work being done amongst the handicapped, as well as the good work which is being done amongst the young people. We are also aware that the department provides assistance with regard to staff selection, inter alia, in Government departments, provincial administrations and the private sector. In all these sectors of the labour sphere the department furnishes assistance and provides guidance in connection with the selection and appointment of staff. All these things are done with a view to the efficient placement of our workers’ corps so that they may be happily placed in the right careers.

Furthermore we have heard about the large variety of vocational services provided by the department, inter alia, to the Coloured people as well. These services have been offered to the Coloured people since 1975. The purpose is to make them, too, labour oriented and efficient in their work, as an integrated part of the labour corps of South Africa. An organization which does a great deal of good and important work is the Apprenticeship Board with all its various committees and subcommittees. The requirement that prospective apprentices must first complete the required tests as regards their aptitude, is only set so that when they have completed their apprenticeship, they can be placed effectively as artisans in the correct profession.

Every alternate year the department undertakes surveys in connection with the labour force in South Africa. These surveys have proved to us that the labour corps in South Africa is growing tremendously, chiefly due to the rapid population growth. That is why it is essential for us to conclude from these surveys that South Africa is chiefly a labour intensive country. Therefore, if we are a labour intensive country it is as plain as a pikestaff that labour remains one of the most important elements of our economic development. Therefore, the productive utilization of the available labour must be considered the highest possible priority. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to say right at the outset that my party associates itself with the congratulations to Mr. Jaap Cilliers on his appointment as the new Secretary of the Department of Labour.

We in South Africa really have much to be proud of. There are many things we can be proud of. Likewise there are many things we can be grateful for. The things we can really be proud of are the progress and stamina of all the people in South Africa, and when I say that, I mean people of all race groups. We can be particularly proud of the progress we have made in the military sphere, in the sphere of medicine, surgery, veterinary science and engineering, to mention only a few. It is generally known that as far as mining is concerned, we are sending our knowledge of technology as well as the machinery we manufacture, deep into the heart of Africa.

There is much we have to be grateful for as well. I refer to those things which make it possible for us to make such progress in technology. The type of thing for which one is very grateful is of course our minerals, our gold production, our coal and of course the people, the human assets we are fortunate enough to have in South Africa.

†At the same time I should like to say that there are also two areas of unresolved conflict. They are two problem areas which we have to take into account as well. There is no point in just looking at the rising stars in the South African labour and economic fields. We have to take an extremely critical and objective look at those problems which still are our major problems in South Africa today. The first of these is our race relation situation coupled with the necessity of a new political dispensation in South Africa. I refer here specifically to the problem on which I shall elaborate a little later regarding the position of the urban Blacks.

Equally important as the race relation situation coupled with the new political dispensation which is required in South Africa, is the second area of concern with which I shall be dealing this afternoon since we are looking at the portfolio of the Minister of Labour. The second area is the problem which we have with low productivity and high inflation. It is not difficult to find substantiation for the fact that South Africa does suffer from chronic low productivity. I refer first of all to this very excellent publication brought out by the department whose finances were discussed recently. The publication, nevertheless, is a very good one. The information reflected on page 507 is such that one can virtually say that it comes from the horse’s mouth. On the bottom of page 507 reference is made to the productivity problem in South Africa and this is what the editor or author of the article has to say—

One can look at other sources for confirmation that South Africa has a chronic productivity problem. I refer here to the annual report of the National Productivity Institute, a report dated 1 April 1976 to 31 March 1977. In appendix 1 on page 9 it is stated that—

This refers to the period 1975-’76. It is quite interesting to see where one actually finds references to our productivity problems. I was reading through quite an interesting journal the other day, Die Ondergrondse Amptenare van die Mynwese. I found an article by the National Productivity Institute entitled “Arbeidsproduktiwiteit begin bo”. I think the figures in this particular article, on page 10 of the issue dated February 1978, are very current and interesting.

*I quote—

Then a few figures are given by which one can compare one country to another. I refer here to the gross national product divided by the number of persons employed in the country concerned. I quote further—

†I think it is fairly well established that we do have a chronic productivity problem in South Africa. The question, of course, is why we have these problems. Why are we putting ourselves at risk despite the human endeavour and the effort that goes into a problem which, if it is unarrested, will ultimately sap the strength and vitality of South Africa? In all fields of endeavour, especially the field of racial harmony, we must continue the fight against those forces which are likely to disrupt our lives entirely, and the economic field is the battleground on which one wins political wars.

In order to sketch the background scenario to the problems that we have, it is interesting to note that the employment of Blacks, for the period 1965 to 1975 in South Africa, increased at a rate of 4,5% per annum whilst the growth rate in the manufacturing industry, for the same period of 10 years, was only 2,2% per annum. The situation is that there are 10 056 000 people economically employed in South Africa at the moment out of a total population of roughly 24 million. The White group is currently contributing 41,7% of its population—working people—to the economy, the Coloureds 33%, the Asians 30% and the Blacks 38,6%.

A fairly interesting comparison against the background of the productivity problem is that for that particular year, which was 1976, the average White worker earned R489 per month, the average Coloured R158 per month, the average Asian R197 per month and the average Black man in South Africa R106 per month at a time when the poverty datum line was R110 per month.

If we have a look at the increases for the period 1973-’76, for those same race groups, we find that the average rate of increase in salaries or wages for the Whites was 9,5%, for the Coloureds 9,9%, for the Asians 12% and for the Blacks 13,5% per annum. What is interesting is that these increment levels were all significantly below the inflation rate for that particular period. It is estimated, depending on who makes the calculation, that the inflation rate for that period was 12% to 13%. One of the underlying problems in respect of productivity was learnt in Natal in 1973 when that province experienced unprecedented strike action in South Africa. It is interesting that, in the first year after the strike, wages were increased by as much as 75% without any commensurate increase in productivity. What the industrialists did was that they chopped away their labour force to such an extent that the industrial problem became a social problem.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member for affording me that opportunity.

†As I was saying, when the strike took place in Natal in 1973, the first thing the industrialists did was to hand out wage increases and to chop the labour force.

A very interesting formula is given to us of what happens when hand-outs and increased wages are given without a commensurate increase in productivity being experienced. That formula was worked out by two well-known economists whose articles appeared in the South African Journal of Economics. They were Hume whose article appeared in 1970 and Kessell whose article appeared in 1972. They tell us that if there is an inflation rate of 13% per annum and one takes the salary increase for Whites at 10%, which is roughly what it was, and one then increases the Blacks’ wages by 20% per annum, one will find a cost-push factor within the next five years of roughly 85%. That means that one will be increasing the cost of manufacturing one’s goods by 17% per annum. If one reduces the increase granted to Blacks from 20% per annum for a five year period to 15% per annum for the same period—I mention this figure particularly because everybody is most enthusiastic about closing the wage gap—one is still going to find a cost-push of 70% over the five years, or 14% per annum. In other words, if one gives wages away without an increase in productivity, one’s inflation rate is going to be around 17% or 14%.

We can find confirmation of this formula by a very quick examination of the wholesale price index for South African manufactured goods. I quote a table which appeared in the year book called South Africa 1977, page 364. If the theory of Hume and Kessell is correct, we find we can measure our lack of productivity against the criteria that the wholesale price index for South African manufactured goods went from 127,2 points in 1973, the year of the strikes, to 196 points in the year 1976—the latest figures available relate to that year. We are then not surprised to find that over that three year period the wholesale price index for South African manufactured goods rose by 53,454% which is 17,84% per annum or, if it is extended over five years, 89,23%. What also happened— and that is why the cost-of-living index did not increase by that amount—was that the manufacturers, in keeping with the anti-inflation manifesto, absorbed a fair amount of that cost. Nevertheless, we have the factual statement that we have a chronic productivity problem in South Africa.

What we have to look for are the underlying reasons for this inflation. We have a formula and know what the symptoms are— we can measure them. I contend that there are four basic reasons why we are suffering from this problem in South Africa today. The first is a lack of managerial and supervisory skills. In other words, we have not developed the potential of the people of South Africa to the full. If time permitted me, I would elaborate on that, but unfortunately the necessary time is not available to me. Secondly we have a cultural lag in South Africa. We have a diversity of cultural factors which make it extremely difficult for the entrepreneur to exercise scientific management at the moment. This problem can be solved: I am not saying that it cannot be done.

It is, however, a fact that our managerial skills are at present generally speaking not equipped, particularly at the shop-floor level, to deal with cultural diversities. Thirdly, and most important of all, I believe it is the social and political system in which the urban Black finds himself which is a major contributing factor towards the lack of productivity. I do not have the time to go into detail, but I would refer hon. members who are interested and particularly the hon. the Minister to research work done by Dr. Jack de Ridder, The Urban African Personality, Prof. Chris Orpen of Witwatersrand University and eminent scientists in South Africa like Simon Biesheuvel to demonstrate the scars that have been left on the urban Black as a result of a system which continuously rejects those people. I am not advocating an open system, such as is being advocated by my hon. friend on the right. What I am saying, however, is that we must take cognizance of the effects of legislation, the effects of a social and home environment which produces chronic insecurity in the worker who as a result we are unable to motivate. These are not my theories, but they are stated in many research books. Many sociologists, like the hon. member for Bellville—who always seems to escape when I am speaking—will agree that we have here a factual situation. The primary factor involved in trying to motivate the worker is the problem of his own self-esteem, his own self-respect. Regrettably we have produced a social situation, and I am not blaming the Government only in the case the hon. member for Houghton gets carried away.

Not by you, I assure you.

Every White in South Africa has had a finger in the pie in creating the present situation of the urban Blacks. However, what I am saying, is that this Government—and particularly the hon. the Minister of Labour—now has the responsibility of seeing that that system is not perpetuated.

Fourthly, I believe that business has been too easy in South Africa over many years. That situation changed in 1974 and 1975. Prior to that it was not worthwhile for the businessman, the entrepreneur, to get off his you-know-what and get himself trained in how to be a manager. Things were too easy; things came so easily—as I quoted earlier on—but when the manufacturing sector was only expanding by 2,2% per annum, the businessman was taking on labour at the rate of 4,5% per annum. It is interesting to read the National Productivity Institute’s report on the motor industry, the textile industry and South African industries in general. That institute has indicated an increase potential in productivity of 45% in the motor repair sector, 60% in the textile industry and 50% in the average manufacturing sector in South Africa. These are chronic problems. Our GDP at the moment for the whole of South Africa is R18 000 million per annum. If we could increase productivity by 10% it would effect an increase in output amounting to R1 800 million per year. That is roughly equal to the total value of gold exported by South Africa in 1977. In other words, a 10% increase would be worth the output of our whole gold-mining industry in one year. I am not such an optimist as to say that this is possible. However, if we settle for only 1%, it will mean an increase of R180 million in the GDP per year.

My time is unfortunately limited. I would have liked to have given details as to why I think the hon. the Minister of Labour can do something about it. I will be happy to tell him outside why I think his department is able to do something about it. I do not have the time now, unless he gives me another half hour to speak. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he and his department seriously consider, in view of the problems that we have and the value of increasing productivity, appointing a man in his department at the highest level to co-ordinate those institutions that are concerned with increasing productivity in South Africa. His department is concerned with wages and the determination thereof as well as with conditions of service.

His department is in the best position to exercise a co-ordinating influence over institutions like the NPI—who are doing a very good job—the technical colleges, those people concerned with the training of managers, the selection of staff and the promotion of selection services amongst the Blacks. That is why I feel the hon. the Minister of Labour should seriously consider the appointment of an official at senior level—as senior as it is possible to make it; after all, what is it worth to double the value of South Africa’s gold mining industry in terms of the GDP?— to co-ordinate the activities of the people involved in an increase of productivity.

Fifthly, I think one of our major problems is that we have had fragmented approaches to tackling those four problems which I spoke about earlier. Even more important than that, and therefore most important, I would like to encourage the hon. the Minister to continue with the work he did in relaxing job reservation legislation. I would like to appeal to him to lend his weight to the improvement of the social and political set-up of the urban African in South Africa today. That will pay us dividends not only in the social and economic field, but very much in the political field as well.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down must pardon me if I do not react to his speech, because I have only a few minutes at my disposal. I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of referring to a specific matter, viz. to the very intensive debate which at present is going on in the Western Cape—the oldest civilized part of our country—about the future pattern of labour in this particular part of our country. Hon. members already know the trend of the debate, and I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of calling a few witnesses in support of the point of view of this side of the House. Firstly, I want to refer to a report in Ekstra Rapport of last Sunday. That is a newspaper which is read in its thousands by Coloured people. Last Sunday, a report appeared by Conrad Sedegio, whom I regard as one of the best writers among the Brown people of today. The report appeared under the heading: “Wittes dink ons is bitter lui; Bruines sê dis bog.” I shall discuss this report further in a moment and also quote what a man like Sonny Leon—a man who is not favourably disposed towards the Government—has said in this debate. I shall also quote the evidence of a Jewish lady from Sea Point, the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition in this House. She phoned me this morning and said she was a member of the PFP and that she was worried when she observed the penetration of Blacks into the streets of Sea Point, a select residential area of Cape Town. I shall come back to that just now. [Interjections.] Before I discuss the evidence any further, there are a few statements in this basic debate to which I should like to react, statements which are irrefutable as the basic view of the situation, regardless of what political party one belongs to. The first truth is that we in South Africa are today finding ourselves in a constant crisis of existence. Not one of us in this House can deny that today. What person is there in South African politics today who can claim that he has no doubts about the future? There is no one here today who can stand up and state that he has no doubts about the future. What is the exact nature of this crisis of existence? Is it concerned only with pressure from outside? Is it concerned only with communist or Marxist penetration or threats on our borders? Is it concerned only with the removal of discrimination? No. It is concerned with that, too, but it is not only concerned with that. Another statement which I want to make about South Africa’s labour situation today is that the dilemma of our existence in this country is mainly connected with our labour pattern.

Let us start right at the beginning. Over the years, we as Whites have been diligently and enthusiastically developing certain aspects of our nationhood. Some of those aspects are today accepted by the Opposition, for example the fact that we are a free and independent republic. We are today a nation in our own right and not a settler minority which could flee the country tomorrow. No one in this House, regardless of what political party he belongs to, can deny this. Over the years, we have deliberately severed the bonds of British and overseas domination. But while we were engaged in this constructive work of liberating ourselves, we permitted ourselves to become even further enmeshed in other bonds, for example the bonds of foreign Black labour. No one can deny this basic statement today. In the major part of our country, this labour has already become indispensable to our survival in this country.

Because we are already beginning to recognize this basic truth, the latest step to come from the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations has been to give the Black man leasehold in the homeland of the White man. In many respects it is, in the greater geographical part of our country, a blatant domination from below, and nothing more. We have shaken off the domination from above and proceeded to build our existence in South Africa on the presence of a Black majority—in other words, a domination from below—in the greater geographical part of South Africa. No one in this House can deny this statement today. In this respect our nation-building has been deficient, in my humble opinion, because we have made ourselves increasingly dependent on the labour of alien nations, that is to say, of the Black nations of South Africa. Who can deny this statement? [Interjections.] I have referred to this Black labour as “alien”, because—and now the hon. members must listen very carefully—we drew these labourers into our economy without any intention whatsoever of making them a part of our nation.

As far as our Brown people are concerned, the situation is totally different. There is no separate territorial freedom for our country’s Brown people today, and because they share the same borders with us, the Brown man can today, without this dilemma, form part of the labour pattern of our country and its people. The homeland of the Brown man is also the homeland of the White man.

Two basic things have happened very recently which very closely affect the basic pattern of the labour situation. In the first instance, there is the new constitutional dispensation which the Government has announced. It is a dispensation which today has one great, outstanding and basic meaning, and that is that we are telling the world frankly and honestly today that White and Brown in South Africa are on the same side. That is the basic truth of the new constitutional dispensation with which the Government has come forward. [Interjections.] Stated the other way around: With this future constitutional dispensation we say to the Brown man that we do not want to push him out to the side of the Black majority in South Africa.

The second basic truth, the second statement I want to make, is the brave announcement by the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations in which he told the world that Black people in the Western Cape would not obtain leasehold. In other words, it means that no form of permanence will be lent to the presence of the Black man in the Western Cape.

These two basic truths are two important political events which are now operating upon the labour structure of this particular part of our country. Thanks to our own creative ability, there is now arising in the Western Cape a new situation in which we shall have to undertake a fresh crusade in the field of labour. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Labour in this connection today. This hon. the Minister is a man with creative ability. When he was Minister of Water Affairs, he gave the loveliest, the best and the most effective water pattern for the future to the Boland. As far as the labour pattern is concerned, the hon. the Minister is now in control of a new field, and he must help us, he must lead us in a crusade in the Western Cape so that we may create a focal point in the Western Cape, a focal point in which we are not going to build our existence on the presence of Black people, but where the White and the Brown people will henceforth complement one another in this particular geographical area of our country by means of a fruitful partnership. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to endorse what the hon. member for Moorreesburg has said, and make a very earnest plea for, and stress the importance of, the retention of the Western Cape as a labour preference area for White and Brown people. In the same breath, I want to stress with the greatest earnestness the duty of every employer in the Western Cape to keep the Western Cape White and Brown and reduce the number of Black people in the area. I say that in the interests of Brown people especially, because more than ever before, the Coloured has recently experienced the harmful effects of unemployment and competition with lawful and unlawful Black people. For this reason, there can be no doubt whatsoever that we should get rid of the unlawful persons in the Western Cape—that includes the squatters— because on account of their unlawful offer of cheap labour, they can be taken into service. That has a harmful influence on the socioeconomic upliftment of the Coloured which has taken place in recent times.

Similarly, contract labourers have become a necessary evil in the labour and social spheres in the Western Cape. In a time of scarcity of work, one finds, however, that this contract labourer has a job, while the Coloured head of the family is unemployed. Similarly, one finds that this contract labourer has a harmful social influence on the Coloured women and family. Although problems are being experienced, we shall have to try to the best of our ability to attract the permanent Black man who is resident in the Western Cape in terms of section 10 of the relevant Act, back to the homelands by way of development and educational opportunities. It is not only the White man who owes it to the Coloured to help him to make the Western Cape less Black, but the Coloured indeed also owes it to himself, because he has a duty towards himself to maintain his position in the Western Cape and to prevent being ousted by Black labour.

In the Erika Theron Report, there is an interesting minority recommendation, namely that the labour preference policy in the Western Cape be abolished. One now hears similar calls on the part of the CRC—but just a little louder, from the labour ranks. It is perfectly clear that these calls are not being made in the interests of the advancement of the Coloureds in the Western Cape, but for purely political reasons. If this were to happen, who other than the Coloureds would be harmed? Is it not precisely the Coloureds whose standard of living and income has increased phenomenally, almost twentyfold during the past 16 years since this preference policy came into being in 1962? Is it not precisely the Coloureds whose wage increases, percentage-wise, have been twice as much as those of the White man in certain cases? Is it not precisely the Coloured family whose average family income has doubled to R3 131 per annum during the five year period up to 1975? That is a record for the average Coloured family in South Africa.

What is more, this has made available a consumer force to the amount of R485 million—a consumer force larger than those in most of the states in Africa. But that is not all that has happened, because unlimited opportunities have arisen for the Coloureds— opportunities in the academic field, in the field of industry, in the field of administration and in the professional field—opportunities which he can grasp in order to improve himself. Against this background, it is evident that the presence of Black labour, and any increase in the number of Blacks in the Western Cape presents the greatest threat to the progress of Coloured labour.

That we will always have Black labour here in the Western Cape, is surely obvious, but it is equally clear that it is our duty to do everything in our power to limit it. We know that we need the Blacks in certain labour-intensive directions, but what is of utmost importance, is that everyone should do everything in his power to reduce the number of Blacks in the Western Cape to an absolute minimum, and that there is a major obligation on every employer to make his contribution in this connection.

It will be a black day if the labour preference policy in the Western Cape were to suffer in any way, if the Government were to lose its grip on this preference policy in the Western Cape in respect of, and to the benefit of, Whites and Coloureds. This would immediately lead to serious unemployment and would, at the same time, have the effect that the hard-earned, drastic wage increases of the Coloureds over the past number of years, will be lost and that they will have to compete with the Blacks who are remunerated at lower rates. I therefore believe that for the sake of the protection of the White/Coloured labour preference policy, we have a threefold duty to reduce the number of Blacks and to get the Coloureds better established here in the Western Cape.

In the first place, there is a major obligation on every employer of Black labour in the Western Cape to assist, not only as a matter of duty, but also from inner conviction and voluntarily, by himself reducing the number of Black labourers and replacing them by Coloured labour. The State, to my mind, sets an excellent example in this connection, but the private sector should follow. In this connection, I take off my hat to Escom which, during the 10 month period ending October 1977, succeeded in reducing its own Black employees in the Western Cape by 805, and replacing them by 634 Coloured labourers. Now I ask myself: What about our other major employers of Black labour here in the Western Cape? What about the intensive fishing and crayfish industry on our West Coast? What about our intensive mining activities in the North Western Cape? What about the non-labour-intensive agricultural sector here in the Western Cape?

In the second place, we shall have to continue with the establishment, where necessary, and as frequently as may be necessary, of industrial growth points with decentralization benefits in selected, viable Coloured residential areas.

In the third place, the Directorate of Coloured Labour must continue, as it is doing and has done during the past few years in particular, to apply the strictest code as regards the issuing of certificates for employment, and to take special care to ensure that the employer who applies for a Black employment permit, should not get away without convincing proof that he has made a sufficient effort to obtain Coloured labour instead. Therefore I take off my hat to the directorate itself which has had a tremendous job over the past year to place the great masses of Coloured labourers in a limited number of posts, and also to distinguish between those willing to work and the won’t-works.

I conclude by stating that opportunities for advancement in employment for Coloureds in the Western Cape are unlimited and that all the means are indeed available to the Coloureds to make progress and even to complete with the Whites at the highest level. The White has helped to create the opportunities, and the Coloured today merely has to avail himself thereof. The Coloured must decide today: Either he is going to allow himself to be ousted, or he is going to maintain his position here. The latter decision will only be to his benefit.

Mr. Chairman on behalf of the White workers whom I represent in this House, there are several matters which I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. As I see it, the challenge to the management of enterprises over the next decade will be just as great as it will be to the trade unions and the workers of our country. In the past, it was possible to say that leadership in industry was mainly the business of the factory owners, and of no one else. If a manager could not manage his undertaking in accordance with the basic rules of efficiency, he had to bear the consequences. But today it is the community as a whole which has to bear the consequences—namely in the form of increased prices, inflationary spirals and an unfavourable balance of payments.

In future, society might insist more and more that wage increases and the related increases in prices should be approached with circumspection, and that the industries should also make their contribution towards establishment of a sound national economy.

The challenge to the factory bosses will therefore be to ensure increased productivity by means of sound labour relations at factory level. Factory management will therefore have to be duly mindful of not trying to disturb labour relations. Management and the workers will have to regard industrial undertakings as social units, units in which employer and employee have a joint interest. In my view, labour could become our greatest problem in the long term. In fact, at this point in time, it is already very topical. We have the problem of unemployment today. However I was most gratified to hear from the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that there is not much unemployment to be seen in this constituency. As far as my constituency is concerned, the converse is true. In fact, that applies to the whole Uitenhage/Port Elizabeth complex. There unemployment is the order of the day. That, however, is something which I shall come to.

We encounter the situation of unemployment everywhere in the world today. The Republic of South Africa can, however, still regard itself as fortunate in that its position is not similar to that which prevails in some overseas countries. I cannot, however, neglect to bring the gravity of the problem to the notice of the hon. the Minister.

Now I just want to refer to the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex. At the end of February this year, 677 male Whites and 711 White women were registered as unemployed in that complex. Apart from that, 1 780 Coloured men and 543 Coloured women were registered as unemployed. 295 of the White males were in the age group 21 to 35 years, and 197 between 35 and 50 years. As far as the White women are concerned, 359 were between 21 and 35 years old, while 168 were between 35 and 50 years old.

The position will of course become more serious in proportion as the economic situation worsens. Therefore, I should like to inquire from the hon. the Minister whether further benefits cannot be paid out to the people to whom I have just referred, when the available benefits payable to them, are exhausted. I should also like to inquire from the hon. the Minister whether schemes cannot also be established in terms of which a livelihood can be offered to these people. I ask that in terms of section 46(1) of Act No. 30 of 1966. I want to quote the section briefly—

A further aspect which I touched upon in the beginning of my speech, was that factory bosses should not disturb labour relations at factory level. I am fully aware of the fact that there should be employment opportunities for all race groups, and I do not begrudge anybody the right to work, but I do think that employers ought to carry out their responsibility for the maintenance of industrial peace. It seems that recently a trend has been developing to advocate all sorts of labour reforms. It is especially happening at shop floor level. I do not wish to implying thereby that I am opposed to any adaptations. On the contrary; we in this country are for ever making adaptations in the interests of all our population groups. Only if that is done, can we live together in harmony. But, Sir, I do want to plead that when certain facilities are established at the shop floor level which could lead to friction in the work situation, must be done in such a way that workers cannot take offence. Here I have in mind in particular, eating facilities, restrooms, ablution facilities, etc. I have received numerous complaints about this from my constituency, but the White workers are afraid that if they complain, they will lose their jobs, as has already happened in the past. Therefore, Sir, I feel that employers should display great responsibility when they bring about changes, so that tension and friction will not arise among the different population groups.

Segregation can be established in the work situation in terms of the Factories, Machinery and Building Works Act of 1941, and in terms of the Shops and Offices Act of 1964, if it appears that such separation is essential for the prevention of friction between the races. In accordance with tradition in South Africa, which has been fixed by regulation, separate toilet, restroom and eating facilities must be supplied for the different races. Whilst workers of the same sex still work together shoulder to shoulder, regardless of race, workers are generally not prepared to share toilet and other facilities, and any constraint in that direction can, in my humble opinion, very easily lead to serious labour unrest, which will be to the detriment of all workers in the country.

I think the policy of any Government can be tested on the basis of the ultimate results of the implementation of its policy. When our labour policy is tested against the background of our multinational society, we find that the policies of the NP have brought incomparable labour peace and progress. The fact that we have had labour peace, does not imply that adaptations need not be made. On account of economic and industrial development and the increasing entry of non-Whites in the labour market, it will become necessary to take stock of the position. There are constant appeals for a revaluation of our labour legislation. Technological development also largely contributes to the fact that existing legislation does not always remain adequate, and that a review is necessary. We must keep in mind, however, that the present system has worked effectively and has been largely responsible for the labour peace which has existed through the years. All of us are of course aware of the international pressure which is being exerted in the field of labour, but we must remember that this pressure is also exerted on a number of facets of our national economy, and not only in the field of labour. Adaptations which are made, should therefore be based on the needs which have arisen and are justified in the interests of all our people.

I want to conclude by pleading that we should guard against disturbing our record of labour peace. If adaptations are approved, it will have to be seen to that this is done in such a manner that it does not damage the confidence of the White workers’ corps. We must remember that as recently as last year, the electorate expressed themselves anew on our fundamental guidelines. On that occasion, this side was returned to this House with an overwhelming majority. The only support which the Opposition obtained for their standpoint, was the thinned-out representation which they have herein the House this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, in order to afford the Prime Minister an opportunity to make a statement to this House, I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that a reply, on behalf of the South African Government, was conveyed to the ambassadors of the five Western countries by the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs this afternoon. I quote—

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the momentous nature of the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister, I should like, with your leave, to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that we should like to thank him very much indeed for fulfilling his obligation to this House by coming to the House at the earliest opportunity with this statement. We believe that the statement he has made is of a momentous nature affecting the course of history. The Official Opposition supports the Government unreservedly in terms of the Prime Minister’s statement. We would like to congratulate him, the people of South West Africa and the negotiators involved in it. We do not see this as the end of a difficult road; we see it as an act of faith on the part of the South African Government in itself and in the people of South West Africa. We give this statement, and everything implicit in it, our support so that the people of South West Africa can enjoy independence, peace and freedom and so that we in Southern Africa can live in peace again.

Mr. Speaker, may I also take advantage of this occasion to pledge my party, the NRP, to the full support of South Africa’s action and to congratulate the Government, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs on having achieved this agreement with the Western States. We believe they have acted in the interests of the people of South West Africa and welcome the assurance on the security of those peoples at this very difficult and testing time and in the light of the international situation. We thank the hon. the Prime Minister for having made this statement in Parliament and for the results that have been achieved.

Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to express a few words of thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the second Opposition party for their support in connection with this matter. It is true that it is a very momentous matter indeed. It is also true that it is a very historic occasion, and I am glad that I have been able to fulfil my obligation to the House in this way.

Mr. Chairman, I take it there is not a member in this House who envies me this opportunity to speak after the somewhat momentous statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister, which we all hope will bring peace to us. I am in the position that I have to return to the mundane business of this debate. If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to react immediately to the previous three speeches made in the House under this Vote, including, and particularly, the speech by the hon. member for Uitenhage and also the speech by the first of the speakers who dealt with the subject of Black labour in the western Cape, the hon. member for Moorreesburg. If I may say so to the hon. member for Moorreesburg, I think he put his finger on what is a fundamental difference between his side of the House and this side of the House. That difference lies in the fact that he referred to the Black workers as being “vreemdelinge” and “vreemde werkers”. The difficulty is that he will not be able to persuade the world at large that one is entitled to regard Black people who were born and bred in South Africa as being foreigners in the country of their birth. I think he has no prospect of persuading the world of that and very little prospect of persuading the bulk of the Black people in South Africa that they are foreigners in the land of their birth. That is the fundamental difference between us and that is why the difficulty that one has is that one can never solve South Africa’s problems, including the labour problem, while one has that philosophy. That is the tragedy of the situation that exists in South Africa.

What is also fascinating is that while the hon. member for Uitenhage made a plea on behalf of the unemployed people in South Africa and correctly pointed out the degree of unemployment that existed, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark proceeded to tell us that there was no such thing, that in fact a superfluity of jobs were being offered. I want to ask any hon. member on that side if he would regard himself as employed if he were to work for five hours per week. Sir, there is dead silence. The statistics—which are published—on which hon. members rely indicate that 12,4% of the Black economically active people are unemployed but those statistics rely on the fact that a man who works for five hours per week is not unemployed. On wages the average Black man earns in South Africa, you, Mr. Chairman, can tell me whether he can exist if he works for five hours out of seven days per week. Thus then are the statistics that are relied on, the statistics which they present to this House, statistics which in themselves, as I tried to show yesterday during the discussion of the Vote statistics in the Other Place, are absolutely fallacious in so far as they are based on the 1970 base and ignore the changes that have taken place in respect of the movements of population groups and of different age components since 1970.

Those hon. members present statistics which are conservative and then say that a man who works for five hours per week, is not unemployed. I agree with the hon. member for Uitenhage in regard to White unemployment. I agree with him that it is a problem in his constituency, and he has my support in what he is trying to do for his people. However, what must also be understood by the hon. member for Uitenhage and by every other hon. member in this House is that we, the Whites in South Africa, are affected by every single Black who is unemployed. That is so because the sociological implications, the implications for peace in South Africa, the implications for solving the problems in South Africa are even more serious in respect of Black unemployment as far as Whites are concerned than White unemployment as far as Whites are concerned. That is the tragedy that we have in South Africa.

The problem is a very simple one, and the hon. the Minister should deal with it. The necessary jobs are not being created to employ the people. We were told in the Economic Development Programme which was published for the 1974 period, that we needed a 6,1% growth rate and that on that growth rate we would have 434 000 Black unemployed in South Africa by 1979. The truth is that we have had an average growth rate of 1½% over the last three years—it was only ½% last year. Yet hon. members are surprised that there are 700 000 Black unemployed in terms of their very conservative statistics. Are hon. members surprised at that? Unless the jobs can be created, unless this challenge can be met, we are heading for the most serious trouble that South Africa can possible envisage; yet those hon. members appear to be oblivious to the danger that threatens all of us. That is the tragedy that is hitting us.

Let me deal with another matter. We have talked in this House about a wealth gap and we have talked about a wage gap. However, I think the most important issue that we have to deal with is the skills gap. It is all very well to talk about equal pay for equal work when the lower categories of work are in the main reserved for one particular race, not so much by law as by implication. Unless one solves the skills gap in South Africa one will not be able to solve the socio-logical and the political problems that face us. Let us take a very simple example. According to the last census 44,6% of the Black economically active people in South Africa were involved in work in agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining and quarrying, i.e. mainly the unskilled section of that kind of activity. These people hold the unskilled jobs. Only 15,4% were involved in manufacturing, commerce and finance, and of these 68% were involved in what was called a labourer’s category. Here we again see an example of the skills gap in South Africa. The fact here is that if we do not solve the skills gap, we cannot solve the sociological problems of South Africa.

I want to come back to the citizenship issue in respect of labour. There are some fascinating statistics in this regard. In 1970 the Black population, including Transkei and Bophuthatswana, was 15 339 000. In 1977, excluding Transkei and Bophuthatswana, it was 15 887 000 even though there had been an increase of 3 million in the Black population over that period. If we analyse this, we find something even more fascinating, in that in 1970 there were 9 592 000 Blacks who were regarded as not being economically active. In 1977 there were 10 770 000 Blacks who were not economically active. This constitutes an increase of 1 185 000, even though the total population, after taking away Transkei and Bophuthatswana, had only gone up by 546 000. In other words, we reduce the population and increase the numbers of those who are not economically active. The reverse is that in 1970 we had 5 747 000 economically active Blacks and in 1977, 5 110 000, a decrease of 637 300. Is it not fascinating that the numbers of those who were economically active decreased as a result of taking away Transkei and Bophuthatswana and that the numbers of those who were not economically active increased? What the Government is doing, in other words, is that they are playing the fool with the statistics of South Africa and are in fact indicating to the public of South Africa that there are only 700 000 unemployed Blacks in South Africa while they have excluded from that the migrant workers and while they know that one out of every two Black workers in South Africa is either a migrant worker or a commuter.

The commuters are not included in these figures. The Government therefore has a formidable Black unemployment problem which they are not solving because they do not have the growth rate in order to solve it. Meanwhile they are producing statistics which are misleading to the public. I maintain that they are, in that way, covering up the serious sociological problem that is facing South Africa in regard to unemployment. They are sitting on a time bomb in regard to unemployment, and if that time bomb explodes, it will affect the whole of White South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I came to the House with the best of intentions today to make a very moderate speech, as it is my habit to do. But, as is the habit of the hon. member for Yeoville, he has now again succeeded in raising the blood pressure of the entire House. This hon. member has spent 10 minutes making an alarmist speech in which he has referred amongst others to a time bomb. I was afraid that this hon. member’s fuse could blow. This hon. member has said that we can forget about convincing the world of our good intentions with our people, that we can forget about convincing the world that the Black people do not belong in the Western Cape. Why can we forget about that? For one reason only, namely that that hon. member, his party, his fellow-travellers and the English newspapers which support him, are the people who send this poison into the world. They are the people who …

It is not poison; it is the truth.

That hon. member knows as well as I do that the opinion-formers overseas use for their own purposes precisely what is said by South Africans. They do not say that it is merely an inferior little bunch of Progs who say so; they say that we South Africans say so. The hon. member is aware of the power of the Press as a medium in this connection. All that the hon. member does, is to spell out his pernicious policy in words, so that he can enable the enemies of South Africa to use that policy against South Africa. That hon. member has always just been opposed to the Whites. He has always just expressed himself against the Whites.

That is untrue.

I am not saying that he is so personally, but his entire party is against the Whites. But today the hon. member proved something else. When he referred to the speech by the hon. member for Moorreesburg, he proved that he was also opposed to the Coloureds, and took sides against them. That is surely absolute proof that that hon. member has decided that he sides with the Black man in South Africa. What happens to the Whites, the Indians and the Coloureds? He could not care a damn! It is as simple as that, and that is the message which he wants to send out into the world.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw his remark.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “damn”. The hon. member says that we are sitting on a time bomb and that the Government is not concerned about unemployment. Where does he get that from? Who is more concerned about the unemployment of White, Black and Brown than this Government? What do that hon. member and his party do when we say that more funds should be provided for border industries and decentralization? They shout that it should not be done and that a system of “free enterprise” should be implemented. They want every employer in the city, or wherever, to use as much Black labour as he can. What does he achieve thereby? The answer is that he is attracting as many Black people as possible to the cities and in that way a squatter community is created. What happens then? Then the hon. member and his party curse the Government because we cannot supply housing and because we do not clear up the squatter camps. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order for an hon. member to accuse an hon. member and his party of cursing the Government? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria East may continue.

I do not blame the hon. member for not understanding the idiom in which I said it.

He is stupid!

That is the sort of language I do not like.

I really want to discuss something quite moderate in the House. I want to express a few thoughts about the research about and in the field of labour. If there are two contracts in a person’s life which are very important, they are probably one’s marriage contract and one’s service contract. I do not know which of the two is more important, but I do say that all of us who have to work, have a service contract. But when it comes to the research material and authoritative works, one finds that nowhere in South Africa can one find in a library an authoritative work on, for example, the service contract. I quote that as an example. For that reason I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Labour that we appreciate the fact that he and his department have decided to establish a research bureau in the Department of Labour with effect from 1 March 1977. That is a bureau in which knowledgeable people are brought together to make a study of every facet of the total kaleidoscope of labour. Labour is a living organism. Labour is not simply something which we simply do every day with our hands or whatever, but is an organism which changes from time to time, just as the situation in which we find ourselves changes. Surely we all know that the time of the master-and-servants laws is past and that the service agreement has acquired a different content. It no longer merely concerns the rendering of service and the emoluments earned. There are surely many other things which go hand in hand with that. There are many other sociological aspects, fringe benefits, pension schemes, medical schemes, etc. For that reason, it is essential that research should also be done in respect of these matters. The hon. chief spokesman of the Opposition on labour matters will agree with me that, at the time when we tried to do research about labour at university, there were only three books we could use. There were De Kock’s Industrial Laws, the book by Heine and Shaeffer, and also a small part of the work of De Wet and Yeats. Last year Prof. Van Jaarsveld and Mr. Cloete, of the University of Pretoria, published a good book under the title Labour Law, and now, for the first time, we can do a little research in this connection. I regard that as the task of that bureau.

My time is now getting very short, and I just want to set out briefly why this research is necessary. This research is essential in order that the hon. the Minister, the Department and also this House may obtain the necessary guidance from this brains trust in the department. All sorts of aspects can be studied, but I should like to see that this bureau starts with the basis of labour, namely the service contract. A pro forma service contract should be drafted which we can distribute to employers for their use.

I just want to refer to two aspects of the labour world. Firstly, I want to refer to a very delicate one, namely Black trade unions. We in the NP have always maintained that for good reasons, we do not recognize Black trade unions. But are we still convinced of the fact that those reasons are still valid today and that there are no other reasons? Are we, as the Government, the Opposition, or as South Africans, convinced that we know what happens to the money which these de facto Black trade unions receive from abroad? What control have we over that? Must this bureau not regard it as its task to study that problem intensively? As a bureau of study, it must not flinch from a subject because it is of a delicate nature.

I want to refer to another aspect of labour. Why has one population group a greater affinity for a certain type of work than another population group? Certain Bantu population groups, for example, do not want to work in a mine in any circumstances. Have we ever done research into why that is so? Many thousands of foreign Black people work in our mines while we,—I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville—are saddled with thousands of our own Black people who are unemployed. Should we not also study that field in detail so that we can report to the hon. the Minister about how we can guide these people to change their attitude?

Countless tasks await this bureau. With the aid of material which appears in the publication Empact, we must show the outside world, governments, labour leaders, trade union leaders and employers’ organizations outside South Africa, what we are doing in South Africa, what studies we undertake, what facts we have at our disposal, and how we solve our problems. We can also learn from them. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this bureau should not operate in isolation or in a vacuum, but that it should also make use of the academicians at our universities and other bodies and persons that have entered into this field of study, have data at their disposal and have also tried to fathom this problem. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we in South Africa today find ourselves at a juncture in our history at which it is the task of everyone of us in this House and outside to increase productivity in South Africa.

I agree with the hon. member for Pinelands who said in passing that we in South Africa will have to see to it—and I think this is vital—that we give our artisans in South Africa better training. I think it is necessary that I should speak of all the artisans in South Africa with the greatest tribute and appreciation. In particular, I refer to skilled artisans. The electrician, the mechanic, the builder and the mason all perform just such as great and responsible a task as any professional person in South Africa. Firstly, I am also particularly grateful for the contribution which the State makes in this connection to train those people. I am thinking, in particular, of our Defence Force, the Post Office, the Railways and other sections of our national economy. It must be remembered—and it is a recognized fact—that the stream of immigrants to South Africa is no longer what is used to be. We are no longer in the fortunate position that we can lure skilled immigrants to South Africa to the same extent as in the past. That is why I say that it is vital that we should see to it in South Africa that our artisans are expertly trained. I wonder whether our artisans in South Africa are just as expert nowadays as they used to be years ago.

Having said that, I think it is also essential that I should refer to the good and laudable work done at Westlake in respect of training for adults. At present, eight courses are offered at the trade training centre. The courses are the following: Apart from courses for electricians, there are also courses in plumbing, bricklaying and plastering, motor and diesel mechanics, panelbeating and spraying, fitting and turning, platework, boiler making, carpentry and woodwork. At the moment, there are 164 trainees at Westlake.

To single out and present just one of those I have mentioned, I shall dwell on the mechanics for a moment. In this connection, I foresee special problems. As a result of our standard of living here in South Africa, we have the position that our motor vehicles are increasing. We have the factual position that the motor vehicles as such and the engineering work connected with it, are of a very technical nature. It is a fact, and I do not want to generalize, that the workmanship of mechanics in South Africa today—I say I am not generalizing because there are surely good motor mechanics, too—is not always what they should be. We have the situation, as my friend the hon. member for Stilfontein has said, that one no longer gets a motor mechanic in the true sense of the word. They are now really what is called “the new part fitters”. They are, in other words, the people who do not work on the finer parts of the motor vehicle; instead, if anything is broken, they merely fit a new part. Then the owner pays through his neck.

I again just want to refer briefly to Westlake. Since the intensive training courses were instituted in May 1977, the training in the motor mechanic trade has been extended to that of diesel motor mechanics. The requirements for admission are an age of at least 21 years and standard 7 for the electricians’ course, and standard 6 for all the other courses. The period of training for all courses is three years, consisting of 12 months’ intensive training at the centre and 24 months’ in-service training with an employer.

Having stated the position at Westlake, I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister for his serious consideration that whereas I have discussed the training of our artisans in South Africa and whereas I said that at Westlake wonderful and laudable work was being done in respect of these people to whom I have referred, the question is still whether what we are doing for South Africa at Westlake is sufficient. I now want to request the hon. the Minister that a training centre for adult White trainees also be erected in the other provinces. When I talk of the other provinces, I am naturally also speaking of the Orange Free State. And when I speak of the Orange Free State naturally I also speak of the Free State goldfields complex. The employers’ and employees’ organizations will have to undertake a survey to ascertain in what trades there is a need for training, especially as regards the Pretoria/Witwatersrand/Vereeniging complex. The survey should also concentrate on the possibilities of placing these people in employment, because, in the nature of things this is very important. The Department of National Education, in cooperation with the Department of Labour, should accept the responsibility.

I also want to request the hon. the Minister that a training centre for adult Coloured artisans be erected in Cape Town, or in another centre, depending upon the decision of the Department of Coloured Relations. The department concerned should itself ascertain the needs in respect of the demand for trained workers in the different trades, and also the employment possibilities. In consultation with the Department of Labour, they should also accept the responsibility for the erection of the training complex.

Furthermore, I request the hon. the Minister that a training centre for adult Asian artisans should be erected in Durban, or in another centre, depending upon the decision of the Department of Indian Affairs. The department concerned should itself ascertain the needs in respect of the demand for trained workers in the different trades, and also the employment possibilities. It should also, in consultation with the Department of Labour, accept responsibility for its erection. It is essential that industry should take cognizance of the existing training institutions—for example technical colleges, where courses are already presented at the highest level, as well as at the supervisory and the middle level. Industrialists ought to avail themselves of the existing facilities for formal training to a greater extent. Furthermore, provision should also be made for brief courses—so-called refresher courses—for training officers in the different branches of industry. These are courses which could also be presented by the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education. These courses can be similar to those which are already being offered to training officers of Iscor at the moment. Apart from in-service training in a particular industry, use ought to be made on a larger scale of the training facilities created by the employers’ associations. The industries and industrial organizations concerned should themselves accept the responsibility for the creation of such facilities.

Employers ought also to be encouraged— and to me this is important—to release their employees, without loss of emoluments, to undergo formal practical training. Comparable training programmes for all three population groups ought to be co-ordinated by the Public Service departments concerned. Organizations for employees and employers, and also the different Government departments, ought to ascertain the requirements in order to establish whether there is a demand for the re-training of Whites, Coloureds and Asians.

If it does exist, the proposed training centre should be so planned that it also has facilities for the retraining of operators. Then people ought also to be trained only in those trades where there is in fact a demand. In this way the incurring of fruitless expenditure, especially in connection with training, can be prevented.

In connection with the matters to which I have now referred, I believe—and this is my humble opinion—that in these times, the training of artisans in South Africa has become imperative. That is a fact. As a person connected with the building industry, I have to deal from time to time with electricians, with bricklayers and with all those people involved in the erection of buildings. I am sorry to say that the service which some artisans render in South Africa today, is unfortunately not what it should be. But I add immediately that I am not generalizing. I believe that it is also the responsibility of the Department of Labour, as well as of the State, to see to it that certain machinery is created by which those people—people who are extremely important to us, are properly trained. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the ideas expressed here by the hon. member for Welkom. I trust that the department will conduct a full investigation into the matters raised by the hon. member.

Labour is a matter which will probably be a subject of discussion for a very long time to come. In fact, labour will be a subject of discussion for many years. However, in what respect does today’s debate differ from the debates conducted on the same subject in the past? I think back involuntarily to the days when the hon. the Minister of Community Development used to be the main speaker of the Official Opposition on labour. I remember the heated debates which took place here at that time. At that time, it was not necessary to have three hon. Government members speak for every one Opposition member who had participated in the debate. We fought man against man, bull against bull. And what men did we have? One of the most formidable was the hon. the Minister of Community Development, when he was the hon. member for Yeoville. And could he discuss labour matters!

When one starts a speech, one involuntarily thinks how one is to start one’s speech. One needs an introduction. That is really what made me think of dealing with the true origin of labour.

I thought involuntarily of the words of our Lord when he said to Adam, “In the sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread”. From that day on we have known labour. We shall also have to deal with labour in future, but this depends on how we are going to use the labour. In this regard, Sir, I want to say: Fortunate is the country that has a Minister like the hon. the Minister of Labour of this country; fortunate is the country that has officials such as we have, the officials sitting over there behind the hon. the Minister. They are people who have their ears to the ground so as to ascertain how things are with our country’s labour. We can testify this afternoon that things are going well with us, although there are certain fields in which things are not exactly going as they should. There is unemployment; let us admit that. Overreaction, such as that suggested by the Official Opposition, because, according to them, there are millions of unemployed, is not necessary however. Every person who is willing to work, will find work in this country, but I want to make the statement that there are thousands of people who do not want to work. That point has already been raised here today.

Because I represent a mining constituency, I want to pay tribute today to the various large mining companies that have launched intensive training schemes, not only for the White man, but also for the Black man and the Brown man. As we know, there are the mining schools for White workers, but in tensive training is also being given to the Black people and Brown people who turn to the mining industry. I want to compliment them on the excellent work which they do every day. But, Sir, I wish this could be carried through to all our large industries so that their workers, too, may enjoy similar, intensive training. At those industries, however, the position is different.

I think our industries have been spoilt to a certain extent. Blacks as well as Whites who grew up in the cities and who have reasonably good school qualifications, take up employment in the industries, and consequently the industries are able to adapt their training to those qualifications. The Black men who are recruited by the mining industry, come from various parts of Southern Africa, and must be trained to give the best service. The situation is totally different, and I can tell you Sir, that in general the mining industry has had good results. That is why we have peace in the mining industry. By the way, Sir, I want to add that in this regard I disagree with one of the previous speakers on this side of the House. I should like to see how it would be possible to give trade union rights tomorrow to the half a million Black workers in the mining industry! These are things we shall argue in future. At that time discussions can be held on its application. I do not want to anticipate the findings of the commission. I have confidence in those people. I know that they will study the matter thoroughly before they submit their recommendations to us. They will conduct a thorough investigation in order to ascertain where it can work. I want to give the assurance, however, that the Black man in the mining industry has been given considerable powers over the past decades, so that he has far more powers in the execution of his duties at present than he had in the past. The White workers in the mining industry raised many objections to that. I personally did the same thing in a case of certain of the concessions that were made, but the concessions had good results. The White workers who objected at the time, are feeling happier today because the concessions have contributed towards making their work easier. The concessions have led to the situation of the different workers being able to work together as a team and to produce more, and consequently to earn more money. They have greatly benefited the country and the mining industry as such. That is why I believe that there should be training today for all sectors of our working population. The Black man is being trained on the farm today. Not far from where I live, at Potchefstroom, there is a training school at which Blacks are being trained to work with the expensive implements of their employers, the farmers. Good results are being achieved. But I cannot agree with the view that all these things are to be done away with in the twinkling of an eye. Time will tell. In the future we shall be able to eliminate many of these things which irritate, and we shall be able to do so in a nice manner. At this stage I cannot imagine my Minister saying tomorrow that we should give all Black workers in South Africa trade union rights so that they may establish their own Black trade unions. That would simply not work out. It simply cannot work out, because they do not have the background and the history and they do not know the conditions as the Whites do—the Whites who have had to deal with this situation for hundreds of years.

I really want to disagree with the hon. member for Yeoville. There is only one thing that person can do: He gets up and he quarrels. One does not know what it is all about. It sounds like a machine gun rapidly firing a salvo of blanks. He said here the Black man could not exist on his salary in this country. Surely that is sheer nonsense!

Who said that?

That hon. member said so. But over the past few years, the salary of the Black man has increased by at least 156% as against that of the White. Do hon. members know what salary a Black man who has been well trained, can earn underground today? Does that hon. member have any knowledge of that? Today one no longer wants to use the words “straw hut” in this House, but when a Black man comes from his homeland to work in the mines after he has received his training—all free of charge—he starts with a minimum salary of R80 per month which he can put in his pocket in fact.

And the Whites?

The Whites, too, but the Whites have other things which they do not receive. The Whites do not receive free accommodation, free food and free medical and sports facilities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have listened to a number of speeches from members on the other side this afternoon adopting the usual Nationalist policy of pointing to other countries and their problems as an excuse for the problems South Africa is facing. The classical example this afternoon, of course, was the speech of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. This old Nationalist technique, although it might be of some comfort to themselves, does not in any way help us to solve our own problems. I think we should be honest about it and admit that we are in a state of considerable economic difficulty at the present stage and that we have a very real employment problem on our hands.

The hon. the Minister is on record as having stated, on 31 January of this year, that no state of emergency exists as regards unemployment. He based this on a finding of the Unemployment Insurance Board in December of last year. I can only say that this finding is in direct conflict with the opinion of many of the best labour experts in South Africa today. The official figure of the Department of Statistics, as we all know, was a figure of something like 634 000 which is roughly 12,4%—and includes the homelands—of the economically employed population. The hon. the Minister’s figure, however, was a much lower figure and appeared to relate only to urban Black unemployment. We have other figures, however, that depict a situation that is even worse than the Department of Statistics’ figure. I am, of course, in no position to judge just how accurate these figures are but they come from a variety of experts based at different universities. One can assume that these people know their job. Dr. Spandau of Witwatersrand University puts the total unemployment, including that in the homelands, at 1,5 million last July. Then there is Mr. Lieb Loots, who is a researcher in the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. As far back as 1976 he said that the unemployment figures varied from a low of 1 million, which is 10,2% of the labour force, to a high of 1,85 million, which is 18,6% of the labour force. Then there is the labour research unit at Cape Town University which put the figure even higher, at over 2 million for all races which represents 22,4%. That is an enormous figure by anybody’s standards. Quite recently Mr. Raymond Parsons of Assocom, who, after all, is not likely to give these estimates without having conducted a proper investigation, estimated that more than a million Black people will be out of work by 1981. That figure was given to us on the 20th of this month and it is the most recent figure I have. As I say, I believe that by anybody’s yardstick the situation is extremely alarming.

I would prefer to agree with the hon. the Minister’s statement made in February this year, a statement which appeared in The Argus of 20 February, that “South Africa cannot afford millions of frustrated unemployed people because then one creates revolution”. I agree with that statement and I agree entirely with what the hon. member for Yeoville said about this a little earlier. Massive unemployment means that one alienates Black people from the free enterprise system since it cannot provide them with a livelihood and that they will turn to other systems in order to support themselves and their families. Unemployment also creates crime. This is quite inevitable when men are hungry and unemployed and have to feed their families, pay rent and clothe their families. Then, of course, widespread unemployment creates human misery of the very worst kind. I believe that there are already very ominous signs of this in South Africa and that crime is escalating. The human misery is evidenced by the reports of growing malnutrition in the homelands by people who run hospitals and clinics in those areas. I think that all this takes on a much greater significance because the vast majority of sufferers are Africans, although there are also White, Coloured and Asian unemployed. The racial overtones are of course very evident.

For hon. members glibly to say that most of these people are “won’t works”, i.e. people who do not want to work, simply means that they do not understand the situation at all and that they are deceiving themselves. They ought to go and see the lines of dejected Black men standing outside the Labour Bureau in Johannesburg seeking work and not being able to get that work. The trouble is, of course, that in the eyes of Blacks the system, the overall policy, of the Government simply exacerbates the problems of their own unemployment.

In many instances they are, of course, quite right because Government policy does exacerbate the situation. I refer to the Planning Act on which the hon. member for Pinelands talked yesterday in the Other Place, mentioning that over 6 000 jobs were denied to Africans on those grounds. I refer to trade-union restrictions, closed shops, and jobs not being open to Africans. I refer to occupational immobility and to rigid influx control which does not allow people to take up jobs in areas where jobs might be available. We have therefore the situation where Blacks are not only suffering unemployment, but are also convinced that the White man’s policy is the direct cause of this; they do not look to the overall situation of the economy in South Africa.

I believe that emergency action is essential, especially when one realizes that most of the figures are underestimates and that the homelands contain thousands upon thousands of people who have no land at all and who cannot rely even on the subsistence living in respect of which we used to comfort ourselves in the old days by saying: “Well, at least they can scratch some sort of support for their families from the land.” There are hundreds upon hundreds of families in the homelands today who have no land whatever and who have to rely entirely on the earnings of migrant workers. If these migrants are unemployed, there is just nothing for them at all. What can be done about this? First of all, I think we need to have some of the emergency measures that are at the disposal of the State in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I refer particularly to section 37 of chapter VIII of the Act. Then too, I think we need radical changes to the Act itself so as to include categories presently excluded from the ambit of the Act. I cannot see why agricultural workers, domestic workers and even the mineworkers, should be excluded from this Act. There are unemployed mineworkers and these days local men employed on the mines exceed the number of foreigners. The situation used to be the other way round, of course. Moreover, the poorest of the poor, those persons earning less than R10,50 per week, are excluded entirely from the Act.

While I am on the subject of unemployment insurance I want to say a word of praise about the new Secretary for Labour who, I believe, has done a very good job indeed in setting right a number of grievances which Black people had when they tried to collect their unemployment insurance money. I know he paid a visit to Durban and that things have improved considerably since his visit. I know, too, that things have improved on the Rand as a result of these efforts and I think that credit should be given where credit is due. A bottleneck, however, still exists to some extent and it exists largely because the officials of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards, for instance the Witwatersrand Board, do not supply the so-called Springbok certificates which are required before men can claim their unemployment pay. I believe too that the conditions in the rural areas are parlous. These moneys are paid out by the Bantu Commissioners. There seems to be a tremendous delay before Black people can claim what is in fact lawfully due to them in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Then also, I think we should start thinking about extending the 26 week period after which no more payments are made from the Unemployment Fund. I believe that in times of chronic unemployment such as now this period should be extended. African workers often do not know about the benefits which they can obtain under the Fund and the special dispensation which they can claim.

What about the White man, Helen?

I think most White men are very well aware of the rights that they have, through their trade unions. They ought to be because they have well-organized trade unions that look after their interests. This is what the Black man lacks and if he had them he would know about his unemployment money.

I think the Secretary should follow up the undertaking he gave last year to prosecute employers who do not get their workers’ cards in order so that they may claim if they are out of work. I believe that these are matters that require urgent attention and I think public, assistance is needed. We cannot rely on the Act and therefore some form of public assistance is needed in this emergency period. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think that we can say with certainty that this debate today could in many respects be distinguished from labour debates that were held in the past and which I attended. It differs in this sense that the level of the debate has been exceptionally high, that exceptionally good contributions have been made and that the general tone of the debate has been extremely positive. I should like to thank all members on both sides of this House who participated in the debate and contributed to it very sincerely indeed.

One would have expected the opening speaker on the opposite side, the hon. member for Pinelands, to have attacked the Government on quite a number of points, and that he would have wanted to score a few debating points, but he did not do so. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member, on his part, struck a reasonably positive note. I appreciate that. What actually happened was that that hon. member was so carried away by the positive actions of the department and by what has recently been said from many quarters that the hon. member became part of this in his speech. It does not matter, though, for it shows us that we in South Africa are making progress as far as this matter is concerned. We are progressing to such an extent that that hon. member is also joining the movement. I do not want to come back to this again …

Are you joining us?

… because I want to make a positive speech. I want to associate myself with the speech made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. That hon. member also dwelt on what was said by officials of the department. It does not matter, though, for as long as we make progress, everything is fine. The hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, welcomed the new secretary, Mr. Cilliers, here and congratulated him on his appointment. Since Mr. Cilliers cannot speak for himself here, I want to say on his behalf that the thoughts which were expressed here are very highly appreciated. The department and I are exceptionally happy that Mr. Cilliers has accepted his task as new secretary with so much zeal and enthusiasm. Various hon. members who have come into contact with him and with the department, can also testify to this. I, on my part as well, want to wish him everything of the best in the years in which he will in future be in the service of the department.

In the nature of things, the debate immediately focussed attention on the activities of the very important Wiehahn Commission, and I am very grateful for that. The hon. member for Pinelands, who was the first to participate in the debate this afternoon, also referred to this commission and indicated, inter alia, what the code should be. I shall have something more to say about this code in a moment. The Wiehahn Commission was appointed after Parliament had adjourned last year. I had indicated in the course of that session that such a commission would be appointed, and if ever anything has happened which afterwards indicated that it was a good thing to have done and was the right appointment at the right time, then it was in fact the appointment of the Wiehahn Commission. Prof. Wiehahn, the chairman of the commission, is present here today, and before the start of the debate I asked him about his activities. I want to say at once that I am not trying to interfere in the activities of the commission, and I am not trying to prompt him on what he should do. I merely asked whether there was anything they needed, and how matters were progressing. Prof. Wiehahn consequently gave me the assurance that the commission was working at full steam. The Wiehahn Commission was appointed last year in August and already it has virtually finished a large portion of its work. The chairman of the commission informed me, moreover, that as far as its public hearings were concerned, the commission had already completed that portion of the work apart from that relating to Government departments. He received a vast amount of evidence and Prof. Wiehahn feels very happy about the overwhelming reaction. From all quarters, throughout South Africa, there were exceptional contributions and an exceptional willingness to help the commission with its evidence. In my opinion this is a very good indication. When I asked the commission about this some time ago, they informed that they were making such rapid progress with their activities that it was really not necessary to introduce an interim report now, for if that were to be done, the commission would have to delay its activities. In the end that would not have been of much help.

The chairman also said that he envisaged having the report of the commission ready in October of this year. It may justifiably be said therefore that if a commission whose terms of reference it is to investigate all the legislation in question is able to present a report within such a short period of time, they are doing really excellent work. Consequently I want to thank Prof. Wiehahn and the rest of the commission in anticipation for the exceptional work which, as I have said, is being done by them, and I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to say that this has also been made possible because the employers’ organizations, which are rendering certain services to certain members of the commission, displayed their goodwill by exempting those members from their services in those companies employing them so that they could be of service to the commission in a full-time capacity. On behalf of everyone in this House, I want to thank these companies sincerely for doing this. That is one of the reasons why the commission is making such rapid progress with its investigation.

Arising from this, there are quite a number of aspects which indicate—the discussion this afternoon also indicated this—that progress has been made in certain spheres. I shall make further reference to this in a moment. However, I should not like to anticipate the report of the commission, as the hon. member for Pinelands said, by giving an indication on my part of the lines along which they should think. The commission has a free hand to think as it pleases, and I am aware that the chairman has from time to time given an indication in public of his own feelings on the matter. But I do not believe it behoves the Minister to allow himself to be drawn by this, even though statements are coming from all quarters, into giving an indication here in a debate in this House of what the commission’s findings ought in his opinion to be. For that reason I shall not react to what the hon. member said in this regard.

But I do want to react to another aspect which the hon. member raised, i.e. the question of the codes, and since we are today living in an era of codes, I should like to enlarge on this subject for a while.

Recently, of course, we have had pressure on South Africa. The way in which the outside world thought it could influence the labour situation in South Africa was to draw up codes and then serve notice on everyone participating in industrial activities in the various countries that they should adopt this code. The first code was the American one, the so-called Sullivan Code. The second code is that of the EEC. This second code is one that was drawn up by nine Governments and then presented to the industries operating in South Africa as the one which they should adopt. This is not an instruction, but an indication to these people that they should adhere to this code. If one examines these codes carefully, one observes that they are merely a lot of words. Three-quarters of what is stated in the code is also the code of South Africa. With a departure here and there, these things are also being done in this country. In certain respects the codes are not significant. I was in Germany last week and had occasion to discuss the codes with an EEC country. To tell the truth, one of the biggest industries in Europe which does very big business in South Africa, told me that they, too, did not know what was expected of them, but that they were perfectly satisfied with the way in which they were managing in-South Africa. The codes which had been submitted to them, as well as the code which we ourselves drew up, did not affect them one way or the other. In fact, they are operating within the atmosphere of goodwill in which our own, South African code has been drawn up.

In general, therefore, I want to say that I think it would be wrong—and that is consequently why I did not do so—of the Government or of me as Minister to argue across the floor of this House, in the newspapers or in public, with other countries about what should happen in our country in our own industries. I ignored requests in this connection. What does another country have to do with the way in which we are acting in South Africa? ours is a sovereign country. I do want to concede, though, that we in South Africa take cognizance of and are sensitive to how the outside world feels about these matters. When all is said and done, industrialists from overseas are investing in our country and are employing people here, and because the world has become a small place to live in, the situation has simply developed in such a way that what happens in one country also affects other countries.

In this sense, therefore, there is an international dialogue on what the situation in the various countries is. This is a fact, and there is a sensitivity in this regard in South Africa as well. But I want to add at once that, because that sensitivity exists, I as Minister of Labour refuse point-blank to enter into a dialogue now with other countries or other industries on what should happen in our own country in respect of matters affecting my department. I am just mentioning this. I think the best reply is the reply of industrialists in South Africa itself who said that they would draw up a code for themselves in future.

The labour legislation of the Republic of South Africa is good legislation. But apart from that this House accepted the principle last year that the Minister could proceed to appoint a commission in order to lay down a labour code by means of a revision of all the labour legislation. In the meantime the commission is in the process of doing its commendable work, and I should not like to comment any further in public or here in Parliament on the matter of codes. I think it behoves all of us to tell all the industrialists in this country that they should co-operate with the Wiehahn Commission to create in South Africa the best model that can be adhered to in the field of labour. I am confident that the commission will be able to do this.

The hon. member for Kempton Park and the hon. member for Pretoria East referred to a second important matter, viz. what happened with reference to the undertaking which I gave in this House last year. I said at the time—it was my conviction then and I am* becoming more convinced all the time—that South Africa should understand that our entire field of activity, which we have seen in South Africa as an isolated, inherent, local work sphere, is in fact not an inherent, local work sphere. We are part of a larger world. I adopt the standpoint that if one is attacked and if plans are constantly being made to impose embargoes on South Africa, such as those which were introduced last year and a few weeks ago—this will happen again; that was why I was in Germany last week to discuss the steps which are being envisaged against South Africa—we have to reply. We looked at the situation and then we launched the publication Empact a few weeks ago. This has in the meantime evoked excellent reaction from all over the world. Some people said that there was something wrong with the format, that it should appear in a different format; some people said that the paper used was not of good quality; others said that it should be more colourful, while others felt that it need not contain any photographs. But the general feeling is that a publication is now appearing for the first time which can serve as a mouthpiece for South Africa’s labour community in the rest of the world. This is important. This is not only important for the present, but also for the future. The intention is to elicit opinions and ask the people who read it what they want. We should not close our ears. When I and a few other people were in Germany we received many sound suggestions. But the demand for this publication is overwhelming. It seems to me that we could soon print 10 000 copies in the four languages in which we envisage publishing it. I can therefore report to hon. members that the appearance of Empact had an excellent effect, and that I expect a great deal more from it in future.

I now want to refer to another aspect. I believe that a situation had developed which caused a need for such a publication to arise, for so many leaders in various spheres visited South Africa and asked us to tell them what was happening in South Africa. I had to reply to the same kind of questions during my visits abroad too. For that reason I believe that it has become essential that the research division, which we have established under the direction of Prof. Wiehahn and which is beginning to get into its stride now, should carry out in-depth research into the labour situation in South Africa to enable us to propagate our labour image in the outside world. One thing has become very clear to me, and that is that the Department of Labour must have a comprehensive foreign division. It is essential that specialists should state our case abroad. We cannot expect the Department of Foreign Affairs to look after our interests in this specialized field.

The Department of Labour must assist in this regard. After consultation it has therefore been decided that we shall proceed as soon as possible to expand the bureau so that it can become a full-fledged foreign division of the Department of Labour and so that we will therefore be able to conduct a far more meaningful dialogue in the entire international sphere.

I want to refer to another aspect of the bureau. The hon. member for Pretoria East indicated that it was essential that further research be done. He said that although the universities and other institutes had a great deal of knowledge and expertise, we should expand our knowledge and carry out in-depth research in co-operation with other bodies. I want to tell the hon. member that this is in fact being done. It is a fact that universities are co-operating and making their knowledge available. In recent times the universities have entered this field of study and have developed various disciplines. It is no longer the case, as it was in the old days, that a person who had completed his law studies could only become an attorney or a lawyer. Today one can become a specialist in the field of labour alone and in other fields of study. For example, if one goes to the University of Pretoria or to RAU and examines their auriculae, one will see that they have all kinds of specialized fields of study. That is why I want to tell the hon. member that this is not only essential, that it is in fact already being done. At this stage the bureau is not a very large undertaking. It only began to function last year. It is the intention to carry out the in-depth study and to allow it to cover a wide field, because one cannot, in this sophisticated world in which we are now living, do this in any other way than to cause one’s own research to function smoothly in this sphere as well. That is indeed the intention.

The hon. member for Bethal referred to labour relations and to labour strikes in general. He also referred to professional services. He also referred to the fact that we are at present sending a large number of our young people to the border and that it was perhaps necessary for us to provide them with guidance while they were there or upon their return. That is in fact being done. What the hon. member asked for is very important. A large number of young people leave school, are brought together there to receive their training, and upon their return they have to decide what they want to do. Because this is such a large portion of our labour force which is withdrawn for a long time and subsequently returns, it is necessary to maintain contact with them. Consequently I think it is a good thing that this development should proceed and I want to give the hon. member the assurance that these are precisely the ideas which will be adopted by the department in future.

A great deal was said about productivity. The hon. member for Durban North said that it was essential for the department to do something about this as well. That we have to examine the entire question of productivity is true. The whole world is talking about productivity. Everyone is talking about productivity. Everything revolves around this, so cognizance should be taken of the question of productivity and in particular of how it emerges in the economy of South Africa. We are a little different to other industrial countries. For example we differ from France and Germany in this sense that they are old industrialized countries, with great labour discipline. They have the machinery and the refined development there. That is not the case in South Africa. In South Africa there are various people in various stages of development, and all of them are drawn into a vast labour machine. In this vast labour machine it cannot be expected to that the disciplines will be applied here as they are in other places. That is why the figure is indeed perturbing, for during the past few years we have seen a gross national product being produced in South Africa which is too expensive.

Between 1972 and 1976 the real product increased by 9%. Do hon. members know what additional amount it cost us in wages to ensure its production?—93%! In a country such as Germany, where there is an unemployment rate of 3,5%, every industry is intensely interested in knowing, the moment it pays a worker a wage, whether that higher wage is going to produce something extra for that industry. That is why they do not have the high inflation rate we have in our country. This is an indication to us that unless we embody discipline in our system somewhere and unless the ordinary worker realizes that there is such a thing as an inexorable economic law, and that one cannot simply keep on increasing wages, our product will eventually become so expensive that no one will succeed in selling it. Our people will have to understand this. There must therefore be a built-in discipline. But how does one tell this to a trade union? How does one tell this to an individual? How does one tell an individual that he should not simply keep on making demands, but that he should also try to give more, and that if he is unable to give more, a point will have been reached where the employer is not able to give him anything extra either. It is a very difficult matter. These matters are argued out on the Conciliation Boards, on which the employers as well as the employees are represented. The Minister must say it, on his part, and they should say it on theirs. If our employees do not understand one thing, if they do not understand that they cannot simply keep on demanding higher wages, and that South Africa could in this way be priced out of the market, then we are heading for a disaster. That is why, not very long ago, one R1 could buy five DM. The other day R1 could buy only 2½ DM. Today R1 buys only two DM. This is the result of the fact that this discipline was present in Germany, while it was absent in our country. It is a very difficult thing to evaluate. It is also very difficult to determine precisely what one should do. However, the Wiehahn Commission has appointed a subcommittee under the chairmanship of Prof. Van der Merwe to investigate this very matter scientifically. We must therefore wait and see what plans the Wiehahn Commission devises.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg and the hon. member for Durbanville spoke about the situation in the Western Cape, on the question of Black people and Brown people in the Western Cape. It is true that the Western Cape is the homeland of the Brown man. The Department of Labour finds itself this situation that it does not exercise the control. As matters stand at present, the Minister of Labour has no control over the work situation of Black people. He does in fact exercise control over the work situation of Whites, Coloureds and Indians, but not of the Blacks. Therefore, if a demand for labour arises, the department of Labour is requested to provide the necessary manpower. But if the department is unable to supply these people, the Minister of Plural Relations has to issue a certificate which authorizes the importation of Black people for that purpose. In this respect my department is doing everything in its power. I can give hon. members the assurance that we are closing the taps as tightly as we can. We are already allowing a respite period of 14 days before a certificate is issued.

But it is another very difficult situation because there are thousands of Brown people in the Western Cape who are not working and who do not want to work. This also creates a problem. The Department of Labour offers them work, yet they do not always accept it. I think I told hon. members the story last time of how 3 000 workers had to be found for the Mitchell’s Plain project. One morning the Department of Labour had 82 Brown workers available. The department notified the entrepreneurs that it had 82 people available. Work was offered to all 82 of them. A bus was sent to fetch them and 74 boarded the bus. At every stop street, however, a number of them jumped off and when the bus eventually arrived at Mitchell’s Plain there were only 14 left. Of those 14 only 11 turned up the next Monday. That is in fact what happened. That is the situation we have to deal with.

Hon. members will therefore understand that this, as I have said, is not an easy matter. As the hon. member is of course aware, the Riekert Commission was appointed to investigate the situation of the Black people. I believe that the Riekert Commission will in fact achieve something.

The hon. member for Uitenhage referred to the position in his constituency and in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex. He mentioned the unemployment situation there. Now first of all I just want to say something in general about unemployment. It is fit and proper to discuss unemployment, but one must be very careful when one discusses unemployment in South Africa. It is a fact that unemployment reveals itself in different ways in different cities. This may be because certain industries are concentrated in certain places. If something goes wrong with such an industry, it is hit harder than an industry elsewhere. If we have all our motor vehicle factories in Uitenhage, and the motor industry is hit harder than other industries, it is natural that we should encounter a greater unemployment situation in Uitenhage than in Cape Town or in Johannesburg for example. This is probably what has now happened in Uitenhage.

I just want to tell the hon. member that 1 393 Whites, 2 065 Coloureds and 34 Asiatics were registered as unemployed in that area. That was the position at the end of last year. By March this year the number had already decreased by 250. Over a period of three months 250 is definitely a substantial percentage. It is very difficult to say how the matter will evolve in future. The indications are, however, that it could improve.

The second point which the hon. member made was in connection with people in the work situation. He said that there was wilfulness in the work situation, and that friction was being caused as a result of this. I want to tell the hon. member that trouble can easily develop on the factory floor. In respect of the factory floor, where people are assembled together, regulations have to be prescribed as to who works where, who eats where, etc. The fact of the matter is that there is an explosive situation on the factory floor. In this connection however, the department can be used as a sounding board, and I want to point out that it is only by way of rare exception that facts are presented to us which indicate that there is an insoluble problem on the factory floor. It is truly a rare exception when we take cognizance of something like this. If such an exceptional case presents itself, the people from the Department of Labour are immediately available to look into it. I want to tell hon. members that I have already been to many factories. I have visited many factories during lunch hours to see what the situation there looks like. The best way to visit such a factory is not to let the people know that you are coming; you simply get into your car and drive there and then simply walk in and see what is happening there. The impression I have gained has been that the greatest percentage of employers, even those who come to South Africa from abroad to invest here, have only one object in mind, and that is to try to preserve peace on the factory floor. It is one of their main objectives because they realize that relative peace is in a direct proportion to relative profits. There is no one who is so stupid as to invest money in a factory and then want trouble in that factory. These people do not want any trouble. It is a delicate situation, however, and a great deal of trouble has been taken on the part of the Department of Labour to be of assistance in this regard. For example assistance is rendered in the passing of factory plans. In fact this is being looked into at the present moment. At present there is in fact a dialogue in progress on this matter. The Wiehahn Commission is also looking into it. I must add, however, that this is one sphere in which I miscalculated. Before I became the Minister of Labour, I thought that this would be the one sphere in which we would experience many setbacks. This has not been the case. There is an exceptional amount of goodwill. But having said that, I want to add that if there are 30 000 factories in the country, one will not have 30 000 little angels. Here and there one will also have wilful people, but we are aware that there are some of them who want to exercise coercion in one way or another on the factory floor. I want to give hon. members the assurance that the Department of Labour goes out of its way to take action in such cases in an effort to settle the issue. If the hon. member continues to have problems in those places which he had in mind, I would be pleased if he would raise the matter with me. If the hon. member does not experience any problems in future, he will be satisfied, but if there is any matter of this nature which causes difficulty, he is very welcome to report it to the department.

The hon. member for Yeoville spoke about the “skills gap”. He also referred to formidable unemployment. He referred to various figures and I want to refer to one of these. The hon. member referred to the official unemployment figure and scoffed at it. He must not do that. Allow me to tell the hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Houghton that when we are discussing labour in this country, we should please not seize upon the extravagant figures which are conjured up by all and sundry at universities or at other places in order to produce certain evidence here. Since I became Minister we have conducted a debate in this House on two previous occasions on the question of precisely how one measures unemployment in the country. We told one another that if we measure unemployment on the basis of people who register themselves as unemployed, we shall have an unrealistic figure. I can tell hon. members what that figure is. The figure in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Indians in the whole of South Africa is in the region of 28 000, or 1,4%. In fact, this figure has gone down during the past few months. If one goes to the large number of offices belonging to the Department of Plural Relations where the registration work pertaining to unemployed Blacks is done, and one asks them what the figure is, they will tell you that the figure is now 140 000 in South Africa. I have already stated in this House that both figures are obviously wrong, but what does one do in a country such as this, if people do not come forward and display the discipline which is displayed in other countries, of registering? If they were to do that, we would have had the correct figure. Therefore we have to do something else. After the debates in this House we went to a lot of trouble to carry out a random sample survey through the Department of Statistics. That survey was not done any old how; it was done scientifically. It cost a lot of money, and was done over a long period. This random sample survey tried to answer certain questions. Let me break off here and first say something else. When one is discussing unemployment, one must have a definition of unemployment. There are many definitions of unemployment. An organization of the department concerned defines unemployed persons as follows: People who are unemployed, who are not working, who have since last year or within a specific period looked for work and were unable to find it and are available to accept work immediately if it is offered to them. That is the definition which they used. In other words, an unemployed person is a person who tried to find work, could not find it and who will work if work is offered to him. I think it is correct to define him in that way.

And who is also

One can of course find many other definitions as well. With this definition we are, however, trying to lay down a reasonable and fair definition to indicate what we mean when we speak of an “unemployed person” in South Africa. A random sample was then taken, and after a great deal of trouble a figure was produced. It was found that in this country there are 634 000 unemployed among all the Black people. In spite of the fact that all this trouble has been taken, figures such as 1¼ million, 1½ million and 2 million are still being conjured up. Everyone is speculating, including the universities. One need not be clever to think for yourself. Where in South Africa does one see 2 million unemployed people walking around? In a country such as South Africa, we must be very careful not to talk lightly of unemployment. The fact of the matter is that there are still preferences in South Africa, so many preferences that there is as yet no movement from one point to another. The people simply do not want to go. There are still too many who say where they want to go and work, and who do not want to go to places where they do not want to work. Or one says to them that they will have to work at night, and they say they are not going to work at night. It must be during the day. What I said previously, therefore, still applies. It is dangerous and we ought not to have it. No country wants it. Here in our country, however, it is still not so bad that we have to exaggerate in what we say about unemployment. It is alarming but it is not that bad!

There is something else I want to tell the hon. member. If the mines of South Africa were to send back the many thousands of people who come from beyond our borders, those mines will come to a standstill because we would not be able to find enough people in this country to go down those mines. Bophuthatswana has 28 000 Black workers in the platinum mines, only 4 000 of these 28 000 are Botswanas, and not even the leader of Bophuthatswana is able to force his own people to go down a mine shaft. Now they come here and say there is unemployment. We must therefore be very careful about this kind of thing. Since the department is continuously trying to find work opportunities and find posts for people, we must be very careful that we do not harm South Africa in the way in which we discuss these matters. I reiterate that South Africa does have unemployment. It is a pity that this should be the case, but compare it for a moment with something else. It is not I who say this. It is not we who are making these conjectures. The international organization dealing with these matters, the International Labour Organization, maintains that in our neighbouring State, Zambia, there will, during the next 25 years, be two out of three people who will be unemployed. The same organization states that 57% of the total labour-active population of the entire continent of Africa is unemployed and will never be employed. In this way, therefore, one can look at other countries as well. But I do not want to elaborate on this now. If the big and powerful USA criticizes us, and 49% of its young Black students leaving schools and universities do not find employment, it does not present a favourable picture. We know that the position in South Africa is better. Even if things are not going well for any country that has unemployment, South Africa, according to all norms, is an example on this continent and to the rest of the world. As far as unemployment is concerned, we should therefore be very careful because what we say can eventually be detrimental to our country. I do not think that anyone in this House ought to do so in a way which will be detrimental to his fatherland.

The hon. member for Welkom spoke about the training of artisans. He pointed out the entire spectrum of spheres in which there are shortages and to which attention ought to be devoted. I want to tell the hon. member that I think that he and I should just have a little patience. This matter is being investigated in depth by the commission, and therefore we need not take it any further now. If we have the report before us next year, we can discuss this matter again.

The hon. member referred to another matter, too, and on this matter I do want to say something. He referred to the automobile repair industry. He and I—all of us—make use of this industry. It is not nice to hear what people have to say these days when they get their cars back from a garage. All of us have had the experience already where one is almost afraid to receive it because it will probably be in a worse condition than it was in when it went to the garage. What is the reason for that? In the past, the Apprenticeship Board kept the doors shut so that certain people could not enter that industry. During the Second World War there were a half million cars on the road, as against 3,4 million today. One of these days there will be 4 million on the road. Not all these cars belong to Whites. They also belong to Coloureds, and one of these days the Blacks alone will have a million motor-cars—twice as many as the total for South Africa in 1948. Everyone uses a motor-car. The small number of garages which exist, now have to repair everything. Nevertheless the Apprenticeship Board refuses to allow certain people into the trade. I should like to state in this House today that I have set a dialogue on this question in motion and that, as a continuation of that dialogue, I want to tell them that we should not be unfair in this country and close the doors to Coloureds who want to be taken up into the automobile repair industry as apprentices. It is wrong to do so. That is why I am pleased that I was not only able to have personal talks with them, but that the Secretary of the department has followed up on these talks. I think that in future we shall see greater realism and that the doors will also be opened to people of colour who ought to join us in doing certain work. We cannot do all the work ourselves. I want to tell the hon. member, therefore, that I expect that we shall see an improvement in this regard in future, as well as a greater entry of apprentices into this industry.

The hon. member for Stilfontein, that old stalwart, spoke about the mineworkers. In respect of what he said, I can only say: “Selah, colleague”.

I think that I have now disposed of all the matters that were raised. Finally I just want to refer to the last speaker, the hon. member for Houghton. I want to tell her that she would do far better if she would stop upbraiding this side of the House for the so-called unemployed, and would raise the flag for a change and help to build up the image of South Africa. We need speeches which testify to how well things are going in South Africa, and not negative speeches. We have known the hon. member for years, but she is still not too old to say good things about South Africa for a change.

That is the nicest thing you have said about me in years.

Mr. Chairman, we have listened to several speeches today and one is grateful for one thing, and that is that the labour set-up, the labour problem and other labour issues in South Africa are not being used as a political football today. If we were to play that game, not only would we bum our fingers, but we would also totally mar the image of South Africa.

I should like to pose this question today: What is the main objective and function of the Department of Labour, a Department which has to perform a gigantic task in these delicate and difficult times? It is to maintain industrial peace and to provide for the general well-being, security, employment and training of workers in South Africa. Industrial peace is of vital importance in South Africa today and must be maintained at all costs. South Africa expects everybody to contribute to its strategic defensibility. It will indeed require positive thinking, bold decisions and fearless initiative to survive, to be successful and to make a profit in the world of tomorrow. One of the biggest challenges will probably be not to abdicate in the face of the great uncertainty and the apparently dark future but to identify in those very challenges the opportunity for profitable entrepreneurship and survival and to use them as such. South Africa is a country which is enjoying remarkable peace and quiet on the industrial front at present. If we look at the statistics of the past, we see that we are indeed on the right road and we are grateful to our labour corps for acting in an absolutely positive manner and for putting South Africa first. If one consults a comparative statement of labour strikes, one sees that there were 274 strikes in 1975. The number of shifts lost in the process was, in the case of Whites, 150, while in the case of non-Whites, including Coloureds and Asians, it was 18 559. The wages lost in this manner, are estimated at R1 280 in the case of Whites, while it amounted to R47 147 in the case of non-Whites. The number of employees involved was, in the case of Whites, 193, and in the case of non-Whites, 23 130.

Looking at the year 1976, one finds that the number of strikes totalled 245. The number of shifts lost in the case of Whites, was 37 671, while the figure for Coloureds was 90, for Asians 86 and for Bantu 22 014. It is estimated that the wages lost in this manner, amounted to, in the case of Whites, R37 671, R291 in the case of Coloureds, R517 in the case of Asians and R47 231 in the case of Bantu. The number of employees involved was, 1 167 Whites, 309 Coloureds, 246 Asians and 26 291 Bantu. I furnish these figures for the purpose of providing a background.

When one looks at 1977, one finds that there were only 90 stoppages of work. The number of shifts lost by Whites, was 402, by Coloureds 47, by Asians 35 and by Bantu 14 987. The estimated wages lost, amounted to R3 542 for Whites, R270 for Coloureds, R126 for Asians and R43 791 for Bantu. The number of employees involved, was 244 Whites, 59 Coloureds, 51 Asians and 14 950 Bantu. An analysis of these figures indicates that they are comparable to those of any other country. South Africa may be proud of these figures.

But we must look at the challenges of tomorrow. Our biggest challenge in the field of labour is to promote and to maintain the industrial peace we know. It can be done, but it will have to be a joint effort, regardless of whether the economic activities are those of entrepreneurs, managers of labourers. It will also call for a more purposeful effort from all economically active people and totally new approach to labour and the acceptance of co-responsibility. The solution of South Africa’s economic problem and the maintenance of industrial peace, require the highest degree of determination, initiative and productive application on the part of all groups of the community in both the private and public sectors. As I have said, the primary objective of the Department of Labour is to maintain industrial peace and to carry it to even greater heights.

The department cannot, however, fulfil its functions successfully without the goodwill and co-operation of organized trade and industry, of employers’ organizations and of trade unions. Each one has a contribution to make. We can look at the future labour pattern and the maintenance of peace and quiet on the industrial front. Although South Africa has an adequate number of labourers at its disposal, it is experiencing a shortage of skilled workers. There is definitely a shortage of skilled workers in the labour set-up of South Africa. I am referring particularly to the Black labourer today. The Black workers comprise the biggest part of the economically active population, but in the aggregate they are the least qualified. There is a particular need for bringing about a more effective utilization of all our human resources. Unfortunately the allocation of more advanced work to and the more effective utilization of Black workers cannot take place without the application of sound principles. We are told that we should narrow the so-called wage gap, but if this does not go hand in hand with productivity, it would be of no use whatsoever to us. Simply to promote a worker to a higher position, will not necessarily be to his own advantage, in the interests of the organization and in the interests of the country, because he should have had the necessary training corresponding to that position. The Department has set up effective training machinery in order to ensure efficient performance. In this regard we need only look at an official report dealing with information on manual training, technical training, advanced technical training and industrial training, to find that the Government—and not only the Department of Labour, but also the Department of Education and Training—has definitely created the framework for every man in South Africa, whether he is Black, Brown, Yellow or of whatever colour, to be properly trained. This is not only the task of the Government; it is also the task of every entrepreneur, every industrialist and every one in general to see to it that his workers are properly trained. There are, for example the ad hoc border industry schemes which have been established by the department. At the moment 19 such ad hoc industrial schemes have been approved, and applications are still being received, but this, in my humble opinion, is not adequate. Hon. members of the Opposition are always complaining about the Bantu, and for that reason I want to inform them that during 1977 altogether 3 526 Bantu employees received in-service training at these schemes. Since the introduction of the system 16 905 employees have been trained in this manner. Crash courses are also offered at the ad hoc industrial schools. Another important aspect of which one should take cognizance is the income tax concessions allowed in respect of private in-service industrial training schemes. Each time the hon. the Minister of Finance presents his budget, he ensures that tax concessions are made for the people interested in these schemes.

As far as public industrial in-service training centres are concerned, eight of them have been planned and built for Whites at a total cost of R2 million. The Government finances the construction and equipment of these centres. The Government realizes one thing: Labour is too expensive for its problems to be solved in a haphazard way.

That is correct.

The ideal situation is to have suitable labour available whenever it is required. A systematic analysis of the problem and the assessment of training and development requirements have become matters of urgency. The Government is leading the way in this regard and expects everybody involved in the economy of the country to accompany it on this road. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I share the sentiments of the hon. member for Overvaal which he expressed here with regard to labour peace, productivity and training. The hon. member gave a good account of himself by being able to participate so productively in this debate at this late hour. One is, however, at a disadvantage when participating in this debate after the hon. the Minister has already replied to it and before an hon. member from the Opposition ranks has had an opportunity to speak. But there is an advantage to this as well, viz. that one has been able to listen in peace to the hon. the Minister. The drawback is the fact that one finds it difficult to keep the debate on the same level on which the hon. the Minister conducted it. One thing was very apparent to me and that is that the hon. Minister’s tone of voice was a very true reflection of the manner in which he administers this department. He creates the impression of tranquility, but also of efficiency.

I believe it is not denied by hon. members in this House that the labour field of South Africa is the focal point of three very important elements. These elements are, firstly, international focus; secondly, relations between the various population groups; and thirdly, the very important interest of economists and industrialists. This interest is equally valid whether these labour relations result from, on the one hand, a simple service contract or, on the other hand, the collective labour law. The fact is that the interest in the labour field of South Africa will keep increasing. For example, there is evidence in support of my standpoint that in 1965 the Director General of the ILO—International Labour Organization—for the first time issued a report on labour conditions in South Africa. In the eleventh report issued by him, specific areas were indicated which should be concentrated on in order to watch South Africa’s progress in these areas and to take action against South Africa if we do not perform according to their wishes. What strikes me, however, is not the fact that I do not agree with the general spirit of these reports, but the remarkable thoroughness with which these reports are prepared. I think I can state without fear of contradiction that these reports are no emotional outbursts, but propose a calculated line of action against South Africa.

In the same way one can put forward the much-talked-of codes, which have often been mentioned today. The hon. the Minister maintained a reasonably low profile and tone in his reply to the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands. Mr. Chairman, I shall follow the good example of the hon. the Minister, but then you will allow me the luxury of telling the hon. member for Pinelands that I blame him for presenting these labour codds in a very calm and pious manner to the House as if their implications were not drastic. I blame him for not pointing out adequately, in this House and in this debate too, that we in South Africa have made tremendous progress in meeting the requirements of these codes. These codes are actually very easy ones. Early in March last year, for example, newspapers gave publicity to the first codes and a few days later the hon. the Minister of Information could already react to it in a debate in the House. He then pointed out that these codes were welcomed.

Yes, but the laws have not been changed.

The hon. member must give me an opportunity to make my speech. [Interjections.] I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that there is not a single element of the Sullivan code, which could not be met by the House. There is no statutory provision in South Africa which prevents an employer from creating better living conditions and working conditions. There is a large measure of duplication between all these codes and the reports published by the Director-General of the ILO. There are six elements in particular which keep cropping up. Each of these elements has been individually discussed on different occasions in the House. They have also been discussed in this debate.

I wish to confine myself to a few general remarks in respect of these codes. I think one should take the stand that since the international focus is on South Africa, one has to take a sober look at them and judge them accordingly and one must not merely condemn and reject them because of the fact that, on the one hand, the same kind of guidelines are perhaps not being laid down in other countries where these companies are also operating and, on the other hand, the necessary understanding is not being shown for the domestic situation in South Africa. Because one surely takes an interest in the investors and the continuation of their business activities in South Africa, I think one’s attitude should rather be to encourage these investors to create working and living conditions for their workers which will enable us to create a healthy and stable labour corps in this country.

It is very clear to me that we have to contend with a sustained campaign against South Africa and that it will not easily peter out. Bearing in mind that each South African in one way or another finds himself in a labour relation, I believe one should take note of the fact that the labour field is most certainly just as sensitive as any other target area of this total onslaught against South Africa. For that reason industrialists, labour leaders and also the man in the street should see to it that their actions and statements are always correct. We are dealing here with international approaches from which we should not shy away.

The hon. the Minister has called for cooperation with the Wiehahn Commission and now I should like to say to him that just as we have been able to temper the Westminster model of State with a South African content, surely we could be equally successful in tempering Western labour patterns with a South African content. With that I want to wish the Wiehahn Commission “bon voyage”. I trust that they will sail in calm waters and fish in clear waters.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.