Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the publication of the evidence taken by the Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Irregularities in the Former Department of Information and laid upon the Table today; and
2. (2) that until the report of the Select Committee has been adopted by the House, no person other than a member of the Committee or a person authorized by the Committee shall have access to such evidence.

Mr. Speaker, we in the official Opposition will support this motion. The question of the publication of the evidence taken by the Erasmus Commission has been at issue for some time. Ever since the commission was appointed we have been asking for the publication of the evidence, both to allow proper evaluation of the findings to be made and also because there has been some controversy affecting important individuals in connection with the validity of the findings against the background of the evidence that was given.

In the normal course of events the decision to publish the evidence, and the nature of that decision, would be the responsibility of the executive, to which the report is submitted. Nevertheless, we are quite willing to comply with the request that Parliament itself, through a Select Committee, should evaluate the evidence and decide which is to be published. However, there is one aspect to which I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister, so that there is no misunderstanding later on. The motion which we are discussing merely asks that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report on the publication of the evidence taken by the commission of inquiry into alleged irregularities in the former Department of Information and laid upon the Table today. The announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister, on Monday, made it quite explicit in these terms (Hansard, 4 June 1979)—

*The hon. the Prime Minister then added the following words—

Although these words do not appear in the motion which is before us, and therefore do not appear either in the formal terms of reference of the Select Committee, we shall nevertheless participate in the activities of the Select Committee, on condition that the Select Committee will indeed act in accordance with the terms of reference and the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister.

In these circumstances we shall support the motion.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I trust that you will allow me to make a few introductory remarks before I proceed to deal with the Bill.

The present Industrial Conciliation Act still contains, in broad outline, the principles laid down in the Conciliation Act of 1924, with important adjustments, of course, which have been made at various stages. One can proudly state, therefore, that this Act, as well as our other labour legislation up to now, has functioned very well indeed and has made a major contribution to the industrial peace we have enjoyed over the years. As hon. members know, the Conciliation Act regulates the registration of trade unions, employers’ organizations and industrial councils. It also regulates the activities of the existing industrial court and the settling of industrial disputes. It also contains provisions relating to freedom of association and the protection workers are afforded by job reservation.

The most important part of the Act, i.e. the registration of trade unions, is not applicable to Blacks. Consequently a dual system is in operation. A separate mechanism has been created for Blacks as far as the negotiation of conditions of service is concerned, namely the Black Labour Relations Regulation Act. Therefore we have the co-existence, in one economic framework, of an industrial council system for Whites and coloured persons, the success of which has been proved over the years by the responsible conduct of the 174 trade unions and 243 employers’ organizations, as well as the 2 552 liaison and 305 works committees on the entrepreneurial level for Blacks.

Of course, there is also a third system of wage regulation, the wage board system, in terms of which a statutory body makes recommendations concerning conditions of service with regard to all population groups.

Over the years, adjustments have been made to our labour legislation, but events and developments in all fields, and in the field of labour in particular, have been rapid over the past two decades. South Africa could not and has not escaped this. Shortly after I became Minister of Labour, I realized that matters in the labour field were developing in a direction which justified action. Evidence which reached me along various channels indicated that events, internal as well as external, in the political and economic spheres, had been of such a drastic and dramatic nature that the Government could not wait until evolutionary changes were forced upon it I sensed that the time for reactive conduct was past and that we would henceforth have to take preventive action, or we would lose the initiative with regard to timely and essential changes and adjustments to our system and to the legislation.

I had the feeling that I should prepare a comprehensive account and make an in-depth analysis of the developments as soon as possible for myself and for the country, so that the Government would be able to keep its finger on the pulse of the country’s labour dispensation.

To confirm my suppositions, I recommended in June 1977 that a commission of inquiry be appointed with the widest possible terms of reference, not only to examine all the laws administered by the Department of Labour, but also to analyse the whole labour set-up in its widest context to ascertain what the factual situation was and to make recommendations concerning the adjustments that should be made.

The total statutory and institutional dispensation which is envisaged by the commission, the essential features of which have been accepted by the Government, will of necessity require a considerable time for its full implementation. Patient construction is required, and the provision of the necessary statutory provisions is only one aspect of it.

Consequently, the Government has seen fit to make only a few amendments to the existing Industrial Conciliation Act for the time being, so as not to delay essential adjustments. The Bill which is now before the House gives effect to this approach.

I have tabled an explanatory memorandum and I should now like to explain in greater detail the most important proposed amendments.

Clause 1 contains several new definitions, and the most important of these is the new definition of “employee”. As hon. members know, Black workers are presently excluded from the definition of “employee”. Legally speaking, therefore, they cannot be organized into registered trade unions and cannot have representation on industrial councils. The negotiating procedures of industrial councils are barred to them and they can only make use of the “committee system” under the Black Labour Relations Regulation Act and can only negotiate in general terms with regard to a specific enterprise. In practice, however, several sections of the existing Industrial Conciliation Act have been applied to Blacks since 1924. In this way, most industrial council agreements laying down wages and other conditions of service are extended to the Blacks to prevent unfair competition.

The Government has decided that only certain workers will be admitted to trade unions. Consequently the definition of “employee” is being amended to provide for this. Only persons who have the right to reside permanently in South Africa and who have permanent jobs are regarded as employees for the purposes of the Act. Migrant labourers and border commuters are excluded. I have already given a definition of such workers in the explanatory memorandum. I should like to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that I do have the power to declare any person to be an employee for the purposes of the Act, and I have already received representations from organizations which foresee problems in certain areas. Therefore I am well aware of the fact that there are quite a number of problems in this connection, problems which will have to be sorted out. It is also clear to me that certain commuters will have to be accommodated. I therefore intend to have the matter investigated at once and to produce further adjustments in this connection in due course. As hon. members know, I have publicly expressed the opinion that I shall have to make concessions to accommodate commuters in certain areas and industries in terms of the powers conferred upon me by the legislation under discussion.

I do want to point out, though, that the large numbers of commuters and migrant workers from homelands and independent Black States are not completely without protection. They can still make use of the committee system in terms of the Black Labour Relations Regulation Act, as they have in the past. Furthermore, I want to point out that industrial council agreements laying down wages and other conditions of service, such as hours of work, leave, sick-leave, etc., have in the past been extended to cover all workers, including commuters and migrant workers, and this will also be the case in the future. After all, we shall not lay down separate wages for such workers. If we did that, we would have chaos on the shop floors.

Another matter which I want to make quite clear is that farm labourers and domestic servants have been excluded from the Conciliation Act and other industrial laws since 1924. Only in 1965 did we include farm labourers under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In previous reports, the commissions concerned argued that it would be extremely difficult to make industrial legislation applicable to farm labourers and domestic servants because circumstances differ from farm to farm and from province to province. However, I do not want to say any more about this matter, because the Wiehahn Commission still has to report on it.

I should now like to deal with clause 2. It concerns the proposed National Manpower Commission. The commission refers to the development, in the economic and social spheres in particular, which is making increasing demands on the State. This development is taking place at such a rapid pace these days that labour policy and possible legislation will have to be reviewed at shorter intervals. The role of the State with regard to future planning, rationalization and development of manpower to fit into the economic pattern is becoming increasingly important. The internationalization of labour, especially in the context of the Southern African dispensation, will increasingly involve me as Minister and my department in the international labour world. The recruitment, development and utilization of manpower from outside our borders is assuming ever greater significance and must certainly be connected with internal unemployment and the creation of job opportunities on a priority basis. As hon. members know, more and more people are advocating better utilization of local labour in certain sectors of the economic system.

Ad hoc commissions, such as the Naudé Commission, which were appointed in the past, will in my opinion no longer fit into the future planning and will not be the proper method of identifying tendencies. A standing body which will have to review the whole labour set-up on an on-going basis, and which will watch developments and tendencies so that adjustments may be made in time, is essential.

The Government is thoroughly aware of the structural changes in the country’s economy, technological developments and political events in and around our country’s borders. In the light of this, vigilance, purposeful preparedness and greater flexibility will be required in policy formulation, in planning and in conduct. The labour set-up and developments will have to be continually monitored and tested. We simply cannot allow our policy and legislation to lag behind practical developments any longer. We have only to look at the growth in the economically active population and its composition to identify the rapidly changing pattern.

In 1960, the economically active population consisted of 1,1 million Whites, 551 000 Coloureds, 125 000 Asians and 4,3 million Blacks. In 1978, the figures were: 1,8 million Whites, 836 000 Coloureds, 244 000 Asians and 6,3 million Blacks. This means an increase of 3,1 million over this short period. In the case of the Whites, therefore, there was a growth of 700 000; in the case of the Coloureds it was 285 000; in the case of the Asians, 119 000; and in the case of the Blacks, 2 million.

According to the latest manpower survey of the Department of Labour, in 1977, at a time of economic depression, there were already considerable labour shortages in certain sectors. Even then there was a shortage of more than 12 000 Whites in the professional occupations, more than 4 000 in the clerical occupations, more than 8 000 in transport and communications and more than 9 000 artisans. It is expected that these shortages will grow if we have an economic revival, and therefore it is of the utmost importance that we should have a standing body which is able to review our labour requirements on a regular basis. Therefore the Government accepts the commission’s recommendation for the establishment of a National Manpower Commission which will have to give the Government well-researched and well-motivated advice on an on-going basis so that quick and effective action may be taken to meet our labour requirements if there is an economic revival. In the light of its composition, which includes representatives of employers and employees, the National Manpower Commission will naturally play an important role in the implementation of the recommendations of the commission which are accepted by the Government. I believe that there will have to be the closest possible liaison between the National Manpower Commission and the present commission so that the fullest cooperation between organized employers’ and employees’ organizations may be ensured. The objective is to give a say to a diversity of persons and bodies. Because it will not be possible initially to give all interested groups representation on the National Manpower Commission, I intend to designate additional members for specific tasks and problems which may arise.

Finally, I want to point out that the National Manpower Commission will maintain the closest co-operation with all Government departments. The research function of the National Manpower Commission will be on a different level from that of the Human Sciences Research Council and of universities. Its research will be more practical and orientated towards the process of policy formulation. Therefore the commission will actually be supplementary to the activities of other bodies which concentrate more specifically on particular research projects. I am convinced that the proposed commission will be a body on whose shoulders a great national responsibility will rest. I trust that all parties will make contributions when consultations are held about specific problems and hitches, not only by way of isolated memoranda, but continuously.

Clause 3 of the Bill deals mainly with the registration of trade unions. As I have already said, Black workers are presently excluded from the Act. For this reason, Black trade unions cannot legally register and therefore cannot have representation on industrial councils. Therefore they do not form part of the bargaining process on that level.

There has been intense overseas interest lately in our trade unionism, especially with regard to Black workers. This process is taking place by means of foreign pressure groups as well as certain labour codes drawn up by overseas countries for subsidiary companies in South Africa. The existing 27 Black trade unions and their approximately 50 000 members, which are not statutorily prohibited, already exist in some key industries and receive considerable financial and moral support from overseas.

These Black trade unions exist alongside the three statutory systems, i.e. the industrial council system, the committee system and the wage board system, so they can enter into agreements outside these systems with individual employers on an entrepreneurial level, thereby subverting the existing systems. This system enjoys strong foreign support. The international trade union movement already has training centres in some of our neighbouring States for training Blacks as trade union leaders. Many South African Black trade union members are being trained abroad and many overseas trade union leaders have been visiting the Republic in recent years to observe and promote trade union activities in this country and to provide organizational assistance. Over the past 18 months, more than 60 people have visited the Republic from the United States, Holland, Sweden, Italy and Britain. South African Blacks have visited countries such as the United States, Britain and Holland to make a study of trade unionism and to obtain contacts so that the local trade unions may affiliate with the overseas unions. These Blacks from South Africa have been financed mainly by foreign bodies, and we have no control over it.

The existing Black trade unions are not at the moment subject to any legal requirements and therefore find themselves in a more favourable position than the registered trade unions, one reason being that there is no control over their money and it can therefore be used as they see fit, and is of course often channelled in directions which have nothing to do with conditions of service, which is the primary concern of trade unionism. The extension of statutory trade union rights to Black workers can therefore have far-reaching implications for this country, and in accepting the commission’s recommendations on this point, the Government does not intend to open up the system altogether from the start. For this reason, the Government has not fully accepted either the majority or the minority standpoint of the commission, but has decided that in the future, only workers of all races who have permanent jobs and who are permanently resident in this country will qualify for trade union membership. I want to emphasize that this restriction will apply to all population groups. The reason why the distinction cannot be made on any other basis is that other criteria, such as nationality, level of occupation, industrial orientation, etc., are creating many problems elsewhere in the world. The basis of permanent residence and permanent employment is relatively speaking the fairest one for the South African dispensation at the present time and against the background of the political and constitutional developments to come. However, I want to emphasize that the proposed amendment empowers the Minister to bring within the ambit of the legislation, by means of a notice in the Gazette, certain groups of workers that are not initially entitled to automatic trade union membership. This will be done with due regard for all the relevant interests of all the parties and also with regard to security and the maintenance of industrial peace in this country.

It must be accepted that workers who come from a country with an alien ideology will naturally be treated differently or be admitted on other and stricter conditions than those from a friendly country. I will certainly not allow our trade union movement to be abused or used for purposes which may endanger the country. In the light of our geographic situation and constitutional dispensation, there may be independent States, or such States may come into being, which will not allow their citizens to be members of South African trade unions in any case.

In clause 4, provision is made for the principle of provisional registration of employers’ organizations and trade unions. The principle of provisional registration is not unusual. Even a country such as England subscribes to such a system. Provisional registration will enable the industrial registrar to prescribe conditions and a period of time before an employers’ organization or a trade union can obtain final registration. As against this, provisional registration will confer a higher status and recognition upon the employers’ organization or trade union concerned, which will facilitate the recruitment of members, and will also promote attempts to obtain the co-operation of employers in such a campaign. The Government accepts the commission’s recommendation that provisional registration should be a prerequisite before a trade union or employers’ organization can begin a recruitment campaign. The Government is counting on the co-operation of all parties in this connection. To ensure order and to avoid administrative problems, the registration of persons who do not qualify for trade union membership is prohibited.

In clause 6, provision is made for the extension of the prohibition on participation by employers’ organizations and trade unions in political activities and the support of political parties and candidates. The Government is only too aware of the dangers which possible participation by labour organizations in politics may hold for the country. There are many examples elsewhere in the world of situations where pressure groups have developed and impeded economic stability. The Republic is too vulnerable today to allow an intermingling of labour relations and politics. Therefore the prohibition in this connection is being extended by including all bodies established as legislative bodies in the future.

Clause 8 provides for the establishment of an industrial court, consisting of a president, who will be a senior jurist. The Government believes that a person with the qualifications and experience required by the clause will greatly enhance the status of the court. The Government expects great things of the new industrial court as a body which will see that justice is done in labour disputes and which will serve as an important protective mechanism for individual workers in cases where their security is threatened in an illegitimate way. From its administration of justice, a so-called fair and equitable labour code should develop as soon as possible to serve as a guideline for the country. Therefore the Government foresees that the court procedure should be fairly informal and simple; that litigation costs should be kept down; that the court should be as accessible as possible to everyone; and that the rulings of the court should be on the basis of fairness, taking into consideration the socio-economic and socio-political implications of the matters that are submitted to it. The provisions which authorize the president of the court to appoint assessors, after consultation with the employer and employee parties involved in a specific dispute, will ensure that all aspects of disputes will be assessed in a competent and equitable way. It is not necessary to motivate this any further. It is obvious from the fact that the use of assessors is a well-known and established practice in our courts. The judicial function is of a civil nature and covers a wide spectrum of the normal functions of our civil courts. At this stage, the court is not given any criminal jurisdiction, since the proposed informal procedure of the court is not suited to criminal cases and our criminal law sets exacting requirements with regard to criminal liability.

Clauses 10 and 11 are intended to incorporate certain protective measures in respect of rights of minority groups on an industrial council. However, it may happen that a particular party may outnumber some other party on the industrial council. The Government cannot be indifferent to such a possibility, because the maintenance of industrial peace remains a top priority to the Government. Over the years, industrial councils have acted responsibly, and I cannot imagine that they will fail to do so in the future. Nor can I imagine that the industrial councils would act wilfully and refuse to allow responsible parties. The amendment is not aimed at certain races, but at all races. Clause 10 provides, therefore, that before any new parties are admitted to an industrial council in the future, all the parties will have to give their written consent. Where disputes arise about the changing of labour practices, the industrial councils will also have to be unanimous in their decisions before such changes are effected. This amendment is contained in clause 11.

The principle of a veto in decision-making bodies of a heterogeneous composition is not unknown. Until such time as the new dispensation has been established, it will be necessary to incorporate protective measures at various levels in the new system in order to ensure that the interests of minority groups on the industrial level are properly entrenched. I trust that future development will be so orderly and evolutionary that it will seldom be necessary to use the veto.

Clauses 13 and 14 are actually connected with the repeal of section 77 of the existing Act, i.e. the present job reservation provisions. Section 43 of the present Act provides, inter alia, that a worker may appeal to the Minister to intervene where an employer changes his conditions of employment or suspends or terminates his employment. If the Minister decides to intervene, he may order the employer not to change the worker’s conditions of service or terminate his services or suspend him. This provision is now being extended so that the Minister will also be able to act where, for example, employers change traditional labour practices and replace or dismiss workers without the matter having been considered by the industrial councils or agreement having been reached between the parties concerning a labour practice. Where industrial councils exist, such disputes will first have to be considered by the industrial council, and if the council cannot settle the dispute, it will have to be referred to the industrial court, and this court will then have to give a final ruling. If the court supports the worker, it will have to make a final determination, which will then prohibit the employer from changing the conditions of service.

I should like to appeal to our employers today not to exploit the new dispensation. I trust that changes in established labour practices, if these are essential, will be brought about in an orderly manner and with the co-operation of all the parties, and that it will not be necessary for me to give effect to the statutory protective measures which are now being incorporated in the legislation.

As I have already said, the Government does not wish at this stage to implement all the amendments arising from the Wiehahn report, but it first wants to evaluate the development of the new dispensation after the initial amendments, and also to consider what further statutory amendments may be called for.

South Africa is indeed on the eve of a new dispensation in its labour history, a dispensation which, if it is regulated with wisdom and insight by the authorities, if it is anticipated in a spirit of co-operation by all parties in the field of industrial relations, holds great promise for the future. As I mentioned briefly, these changes are absolutely essential in the times in which we live. A country which is not prepared to provide for effective mobility in accordance with the requirements of the times is running the danger, in its rigidity, of losing the things to which it clings so desperately. Our survival requires initiative and movement, our growth and development require faith and confidence. Therefore we must tackle with both hands the challenges which the future holds.

For these reasons, I trust that this amending legislation will be supported by the whole House.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all listened with the greatest interest to the hon. the Minister’s introduction of this very important piece of legislation. He made a number of very bland assumptions and statements, and delivered a lot of platitudes I might add, about the need for the country to adapt itself to changing circumstances. I am not going to say how often hon. members in these benches have begged the Government to be more flexible in its attitude towards labour problems or how often we have argued the point about the need for increased productivity of the entire population of South Africa, about opportunities for training and the use of the skills of all our people in order that we should ensure a proper growth rate for South Africa. The hon. the Minister now tells us that the Government is taking the necessary steps, that it is going to be flexible and is going to make certain adjustments. And, of course, he mentioned the appointment of the Wiehahn Commission of Inquiry into Labour Laws in South Africa. However, what he did not tell us, is that the Bill which the hon. the Minister is presenting to the House this afternoon is very different indeed from the major recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission. I therefore immediately wish to move the following amendment—

1. (1) limiting the eligibility of Black workers to join registered trade unions to those workers permanently resident and employed in the Republic; and
2. (2) restricting the freedom of association of workers and trade union autonomy by prohibiting the formation of racially mixed registered trade unions.”.

Those of us who were in the House in 1956— if I look around I see the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Parktown, but I do not see many on that side of the House—will, I am sure, have the same sensation that I have this afternoon, the sensation of déja vu; I have been there before, I have heard all this before. In essence, what we are really examining this afternoon is the basic issue in South Africa, the whole question of labour utilization. I remember the arguments that were used by the then Minister of Labour. He said, for instance—

At the time he came to the conclusion that the first consideration was the continued existence of the White race. Thence the exclusion of Blacks from the definition of “employee” in the Industrial Conciliation Act On this ground the structure on mixed unions was justified and we saw the extension of the statutory colour bar by the introduction of the infamous section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act.

What is the situation this afternoon? We are again debating an Industrial Conciliation Amendment Bill, and we find that, despite the hon. the Minister’s bland talk about the need for flexibility, about the need to meet the growing requirements of our economy, etc., only some of the restraints which were placed on Black labour are now being withdrawn. I want to say at once what a disappointment this Bill has been. After all the expectations that were aroused by the report and the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission …

You are never satisfied.

… we are presented with a Bill which waters down the major recommendations until very little of it is left. I believe we are back again to the basic sentiments uttered by the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Schoeman, when he introduced the first Industrial Conciliation Bill, which prohibited the registration of racially mixed unions, obliged any then existing mixed unions to establish separate branches for Whites and the other members and introduced the new statutory provision, i.e. the provision which the hon. the Minister is today repealing, although the existing job reservations are to remain.

It seems to me that what has really prevailed are the narrow views of the minority of the Wiehahn Commission. I am now referring to the view of Mr. Nieuwoudt, who wants only the status quo and who is unmoved by all the evidence about an acute skilled manpower shortage in the Republic and the effects thereof on our growth rate. To him and to the people whom he represents, the Black worker must still be kept in his place, at the bottom of the economic ladder, because they consider that anything else represents a threat to the White worker in South Africa. Ironically enough, while Prof. Wiehahn is dashing around Europe talking to what are known as influential labour opinionformers and while he is telling them about the great new deal for Black workers in South Africa, the Government introduces a measure today which largely, although not entirely, negates that new deal. Prof. Wiehahn is expounding on his report in Europe, but that is indeed very different from the Bill that we are considering today.

The first sad retreat is to be found in the very first clause of the Bill where it defines eligibility for membership of a trade union. Although the Wiehahn Commission advanced the most cogent reasons on pages 22 to 29 of its report against the exclusion of migrant workers or frontier commuters—“pendelaars”, being the brand new description for border industry workers. That is all it means. Now one finds that clause 1 effectively bars all migrant workers and commuters from membership. That includes 1,1 million from the self-governing Black States and 1 million from the so-called independent Black States—2,1 million in all. I believe this is in direct contradiction of the adamant findings of the majority of the commissioners whose views are stated very clearly in paragraph 3.5.6 on page 24. There they recommend that no restriction or qualification should be placed on the eligibility for trade-union membership of any worker. Arguments are also advanced against the phasing-in of membership for migrant or frontier commuters, something which the hon. the Minister holds as a possible hope for the future. Phasing-in was a recommendation of only five of the commissioners and was therefore a minority view. Even so, their final recommendation was that there should ultimately be statutory provision for any worker, without any distinction whatsoever, to be or to become a member of a registered trade union. But even this compromise has been rejected by the Bill, except via ministerial exemption provided for by clause l(c)(b). Real, undiluted, as-of-right eligibility is confined to workers legally residing in the Republic. Since rural areas are excluded and since only one class of Blacks are legally entitled to be in the urban areas for longer than 72 hours, this means in effect that only Blacks with section 10(l)(a)(b) or (c) rights are going to be admitted. In terms of the Commission’s findings that is an estimated 1,4 million of all economically active Blacks.

I have figures that were provided by 10 different Black trade unions of which five are in Johannesburg and five in Durban. I believe that this measure will virtually be the death-knell for eight of those 10 trade unions. There is the Sweet Fruit and Allied Workers’ Union, which consists of 2 500 members. The majority will be ineligible. The Building Construction and Allied Workers’ Union has 1 420 members, the majority of whom are excluded. The Transport and Allied Workers’ Union has 1 000 members, and again the majority are excluded. Those unions are all in Transvaal. There are others in Durban, but the hon. member for Musgrave is going to deal with that in more detail. However, I can say that of five unions that I know of, four— therefore the vast majority—will be excluded from eligibility. Among the remaining two is the Metal and Allied Workers’ Union with approximately 7 000 workers. Between 2% and 10% of these will be excluded. One other union is of course the Garment Workers’ Union, probably the biggest Black union. It is a dubious point whether they will take advantage of registration, because they would not wish to deregister any of their members.

Is any compulsion going to be brought upon these unions to disqualify their ineligible workers and become registered unions in respect of the remaining members? I have to remind the hon. the Minister that the trade unions have a fear of coercion. 159 Trade union leaders have been banned since 1952 and 16 trade union organizers or educational officers belonging to unregistered unions have been banned since 1973.

Tell us about Solly Sachs as well.

I may say that the White workers in South Africa have very good reason to be grateful to Solly Sachs and the labour organization he brought into their lives and the improved wages that he managed to negotiate on their behalf. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether they were banned on account of their membership of trade unions or because of being leaders of trade unions?

It is my personal opinion that they were banned because of the work they were doing among the trade unions. [Interjections.] Hon. members can roar as much as they like. If they were not banned for that reason, why has the hon. the Minister of Justice never told anybody why they were banned? Why has he never given us one single reason why one single person has been banned? [Interjections.] Why did he never prosecute them for any so-called crimes that they were supposed to have committed in terms of the laws against subversion in South Africa? I believe they were banned because of their trade-union activities. [Interjections.]

I believe that these unions with large numbers of ineligible members are being given an absolutely impossible choice. What about the assets which, after all, belong to all the members? How are they to divest themselves of their ineligible members and thereafter become registered trade unions? That has to be done by means of resolution of the trade unions. Does the hon. the Minister honestly think that a union which has a majority of ineligible members are going to vote themselves out of existence? Sir, the whole thing is palpably absurd, and the hon. the Minister must admit this.

I must point out too that in practice all trade-union organizations are in the large urban areas mainly. Even so, there are large areas that are already in any case utterly devoid of Black trade unions. Large numbers of the 1,4 million economically active workers in the urban areas are in service occupations and it is notoriously difficult to organize them into trade unions. 80% of the workers in the manufacturing industry are migrants or commuters. The clothing industry is an atypical example. It mainly consists of the so-called “insiders”—people who are lucky enough to qualify.

I believe this is giving the employer an unfair advantage. It will enable him to play off group against group inside the same industry. It will irritate employers to find that they have to deal with unorganized workers. I believe the choice is impossible. In order to join, the unions have to divest themselves of a very big percentage of their members. I believe that the whole purpose of trade unionism is to enable a trade union and an employers’ organization to have a series of peace treaties and this is undermined by the absurd exclusion of hundreds of thousands of workers. I think this is going to lead to industrial trouble and illegal strikes. There has been no explanation from the hon. the Minister as to why he has jettisoned one of the Wiehahn Commission’s major recommendations. It cannot have anything to do with the stability of labour, because a commuter who has literally come across a town border from, say Kwa Mashu into Durban or from Umlazi into Durban or from Bophuthatswana into Brits or Rosslyn, is a stable worker.

And I just want to quote to hon. members what a very well-known person said about the position of migrant workers.

Who is he?

I will tell the hon. member in a moment. He should just keep quiet and listen very carefully. These are very interesting words, words that were uttered in June 1954. The person to whom I am referring said the word “permanency” conveyed absolutely nothing in terms of stability of labour. I proceed to quote his exact words (Hansard, 1954, col. 6145)—

That is in the urban area—

Now, I wonder who said that. It was none other than Dr. Verwoerd. These words were uttered by none other than Dr. Verwoerd, and since the hon. member for Von Brandis is looking at me with his suspicious little eyes, I will tell him again where he can look it up. He will find it in column 6145 of Hansard of 2 June 1954. [Interjections.]

Let me now go on to our second major objection to this Bill. It concerns the gross interference with freedom of association and with the autonomy of trade unions to decide for themselves whether to have separate or racially-mixed unions. Clause 3 of the Bill forbids racially-mixed trade unions unless the Minister decides that the number of employees of a particular racial group is too small to enable it to function as a separate union. Then permission or exemption is required. This provision, I believe, goes absolutely counter to the Wiehahn Commission’s recommendations, in paragraph 3.72, on page 30 of the report and, I might say, to the International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 87 of 1948 concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, as also quoted by the Wiehahn Commission, on page 21, paragraph 3.43.

The provisional registration of mixed unions, permitted in terms of clause 4 is, I believe, useless. It is registration on sufferance. It is better than nothing, I concede. Therefore I had better not say it is useless. It is better than nothing. Nevertheless, it is still registration on sufferance, and it may be withdrawn at any time by the registrar. I believe this to be undisguised authoritarianism. There is no freedom of association as envisaged by the ILO Convention or as recommended by the Wiehahn Commission.

The registrar is a Government official, who will obviously stick to Government policy. He has wide powers of discretion and there is no right of appeal against any of his decisions, although I think there may be one such amendment now being placed on the Order Paper.

You have missed the other amendment.

No, I have not missed the other amendment. I saw it. However, I do not know yet whether the hon. the Minister is going to accept it. I have to argue on the Bill as it appears before the House at Second Reading. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark sits in the NP caucus. Therefore he has prior information.

[Inaudible.]

I am not as privileged as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. The hon. the Minister did not tell us in his speech that he was going to accept those amendments. I wonder why he did not tell us. He certainly should have told us. Again, there is an amendment of which I have given notice, and I should like to know whether it is going to be accepted by the hon. the Minister. We too have proposed an amendment to this particular clause. It will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. It is against the particularly obnoxious provision of clause 4B, which lays down that a registered trade union shall not have any relationships with a person who is not an employee. What a nonsense clause that is! This means in effect no relationships with any members of unregistered trade unions. This is really Machiavellian. It wrecks the very real and meaningful relationships that have existed for years between registered and unregistered unions, for example in Tucsa. This means no joint meetings, because they cannot even serve on the same bodies like international labour federations. I wonder how Prof. Wiehahn will explain that one away. This amendment had better be accepted, because on his next visit overseas to these famous labour-opinion formers, he is going to have terrible trouble explaining away what I call the Manpower Department’s “Immorality Act”.

Oh, no, you cannot say that.

Well, it is so silly, absurd, ridiculous! Apart from all that, the hon. the Minister surely must know that many employers prefer to carry out collective bargaining with a racially mixed union because it is obviously much simpler to do so, and many trade unions prefer to be racially mixed so as to prevent internecine strife. Big Daddy, however, evidently knows best. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister knows this or not, and I shall never know because he is busy conducting a private conversation with one of the Whips. I wonder whether the hon. member for Newcastle would be courteous enough to allow the hon. the Minister to listen to what I am saying? Does he think I could possible have the hon. the Minister’s attention? I thank him very much.

Now I come to the question of industrial courts. I shall not say very much about that at this juncture because we shall be arguing this out in further detail in the Committee Stage. In principle the idea of an industrial court is a progressive idea. It has as its base, I hope—or at least it should have—the dismantling of job reservation in an orderly fashion. I certainly hope that is the basis. As far as this is concerned, I think that the hon. the Minister probably had in mind clause 35 of the Iron and Steel, Engineering and Metallurgical Industrial Council Agreement in determining what is or is not an unfair practice. I am very worried, however, about the fact that, firstly, there is no right of appeal in the Bill, though both the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission and the White Paper state the need for such a right of appeal. Clause 8 grants permissive power to the industrial court to refer a question of law to the Appellate Division, but this is very different from a proper right of appeal, or even a right of referral, because the industrial court is answerable to no one. We shall be having a sort of kangaroo court, not even a judicial body, because the hon. the Minister does not lay down—and we are going to move an amendment on that aspect—that the president of the court should be a judge of the Supreme Court.

The term “unfair labour practice” is defined as—

So “unfair labour practice” is defined as an unfair labour practice. We all know that a rose is a rose is a rose, but I cannot understand this. Surely the hon. the Minister could have come up with some definition of an “unfair labour practice”. It is, however, simply not defined at all. It is whatever the industrial court decides is an unfair practice. What we shall therefore be doing is giving this court both judiciary and legislative functions, which is quite contrary to the normal principle of separating those two functions, and since the court falls under the Department of Labour, the executive role also adds to the confusion.

Overseas what constitutes unfair dismissal, for instance, is well set out in law. In the United Kingdom there is the Contract and Employments Act which sets out four reasons, and we hope to discuss those reasons in the Committee Stage to see if we can get part of this accepted by the hon. the Minister.

I shall leave that matter now, however, and go on to something else because my time is running out I should now like to make a few final comments. There was an interesting sort of contretemps, in the Wiehahn Commission report, regarding the closed-shop principle. The majority recommendation was that the closed-shop principle should be retained.

What clause are you referring to now?

I am not referring to any clause. The Bill is silent on this. Ah, the hon. member was trying to catch me out! He should know, however, that I have read the report very carefully. I do my homework, and he ought to know that by now. [Interjections.] The reason why I raise this is because this Bill is meant to implement the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission report, and the White Paper—and this is the interesting thing—actually accepted the recommendations of the minority on the Wiehahn Commission regarding closed-shop. Even so, that is not, in fact, introduced in the proposed legislation before us this afternoon. I cannot think why we have a White Paper which ignores its own decisions. The minority recommended that the existing closed shop agreements should remain, but that no more should be allowed. What worries me about this is that, nevertheless, the provision that requires an unanimous decision to admit a new union to an industrial council—and, for the hon. member’s benefit, that is in clause 10 …

I know it.

I wonder if he does. That provision could in effect extend the closed shop principle, but newly registered Black unions can obviously be excluded if there is not an unanimous recommendation to accept them. This means that Blacks who were previously able to evade a closed shop provision simply because they were excluded from the definition of “employee”, can now lose their jobs because they fall under the umbrella of this particular closed shop situation. That is an extraordinary situation. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will tell us whether it is his intention to refuse to promulgate industrial council agreements in the future if they contain closed shop agreements, so that at least in practice he will be upholding the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission’s minority report as accepted in the Government’s White Paper.

The next point is that, naturally, the Bill does not deal with apprenticeship, as that is covered by a separate statute. I do hope, however, that the hon. the Minister is going to implement paragraph 5.32.1, though not just in order to provide artisans for the Black States. We need artisans for the “White” Republic of South Africa. We are desperately short of skilled manpower in this country and the effective exclusion of Blacks from apprenticeship under White trade unions has been one of the main reasons why today we are suffering from a shortage of skilled manpower—and I believe that that seriously affects the growth rate of this country.

We of course welcome the abolition of section 77 of the principal Act. My colleagues here will remember the strong arguments that were advanced against the introduction of the job reservation provision in 1956. I must say that I could really weep when I think of all the lost years encompassing a whole generation of Blacks who could have been trained to do skilled jobs but for the introduction of job reservation. At last, it seems, the Government has grasped some of the elementary principles of economics and I hope that very soon they will discover the law of supply and demand! That would be very useful for the growth rate of South Africa.

Finally, I want to say that it is very disappointing indeed to find that there is no reference in the Bill to discrimination on the grounds of sex. While both the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act are colour-blind and are devoid of any provisions of discrimination on the grounds of sex, in fact, as members well know, many of the industrial council agreements and wage board determinations, award wages to women at a lower level than the wages awarded to men doing the same job. Equal pay for equal work certainly does not strike a chord as far as these agreements and wage determinations are concerned. I believe that over 240 job categories exist in this country for which the minimum wages for men and women differ, the wages for women being 75% to 85% of that for men. Strangely enough, this discrimination has in many cases—and I am aware of this—been the very key, to put it that way, to women taking over certain occupations from men. I think the garment industry is probably a good case in point. Nevertheless, the principle is morally indefensible. I think the hon. the Minister must realize that. It may well be that, in order to prevent women being replaced by men if the wages are put on the same level, legislation will have to be introduced similar to the anti-sex discrimination legislation that exists in the United Kingdom and to American legislation which has not yet come into force. Possibly that is something the hon. the Minister could consider. I have to place on record, however, that it is morally indefensible to allow this.

There is no sex discrimination in the Bill.

If the hon. member would listen, I said it is regrettable that there is no mention in the Bill of provisions to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sex.

But it is not applied.

Sir, although the Bill does introduce some positive steps in the direction of a more rational approach to labour policy, steps such as the abolition of section 77, albeit with the retention of the work reservation existing at present, and although it gives some Black workers the right to belong to registered trade unions, on the whole, as I have said, we consider this to be a most disappointing measure. This is especially so after the high expectations created by the publication of the Wiehahn Commission’s report and the White Paper on it. We all hoped that at last the workers of South Africa were going to be provided with a real charter of industrial freedom. The Bill, of course, falls very far short of that. Whatever efforts the Wiehahn Commission made —and I am sure they were very sincere efforts—to fulfil its mandate to “provide more effectively for the needs of our changing times” and to “create the foundations for sound labour relations in the future”, I believe that their efforts have been undermined by the measure we are debating today.

For these reasons we are obliged to oppose the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I shall try to confine myself to the Bill before us at present, since the hon. member for Houghton digressed somewhat and at times strayed a long way from discussion of the Bill.

I want to avail myself of the opportunity of giving the hon. the Minister the assurance that we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of the Bill unambiguously. Under the guidance of the hon. the Minister, and with the closest co-operation of the management of the Labour study group of the NP as well as the members of the group, it was my privilege to make representations to the hon. the Minister two years ago during the discussion of the Labour Vote in which I asked him to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate all aspects of our labour legislation and to submit a report on their findings.

It is now history that the Wiehahn Commission was then appointed, on which served representatives of employers’ and employees’ organizations as well as others with an intimate knowledge of the field of our labour legislation. Consequently I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express our most sincere thanks and appreciation to the commission. They performed an enormous task in a very brief space of time. Their work was very important and their terms of reference wide. The implications of their report are very wide and could affect the welfare and the prosperity not only of our employers, but of our country as well in the future.

When one examines the findings and recommendations of the commission, it is very clear that they carried out an in-depth study of the labour legislation of our country. The commission’s findings are founded on sound arguments and take into account labour practices in use over the years. They also took into account the fact that certain work was done in a traditional way. They took cognizance of historical facts and also took into account our population composition. They made their recommendations with a view to making provision for the better utilization and better training of our labour.

In the first place the commission succeeded in creating a mechanism for us containing certain built-in safety-valves which will ensure that individuals or groups of employers will not be supplanted, but will in fact enjoy protection. The mechanism has been created to enable employees and employers to bargain collectively, but on an autonomous basis, in future. Consequently the mechanism has been created whereby there will be a greater degree of self-determination between employer and employee with regard to the labour patterns which will be designed for the future.

The commission pointed out something else to us too. The mechanisms created are aimed at ensuring as a top priority that there will be labour peace in this country. The party to which the hon. member who has just resumed his seat belongs, obviously classes labour peace as a second or even a third priority. Apparently it is not important to them whether labour peace prevails in this country.

Another thing the commission pointed out to us, is that the mechanisms have been created with a view to preventing disputes rather than solving them later. I think they have also created the necessary mechanisms which could give rise to economic revival in South Africa.

But I think the findings have also confirmed what we anticipated to a certain extent, viz. that the Industrial Conciliation Act, which has yielded good results over the past 23 years, is no longer in step with the times. It has also been confirmed that our labour pattern in South Africa has changed spontaneously. In addition I think it has confirmed that the relationship between supply and demand in South Africa has changed. Furthermore I think that this commission has also confirmed that it is necessary for us to examine the Industrial Conciliation Act more often with a view to adjusting it from time to time, as circumstances may demand.

It is extremely regrettable that when the report of the Wiehahn Commission and the White Paper were tabled, people such as Mr. Arrie Paulus and a few others whom I regard as irresponsible trade union leaders, read into this that the Government is now betraying the White worker in South Africa. This is a dangerous game these gentlemen are playing, viz. thinking that they can play off White against Black in this country. I think they are arousing feelings …

You have been doing it for 30 years.

The party of the hon. member for Bryanston could not even retain its deposit in Randfontein; I therefore think he would do better to keep quiet.

I said that I thought that Mr. Arrie Paulus is acting irresponsibly, but I think the hon. gentleman is in this way trying to regain the prestige he lost as leader of the Mineworkers’ Union at the time of the unsuccessful strike. I think he may achieve temporary success through his actions, but I want to give him the assurance that he is underestimating the intelligence of the White workers in South Africa and that he will have to pay the price in due course, because there are already rumblings within his own ranks and within that trade union.

However, it is not only Mr. Arrie Paulus who is so irresponsible. No, Sir, the hon. member for Houghton is just as irresponsible. What has she in fact done? She actually made the speech of the chairman of her party’s labour group, the hon. member for Pinelands, who is not in the House at present. His speech appeared in the Cape Times and The Argus of 23 May and this is the speech the hon. member repeated here. The hon. member’s conduct is just as irresponsible as that of Mr. Arrie Paulus, because what are they doing? They are trying to play off Black against White in this country. If statements of this nature are made by the chairman of her party’s labour group, viz. that the report tabled will give rise to poorer race relations between Black and White in South Africa, that it will not create better relationships, but that it will give rise to conflict, they are playing in just as dangerous a game. They must be careful what they do in this country, when they are engaged in this type of game. These people are making dangerous statements, because the very purpose of this legislation is to eliminate racial discrimination based on race and colour. When these people make such statements—probably I dare not say this—then it borders on treason and the greatest irresponsibility I have ever seen.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying it is treason, but it borders very closely on treason. I shall withdraw it and say that they are very irresponsible. If such statements reflect the thoughts of people, I say that such people no longer have any love for their fatherland.

This Bill is, as I have said, aimed at specifically eliminating discrimination in South Africa. The Industrial Conciliation Act created contented industrial relations in South Africa. We had labour peace. I now also want to tell hon. members that we would be foolish if we do not realize that times have changed. I have already referred to the fact that a restructuring of work is taking place in South Africa, that categories of work previously occupied by Whites and Coloureds, are at present being filled by Blacks and that the demand and supply of labour have changed completely.

Over the past few decades we have experienced the greatest industrial development ever in South Africa. After all, we in the Republic of South Africa have not remained stagnant and dormant. On the contrary, I believe that we are heading for an industrial revolution in the future and for that reason I believe that it is necessary to effect certain amendments to the Industrial Conciliation Act.

I hope and trust that the recommendation of the Wiehahn report to the effect that the name of the Department of Labour should be changed to the Department of Manpower and Development will be complied with, because I think that the functions and the duties with which the Department of Labour is charged, have changed completely and that the future function, particularly as far as planning and deliberating and the training and channelling of our manpower are concerned, justifies the amendment of the name of the Department of Labour to the Department of Manpower and Development.

I want to refer to what is probably the most important amendment to be effected to the Industrial Conciliation Act in terms of this Bill, viz. the new definition of the word “employee” in clause 1. This is the key to our labour legislation, because in the past the definition of an employee was applicable only to a White and a Coloured.

Are you ashamed about that?

Over the past 15 years, bitter debates have been conducted on this matter in this House. When that hon. member was still playing with marbles, we were already arguing about these things. It was necessary for us to do so.

Have you lost your place?

I shall come back to that. I shall not digress from the subject as the hon. member did.

I want to come back to the definition of “employee”. The definition of “employee” now includes all employees, irrespective of race, colour or nationality, but goes on to stipulate that an employee must have permanent residence or a permanent occupation in White South Africa. It is true that foreign workers are excluded under the definition. In other words, foreign workers are persons who live in Bantu Trust areas or in independent or self-governing Black States. It is not strange that foreign workers cannot enjoy membership of registered trade unions in South Africa. Throughout Europe and Africa there are many foreign workers who do not enjoy trade union membership.

However, we have done away with that discriminating measure on the basis of race and colour. In this regard there is no longer discrimination. But then these people say that this Bill will in fact give rise to conflict. The hon. member is very concerned that commuters, border workers and contract workers will not fall under the provisions of the definition. I think we should be careful. I think we should in the first place meet the labour requirements of our country and regulate our internal matters. Consequently I think it is necessary for the definition to relate to the people living in our country. If a person is not a member of a trade union, one does not enjoy conditions of service inferior to those of members. On the contrary, when a wage-for-a-job is being bargained for around a table or is ratified by a wage board agreement, that agreement will not stipulate that an employee will receive lower wages or will enjoy inferior conditions of service if he is a commuter or migrant labourer. Over the years a mere 30% of our Whites and Coloureds in South Africa have been members of registered trade unions. Do those hon. members now want to allege that the 70% of our White and Coloured population who were not members of trade unions, had conditions of service inferior to the people who had that membership? Surely this is the greatest nonsense. However, the hon. members go further. They are now saying that farm labourers and domestic servants should be included. We are now dealing with the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Bill. Farm labourers and domestic servants do not fall within the framework or the scope of the Industrial Conciliation Act. It is much better that they should be covered by the wage laws of our country.

The hon. members of the PFP are always looking to the great country of America. They are also fond of making telephone calls to it. I think the hon. member for Houghton could well telephone Mr. McHenry and ask him why it is that agricultural workers in the USA cannot become members of trade unions. They enjoy no protection under their National Labour Relations Act. However, if this happens in South Africa, it is a terrible sin. I too, am concerned about the definition which excludes commuters, but I do not want to allow all commuters to be included in the definition at once. I think they should comply with certain qualifications, because it could be difficult for the employer in practice if commuters were excluded. However, the Minister has the right of discretion, and I believe he will use it judiciously.

I want to refer to another reason. Why can foreign workers not be allowed to our industrial boards and trade unions without further ado? We have a very sound labour pattern in South Africa. By bringing in a number of foreign workers at this stage, where proper relationships are already in existence between employer and employee, those good relationships can be distributed, and this might not be in the interests of South Africa.

I want to state categorically here today that the PFP is not interested in the welfare of the labourer in South Africa. How do they interpret the Wiehahn report? They are using the Wiehahn report as a means of polarizing the Blacks in South Africa. [Interjections.] They interpret the Wiehahn report to mean that the trade unions should be dominated by Blacks. That is the purpose for which they want to use the Wiehahn report. [Interjections.]

If we examine the definition of “employee”, which is now being amended, what does this amendment amount to? Black employees can serve on industrial councils in future. Black trade unions can now be registered. Black employees can now serve on conciliation boards. The deletion of section 10 means that Black trade unions can now establish their own federations of trade unions. I therefore ask: Where is the discrimination supposedly prevailing in South Africa? If those hon. members have a task to perform for their fatherland—they who are always loudly maintaining that the Industrial Conciliation Act is one of the reasons why South Africa’s economy has been boycotted, that the Industrial Conciliation Act with all its provisions, is the chain that ostensibly binds us, and is supposedly the cause of our not being productive—then they have the greatest opportunity today to broadcast and make known to the world that the Industrial Conciliation Act of South Africa contains no section based on race or colour. This is their duty, if they take their duty to their fatherland seriously.

Now I should like to deal with another very important amendment, viz. the repeal of section 77, the job reservation section. Over the past 15 years we have had bitter debates on this section in this House. Today there are many people who are pleased, like the hon. member for Houghton—I do not begrudge her that little bit of joy and satisfaction in her life; she gets it so seldom— [Interjections.] but there are many who are deeply concerned about the repeal of section 77. There are many people who are concerned that there may perhaps be ousted from their categories of work, categories of work that have been filled by Whites and others over the years. Surely we know the history of this country. After all, we also have to deal with unscrupulous employers, who only want to make use of the cheapest labour. This is not foreign to us. We know those things. I think it was absolutely essential to have such a section in our Act. In the late ’forties we had to deal with, the militants in South Africa, among others. There were, for example, people like Solly Sacks, Johanna Cornelissen, and others. Solly Sacks was a listed communist, and contributed a great deal to bringing about.

Black domination of the trade unions on the Witwatersrand and in the urban areas, and in this way ousting the Whites. They wanted to create a power base for themselves. In the years after the Second World War, when there was a large-scale influx of Blacks to the Witwatersrand and the urban areas to drive out the Whites, it was an absolute necessity to have a provision such as section 77 on the Statute Book. It was the guarantee and the provision that protected the Whites from being supplanted. This was not only in the interests of the Whites, but in the interests of everyone. [Interjections.]

Over the years it was necessary to make 27 determinations, including certain job reservation determinations. However, as industrial development took place in South Africa, and as change occurred, it also became clear that the provisions of those sections were no longer necessary. The industrial court then repealed 20 of those determinations and suspended two, and at the moment there are still five such determinations in South Africa applicable to industrial job reservation. The hon. the Minister has undertaken to repeal these determinations too once they are no longer necessary. In my opinion it is necessary still to have protection in this regard. We still have unscrupulous employers today. Consequently I believe that there should still be a certain form of protection for cases when irregular action is taken against any employee, irrespective of his race, group or colour. For that reason I welcome the fact that a provision with regard to improper labour practices is being embodied in the legislation, and I also welcome the fact that that definition covers a wide field. I welcome the provision in clause 13 of the Bill, to the effect that a labour dispute can now be declared as the result of an unfair labour practice. If a situation entailing an unfair labour practice were now to arise …

Give us an example.

Keep quiet and rather learn something. [Interjections.] If an unfair labour practice of this nature were to arise, the matter would have to be referred to an industrial council or a conciliation board, as the case may be. The dispute must then be settled unanimously. If unanimity cannot be achieved, the dispute must be referred to the industrial court. I think this measure lends itself to a greater joint say and self-determination between employer and employee, so that when a dispute arises, they can solve it themselves.

I welcome the new industrial court, because I believe it now has more teeth and greater jurisdiction. Other hon. members on this side of the House will refer to this further. I am a champion of trade unions and I believe that we should have trade unions, because a trade union is one of the most important partners in creating sound labour relations and industrial relations in a country. However, having said that, I want to state clearly and unequivocally that a trade union should confine itself to the scope and the field in which it operates. We must not in this way create an opportunity within a trade union so that other people and militants can succeed in using it to create power bases and in this way pose a threat to a country.

A trade union should strive to act in the interests of its employers or employees, so that good relationships can be created. Accordingly I welcome certain provisions that have been introduced in the legislation. In the first place I welcome the fact that a penal provision has been introduced, which will be applicable if employers should deduct membership fees from “non-members”. In terms of the new provision they can now be fined up to a maximum of R500. In my opinion it is also important that annual reports and financial statements of such trade unions be submitted to the Registrar in future. I believe it is important that an inspectorate be established which can investigate the activities of those trade unions to see whether the body is being managed on a sound basis and whether they are really engaged in trade union affairs. I think it is also important that the provisions relating to financial and political support to political candidates or parties, be extended and that trade unions be prohibited from affording such support to political parties. In my opinion, what we are doing here constitutes a step in the right direction. Clause 10, to which the hon. member referred, provides that no additional employers or registered employers’ organizations or registered trade unions will be admitted as parties to an industrial council. After all, existing industrial councils are recognized by the legislation, and new parties cannot simply join at this stage. Would those hon. members allow any party simply to join their executive without further ado? No, they would not. All we are saying, is that when a new party applies to be admitted to an industrial council, all the parties to the industrial council—viz. employers and employees —must state unanimously that they will admit the new party. However, we hope that the amendment on the Order Paper will be accepted so that there will also be a right of appeal for that party if they are turned down.

I now want to conclude. I think this Bill is a step in the right direction in the interests of South Africa. I think it is in this that we are preparing for the future, we are planning more meaningfully with regard to the labour force in this country. It is a step in the right direction because we can train the people properly and will channel our manpower.

Since we have now created these mechanisms, employer-employee relationships can improve in future so that they can sit around a table and negotiate meaningfully. If we can succeed in this, we shall not only have progress in this country, but we shall have the greatest degree of labour peace and industrial peace as well. I think that with these necessary measures we are heading for a fine future. Let those slowcoaches sit in the comer. In South Africa we have always been able to manage without their assistance. We do not need their assistance. They have never been in earnest in their intentions towards South Africa, but only stick-in-the-muds that we have always had to drag along with us.

I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark will probably pardon me if I do not react immediately to the aspects which he raised. I shall do so in the course of my speech.

†The publication of this Industrial Conciliation Amendment Bill was awaited with great anticipation by not only all the hon. members in this House, but also by the vast majority of employees and employer organizations throughout South Africa. In addition the advent of this amending Bill was no doubt keenly anticipated and awaited by many organizations outside the borders of South Africa as well.

If one reads the accolades and the comments that were published by various organizations, political parties and institutions around the world, it is clear that the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission were indeed welcomed. As the publication of the Department of Labour, Empact, said it would in fact introduce a new era in industrial relations. That was the mood with which the population of South Africa awaited the amending legislation with bated breath.

Before turning to the specific provisions of this amending Bill, I should like to comment on a few aspects which this party held as of paramount importance in viewing, weighing and considering these amendments. In South Africa we have an extremely complexed social and industrial community and therefore the norms that may have been applicable to high technological well-developed industrial countries overseas, may not necessarily be directly applicable and transferable to the South African situation. Therefore I think it is absolutely essential that whoever interprets the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Bill and the interpretation and application of the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission should bear in mind that we are dealing with a vastly different population in South Africa. In addition to that, the track record of trade unionism overseas no doubt has a significant bearing on what one can expect from the introduction of what I should like to term the classical Western pattern of trade unionism in South Africa. I do not think there will be many hon. members of the PFP who would disagree with me when I say that trade unionism, and the pattern in which it was introduced and still operates in large measure overseas, has in its way also brought about considerable concern and damage to not only the social fabric of the industrial society it serves, but also the economy of many of the countries it serves. I think the best example of successful unionization is probably to be found in the German model.

The hon. member for Houghton has told us with what they disagree in this Bill. However, I have not yet heard of any alternative which they have to offer. But be that as it may, I believe it is of paramount importance—and this is one of the most important aspects which we took into consideration in viewing this Bill—that the maintenance of industrial peace in South Africa should be our first priority while evolutionary change is being brought about. The hon. file Minister in his Second Reading speech touched on a number of very important points with which we certainly concur. The first is that it is to be welcomed that the dualistic nature of our legislation controlling industrial relations is now virtually going out of the window. The first steps are to be taken in the introduction of a unitary industrial relations Bill. I say the first steps are taken, because it is well known that the Wiehahn Commission itself will still be providing us with a further six or even seven reports, which may all lead to new labour legislation.

However, I think it is to be welcomed—we in the NRP certainly welcome it—that we are now beginning to dismantle the antiquated, unrealistic and dualistic legislative system which has operated in this country for so many years. At the same time I believe it will be recognized that we have had rapid technological changes in South Africa. The whole nature of the demand and supply of labour has changed according to those areas in which we have had the most rapid technological developments. It is well known and well motivated by many employer organizations in South Africa that by the year 2000 we are going to be short not of tens of thousands, but of hundreds of thousands of skilled workers in South Africa if we are going to remain entirely reliant upon the White population sector to provide skilled labour.

It is, therefore, evident that the Wiehahn Commission’s recommendations—and therefore legislation which is likely to flow from it—have become of paramount importance to South Africa if we are to combat unemployment and if we are to maintain a steady growth, not only in the standard of living of every South African, but also if we are to survive as an industrial and economically viable country in the Western technological world. If we approach it in this light it becomes very evident that these changes are of paramount importance and that they should be brought about with all proper haste rather than with undue haste.

I believe the people who are most likely to benefit from these changes in labour legislation are to be those people who, in the past, were most unfortunate and who suffered most as a result of what I can only call our past antiquated legislative programme.

If we look at the Bill itself we find that there are a number of issues with which we do not agree. However, there are also a number of issues which we can support wholeheartedly. In the first instance it would be unwise of us not to repeat our congratulations to the hon. the Minister and his department on the actual appointment of the Wiehahn Commission. We have said this previously, but I believe it to be such a monumental piece of work that it bears repeating. We should like to congratulate the Wiehahn Commission again on this magnificent achievement.

Turning to this specific amending legislation, I should also like to tell the hon. the Minister that we appreciate the explanatory memorandum supplied to us, and also the White Paper which was produced. I believe that with legislation as complex in its nature and as far-reaching as this legislation it is of course absolutely essential that one should have this kind of information available. Therefore, we should like to thank the hon. the Minister and the Secretary of his department for providing this information. Then I should also like to comment briefly—before going on to the details of the Bill—on the production of the magazine Empact, a magazine which is mostly distributed overseas, and in particular this special edition which deals with the Wiehahn Commission’s recommendations as well as with the amending legislation. It is evident that when one reads through this magazine very carefully, one could detect the trend and the direction of this amending legislation. This particular publication, like the Wiehahn Commission in its report, raises the expectation that great changes are going to be brought about in South Africa. I certainly hope that this magazine succeeds in conveying, to the outside world, the success of the Wiehahn programme, provided of course that the hon. the Minister is bold enough to come along with meaningful changes in the relevant legislation. Let me say that we in these benches welcome the provisions of the Bill relating to the creation and the establishment of the National Manpower Commission. It is evident that the hon. the Minister is going to rely extremely heavily on the advice he receives from the National Manpower Commission, and it is also evident, from the various provisions of the Bill, that the hon. the Minister is going to make haste slowly. As important as it is to maintain industrial peace while we have evolutionary change—words of the hon. the Minister himself—I nevertheless believe that there is a certain measure of restraint in the hon. the Minister’s confidence in the free-enterprise system to regulate itself and to cross this bridge of change successfully. In the Bill I detect a hesitancy on the part of the hon. the Minister to let private free enterprise actually give birth to this new revolution successfully. The hon. the Minister will obviously, at a later stage, be telling us why he has adopted what I believe to be an ultra-cautious approach to bringing about these changes. No doubt the people serving on the Manpower Commission will be serving the hon. the Minister well, and we certainly welcome the provisions in the Bill for the creation of this commission. We only hope that the recommendations of this commission will truly be in the spirit of the full recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission.

The provisions in the Bill for the establishment of the new industrial court are also to be welcomed. This is a new concept in South Africa and, I believe, in many of the technologically highly developed Western countries. The concept of creating special organs for dealing with specialized technological problems is certainly to be welcomed because one’s normal judicial system is geared to serve a multiplicity of judicial interests. Something as sensitive, in the South African context, as industrial relations does, I believe, require a fundamentally different approach in terms of the operation of a court, and therefore we also welcome the provisions in the Bill for the establishment of the new industrial court.

Thirdly, the repeal of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act is also to be welcomed. Whilst we welcome the removal of job reservation, we also note, with a certain degree of interest, how the Minister has gone about retaining the provisions of this section while actually removing the section itself from the Statute Book. Let me also say, however, that we welcome the concept that it will be for the negotiating parties, i.e. the employer and employee organizations, to negotiate away the remaining five statutes. In large measures we can therefore say that we have been successful in removing job reservation from the Statute Book.

If we look at the prospects for industrial peace and for the successful transition from the pre-Wiehahn era to the post-Wiehahn era, however, it is evident that the removal of the provisions of section 77 is likely to cause the hon. the Minister and his department more difficulty than any of the other provisions of the legislation. We in these benches have maintained for some time that there will be certain vested interest groups that will attempt to use this particular section for political purposes, and we therefore appeal to those relevant parties, including the PFP, not to bedevil industrial peace in South Africa by trying to make political gains out of the hardships that will flow from the entrenchment of the particular provisions. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Rondebosch says “Go suck eggs”. I think that is probably the level of his activities. As far as job reservation is concerned, I think it is really interesting, in the South African context, that despite all the provisions of section 77, which have been in force for some years past, we have maintained the industrial peace that we have. I believe that it is largely due to the initiative and ability of the private free-enterprise system to overcome friction in the work-place. That, I think, is what have contributed to this, despite the provisions of section 77. We certainly welcome the particular part of this Bill that makes it possible for employer and employee organizations to negotiate this between themselves. No doubt the hon. the Minister will have to keep a wary eye on those particular conservative employee organizations which are in the future still going to try to make political capital out of this.

I want to turn to a further clause which gives us very considerable concern and to which we will be moving amendments during the Committee Stage. I refer to the clause containing the definition of “employee”. I should like to dwell for some time on this particular aspect, because this is the one shock provision which, as we discovered when we first looked at the Bill, is not in accord with the publication of the hon. the Minister’s department and certainly not with the expectations of all South Africans or with the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission.

Do you regard it as a principle of the Bill?

When one strips this definition of all the fancy-work, all the frills and the bits and pieces, it boils down to the fact that only those Blacks in South Africa who have section 10 rights and are in permanent employment are going to be eligible to join trade unions. There are two reasons why we will be moving an amendment to this. The first is that it is going to affect seriously the existing rights of Black workers in South Africa. There are hundreds of thousands of Black workers who in terms of the new definition will lose their right to membership of trade unions. Not only will they lose that right unless the hon. the Minister comes with a sort of blanket exemption, but they are also likely to lose their right to their provident and pension funds, which are operating very successfully at the moment, albeit through unregistered Black trade unions. I think the hon. the Minister will have to give serious consideration to the fact that there are Blacks who are already members of unrecognized and unregistered Black trade unions and who are going to suffer considerable inconvenience and hardship in terms of their benefit and provident schemes unless they are allowed to continue with that membership.

Another very important aspect regarding this definition is that it will probably lead to the exclusion of the majority of the Black industrial workers in South Africa if the Government is bent on pursuing its other ideological principles that, ultimately, there will be no Black South African citizens. It is easy to see what will happen if one applies this particular definition of the Bill. There will be fewer and fewer Black workers belonging to trade unions. We cannot go along with that definition of “employee”. We believe that freedom of association should be freedom of association as recommended by the Wiehahn Commission. We believe it is for the trade union members themselves to decide who should belong to their trade union, although there is one reservation to that. We recognize the difficulty one has in the case of migrant or contract workers from countries outside South Africa—and I use “outside South Africa” in the broadest sense. In other words, in the case of people who take up employment here and who come from Malawi, Botswana or perhaps even as far away as Angola—I do not know how many Angolans are still working here—we can recognize the need not to include in the definition a right being granted those people to join trade unions. However, we in this party cannot see the justification for excluding any Black employee who is or was a South African citizen.

Perhaps you will then vote against the Bill at Second Reading.

I believe that freedom of association and the right of the trade union to decide on its own membership should be paramount here. We will, of course, in the Committee Stage by moving amendments to this particular provision.

Although my time is very limited, there is a further provision I want to deal with this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he considers that the clause he has just been discussing contains one of the principles of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a very important principle. I believe it is of paramount importance in deciding one’s attitude towards this Bill and what one is going to do as far as the Second Reading is concerned. I do not know what the hon. member had in mind by asking that particular question, but we in these benches believe it is of paramount importance in one’s attitude towards the whole Bill. I hope my answer has satisfied him.

I am very pleased with that answer.

I can unfortunately this afternoon only deal with the things with which we are to a very large extent unhappy. I would like to say that it is extremely important to us that we do maintain industrial peace in South Africa. If the definition of employee as contained in the Bill at the moment is adopted by the Government, I believe they are creating a situation of greater industrial unrest than we have at the moment. I believe it is going to require an act of faith by the hon. the Minister to leave trade unions free to regulate membership of their own unions themselves. I think the hon. the Minister should think very seriously about this. Members on the Government side have placed notices of two instructions on the Order Paper and the hon. the Minister has indicated that he will have the power to grant exemptions, but the manner in which this definition has been approached through the legislation suggests to us that the hon. the Minister is taking an ultra-conservative approach. We want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to look at the amendment to the definition which we will place on the Order Paper before finally deciding that he is going to go ahead with this particular provision.

A further aspect which causes us a considerable amount of concern is that the Bill now leaves the onus on the trade unions and on the employer organizations to find out who is eligible and fulfils the definition of an employee. If they inadvertently, willingly or negligently take on people who do not qualify under this definition they are liable to exceptionally stiff penalties, viz. R500 for each member that has been included in the trade union, even if this has been done by accident. We believe that this is totally unfair, in the first place, that one should leave it to the trade unions or the employer organizations to try to find out who is and who is not eligible in this sense, and then, if they transgress, to hit them with these terribly high penalties. In this respect we will probably also be moving certain amendments during the Committee Stage.

We are also concerned about the change which is being made in respect of the majority required for decisions of the council. As the Bill stands at the moment, the change in principle which is being introduced is the change from a two-third majority vote to a unanimous decision. When this comes to dealings with, for instance, unfair practices, the hon. the Minister will appreciate that in many cases the unfair practice is perpetrated by the employer, and he is then reported to the industrial council concerned to sort out the problem. If one is going to require an unanimous decision, then one is asking the aggrieved or the accused person to agree with the people who are accusing him. I do not think this is going to work, and therefore we will be moving amendments in this respect as well, in order to allow the present situation to remain, where a two-third majority decision is a carrying decision. We do so because of the practical difficulty that if an employer stands accused of unfair practice, then in order to get a decision he has to vote for the people that are accusing him.

Lastly, we welcome to a very large extent the provision for compulsory arbitration. This is something which has caused considerable difficulty in the past, where one party could keep the other party away from arbitration and therefore from a satisfactory settlement, and of course from all the benefits which go with arbitration or the disadvantages of not going to arbitration.

In the last minute or two available to me I would like to summarize the position of my party. We believe that although there are serious difficulties involved in certain aspects of this Bill, we genuinely believe that it is a tremendous step forward in the South African context. We will attempt to bring about even greater improvements through the amendments which we will be moving during the Committee Stage. To my friends in the PFP I say that I cannot understand the attitude which they have adopted towards this legislation. Far be it for me to defend the hon. the Minister, his department and the Government against the PFP, but I should like to say to the hon. members of the PFP that when an opportunity such as this for change presents itself in South Africa—heaven knows that is not very often—I believe it is incumbent upon a responsible Opposition to maximize the good which can come out of that change.

Our amendment is in line with parliamentary procedure.

The attitude now adopted by the PFP, as the hon. member for Houghton has adopted with her amendment, suggests to us that they are not really concerned about the good that can stem from this amending legislation. They are not really concerned about that. I think they are more concerned about publicity for their own party. They are more concerned about encouraging radical change in South Africa and I think they are not sufficiently concerned about maintaining industrial peace while we bring about evolutionary change in South Africa. Alternatively we can only come to one conclusion as far as the PFP is concerned and that is that they have no appreciation really of the complexity of our industrial and sociological society in South Africa. That is the only alternative conclusion we can come to.

They have lost their heads as well as their deposit.

As the hon. member for Umhlanga says, they have been losing a lot of things lately and we certainly hope they will during the next few days gain in wisdom what they have lacked in their speeches this afternoon.

On behalf of the NRP I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that we shall be taking issue with him on the matters which I have raised here, but at the same time we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill since we believe that considerable improvement is being brought about with it. We certainly hope to be able during the Committee Stage to encourage the hon. the Minister to bring about further and greater changes to the benefit of the whole industrial sector of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member for Houghton the hon. member for Durban North has made a very objective and a very reasonable speech. I want to congratulate him on that.

*I shall not react now to the points to which the hon. member referred and which should really be dealt with during the Committee Stage. Permit me, however, to associate myself with the words expressed by the hon. member to the hon. the Minister and the Wiehahn Commission. I agree with the congratulations, and one wishes them well for the major task that lies ahead.

I want to comment on one aspect of the Wiehahn Commission’s terms of reference. I am referring to the approximately 15 Acts which the Commission had to examine. I wonder whether it would not be appropriate if at some stage the commission could also look at the relevant provincial ordinances dealing with labour matters. At the moment I have in mind the following example: If one looks at local authorities in South Africa, one finds that there are six different ordinances in respect of the important condition of service that there has to be a pension fund. Each one deals with its own small investments, conditions and stop-order facilities, but there are differences between all of them. Is it not possibly a task for the Wiehahn Commission or, eventually, for the National Manpower Commission, to bring about a larger degree of uniformity in that field as well? There are, in fact, numerous ordinances which are applicable to the field of labour, and I have referred to only one example.

The important and far-reaching amendments in the Bill are contained in a few clauses only. We might say that these basically concern the establishment of a National Manpower Commission, the matter of effecting changes to the existing industrial court, the fact that Black trade unions will be allowed and registered and then, of course, job reservation which will be abolished or will take on a different form. When one looks at such a far-reaching measure, it is perhaps appropriate, too, to look for a moment at what preceded the measure and at its history. One has to look at the evolutionary development of this legislation. I am very proud to be able to say that industrial legislation, as we know it, had its beginnings in the Transvaal. The first piece of legislation which was passed in this regard, was the Arbitration Ordinance which was passed in the Transvaal in 1904. As if that was not enough, the first Industrial Conciliation Act, the first Arbitration Act, were also passed in the Transvaal in 1909. One would search in vain for a measure passed in the Cape Province before Union similar to those passed in the Transvaal in 1909.

Our people are very fond of committees and commissions. The first Select Committee of the Assembly after Union was appointed in 1913, a committee similar to the Wiehahn Commission. The first Wages Protection Act of 1914 and the first Regulation of Wages Act of 1918 resulted from the recommendations of this committee. In 1923 a very important Select Committee, which later became a commission, was appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. F. S. Malan. Over the years no basic amendments were made to the first Industrial Conciliation Act, Act No. 11 of 1924, to which the hon. the Minister referred, but certain refinements were effected.

In July 1934 the Van Reenen Commission was appointed. If time had permitted me to do so, I should have liked to read out the preamble of that commission. The English had a way with drawing up a preamble. We need only compare it to the preamble of the Wiehahn Commission.

In 1937 the second Industrial Conciliation Act was passed, in 1948 the Botha Commission was appointed, in 1956 the existing Act was passed, and recently the Wiehahn Commission was appointed. I am referring to all these aspects because if one looks at the key provisions of these Acts, one sees that the need for more refined legislation and more refined wage and labour measures started arising as South Africa became more intensively industrialized over the years. In fact, one can see how this evolutionary change occurred. As a matter of fact, it is again the case at present. Nearly 30 years after the appointment of the previous commission, we have again been presented with a report.

I want to refer to the amendment of the definition of “employee”. I want to mention for consideration by the hon. member for Durban North that because of the evolution which has occurred, the time has arrived to include Black people in the definition of “employee”. We appointed works committees and liaison committees, and created the first forum for enabling Black people to negotiate and consult with their employers. I think the time has also arrived for other steps to which I now want to refer. This measure is the first step in the evolutionary negotiation process of the Black people. I have sufficient confidence to believe that those trade unions which are going to apply for registration—at first provisional registration and then final registration—will display such a sense of responsibility that it will be possible to allow them to register. If one looks at all the Acts passed up to the present time, one notices one basic philosophy underlying all the Industrial Conciliation Acts passed up to the present time. That philosophy concerns basic self-government in one’s own business or enterprise. That is what it is all about. On the one hand, one has the employer and on the other one has the employee or his organization. As the third partner in every contract the State basically has three functions. Its first function in the whole labour set-up is to create an economic climate in which employment opportunities may be created for its citizens. Secondly, training facilities for maximum training have to be created, and thirdly, negotiating machinery and machinery for settling disputes have to be created so that in this autonomous dispensation, this self-government, the machinery may be created for the parties by means of which they can settle their disputes, and which allows of employees being told: In this way you can approach your employer and in this way the employer may treat his employee. When it is tested in terms of these three functions, I believe the South African Government has succeeded brilliantly; not perfectly, because those three functions cannot be the task of the Government alone; they should also be supported and supplemented by private initiative if we want the Government as such to intervene as little as possible.

I just want to say a few words about the industrial court. Since the old industrial court is now going to disappear, and since it may possibly remain in existence as a special division, I should like to pay tribute to those people who have served in that court since 1956, and who have been instrumental, not only in establishing industrial peace in South Africa, but also in restoring it time and again. Those people have done a wonderful job of work. When they had to start in 1956, there was no established set of precedents for them nor were there any examples for them. Through the years, this old industrial court gained in stature, but what is actually of far greater value to us in the industrial world, is the fact that people believe in the industrial court. This court has built up credibility for itself. I think that is what is at the root of the confidence in our own system. Therefore, we hope that a place might be found for them in the special division of the court.

The National Manpower Commission is a new instrument on which—I agree with the hon. member for Durban North in this regard—not only the Minister and the department, but all of us are going to rely very heavily, and of which we expect a great deal, because not only will it deal with the bottlenecks and the problems from time to time, but it will also have to determine in advance the needs in the field of labour, in the field of training and how to meet those needs in future. Not only will it have to assist in creating training facilities, but it will also have to be able to play a decisive role as far as the standard of training is concerned. It will have to be instrumental in keeping us abreast of modem labour practice. The result of this will be that we shall not necessarily have to deal with sweeping measures, such as the one we are dealing with today, but that we shall remain up to date as things evolve and make adjustments from time to time. The National Manpower Commission is not in existence as yet, but I suppose one can make representations even at this stage.

If there is one aspect of our present labour situation to which I should really like the National Manpower Commission to pay attention, it is the situation of the national servicemen, the man who has to go to the border for a period of two years and who finds upon his return that he has a disadvantage of two years as compared to those who are not obliged to go to the border. I do not want to go any further into this matter. I believe that if we can tell the parents that their sons are going to do two years of national service on the border, but that the National Manpower Commission will look at that situation in all fairness when they return and find themselves in a training of work situation, they will have far more peace of mind.

I see this measure as a further step being taken by the Government in the process of establishing equal treatment and equal opportunities for all our people. That is all this measure amounts to. The hon. member for Houghton summarily rejects everything good in the Bill, because the hon. member’s political philosophy is not satisfied in this Bill. That hon. member desires total integration. That is the only thing that will satisfy her. Over the years that hon. member herself has been advocating certain aspects contained in the Bill, but she does not want to admit it now, because, according to her, there are too many omissions. Why should we complain about the commissions, while we are perfectly satisfied with the positive aspects which do appear in the legislation?

The hon. member for Houghton is very concerned about joint responsibility and in view of that I want to ask her whether she agrees with the following Press statement made by the hon. member for Pinelands in which he said, “The new legislation which ought to have been an encouragement, is nothing short of a disaster”? He went on to say, “In short, the Government’s declaration that it is moving towards more enlightened labour practices is a gigantic bluff.” The problem of the hon. member for Houghton is that this Press statement has already been published. Does the hon. member for Houghton begrudge the Black people the privilege—particularly those who may now be registered—of serving on an industrial council themselves or of applying for a conciliation board, or of enjoying the sanction of the industrial court? After all, the legislation does not provide that all the members of the Manpower Commission have to be Whites. Nor does the legislation provide that the new industrial court has to be completely White. That hon. member wants these people to be deprived of all these privileges, simply because she is more concerned about foreigners. As far as the commuters are concerned, the hon. the Minister has already dealt with the whole question.

Does the hon. member for Houghton really believe that she is being reasonable when she says that she and her party totally reject the Second Reading of this Bill? Surely that is not a responsible action. After all, when a person has been advocating something for years, and what he has been advocating is implemented, one expects that person to give his approval to that If he still is not satisfied with everything, that person can move amendments. The hon. member for Houghton, however, rejects the measure outright because, according to her, it does not go far enough. As far as I am concerned, that is outrageous.

I want to go so far as to say that the labour world, the labour situation, labour legislation and labour measures are sensitive matters, and that one should not rush in and criticize a positive measure as the hon. member for Pinelands did in his Press statement. His action was rash in the extreme. After all, he is a member of this House, and as such, he should assist in the legislative process, but he shoots the measure down long before he has had the decency to move an amendment to it.

At times labour regulations are attended by a great deal of emotion. When an employee feels himself aggrieved, the Government has to create a forum so that he may express his grievances, because if they are bottled up, an explosion is unavoidable. However, one should not cast suspicion on this, as the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands did by means of a Press Statement. When that happens, I do not believe that we are co-operating in the interests of industrial peace in this country.

Consequently I wonder whether all of us want industrial peace. I also wonder whether we really want the Black people ever to be members of registered trade unions. This is really starting to worry me, because I should like to see the positive side of the matter. This legislation is going to be worthless if all of us are not going to cooperate so as to help the Black trade unions as well. In this regard it is, in my opinion, appropriate to address an appeal to employers to render assistance to these people, where there are Black trade unions which are going to be registered, and to guide them so that they may be assisted to operate objectively and responsibly as trade unions. I think that if there is goodwill amongst the employees, in their organization and among the employers, and if the department is prepared to assist them, all employees, White, Brown and Black, and, on the other hand, all employers, can succeed in making a model State of South Africa, with its heterogeneous situation, in the field of labour. For that reason it gives me pleasure to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria East must forgive me if I do not react directly to his arguments, but I shall refer in passing to a few remarks which he made. The hon. member said in a very good spirit that the Transvaal had certain legislation as long ago as 1909 while the Cape had no such law in those years. I can only ascribe it to the fact that the Transvalers probably had need of laws to restrain them. We in the Cape however, know how to do the right thing without having to have laws. [Interjections.] I agree with the plea of the hon. member that servicemen doing two years’ service in the Defence Force should be granted a special concession from the Manpower Commission. I take it the hon. the Minister will submit the matter to the Manpower Commission as soon as it is appointed.

†This legislation is being opposed by the HNP and certain right-wing members of unions because they feel that the Government has gone too liberal. It is being opposed by the PFP and other left-wing members because they feel that the Government is not liberal enough. [Interjections.] So the HNP and the PFP have made common cause for different reasons. [Interjections.] The Government has the responsibility to stabilize labour relations and economic conditions in South Africa. Where therefore they are endeavouring to reach accommodation between the various labour groups, I think they should be given every opportunity to solve the problems. Our main criticism of the Government is of course that this legislation has taken far too many years to come before the House. It should have come many years before. We think it is totally irresponsible for the right-wingers to stir up the White population. I think it is equally irresponsible of the left-wingers to stir up the Black population. [Interjections.] Sowing seeds of discontent can never be the answer to the problems of South Africa. This legislation is not the end of the story, but only the beginning. This is the first chapter and other chapters will follow.

We agree that time is of the essence. However, to expect everything to happen overnight is not the reality of the South African situation. Our problems, as has been said before, are unique in many respects.

Twenty-five years is not overnight.

I have said that our main criticism is that this legislation comes too late and that it should have come many years before. There is no disagreement between me and the hon. member for Houghton in that regard. [Interjections.] We have always believed in the abolition of job reservation and in the rate for the job. We are sure that this attitude is in the best interests of all workers.

We feel that job reservation affects a very limited number of workers and invites unnecessary criticism. There is in fact no merit in the application of job reservation. That is why it should be done away with. We do not believe that people will lose jobs because of the relaxation of labour laws. On the contrary, the existing people in existing jobs could be retained to occupy more responsible positions than at the moment. The reports of the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions and the acceptance of these reports herald a new era for South Africa. We compliment the Wiehahn Commission on its in-depth study of labour matters and on the report that was tabled in this House. We are appreciative of the work that was done over a period of time. It was intensive work and was done under pressure. We thank them that they came out with a comprehensive report in the manner that they did.

We should also like to compliment the department on the White Paper that they presented us with. A White Paper always makes it very much easier for hon. members to understand legislation.

There are some hon. members who do not understand it even now.

The hon. the Minister says that even then some hon. members do not understand it. Hon. members of the PFP do not even accept what they read on black and white. [Interjections.]

Whether this new era will be taking us to a land of milk and honey depends on the manner in which these reports are implemented and on the goodwill of the people involved. I want to stress that the workability of this particular legislation and the implementation of the report will depend on the goodwill of the people involved and their leaders. It is vital that the hon. the Minister—and I think that he realizes this as he has been consulting with all of them—takes the leaders with him and that the leaders take their people with them. It is no use if the leaders are not prepared to take their people with them or if there are leaders who are whipping up their people against the situation. That can only cause immeasurable harm to South Africa, both internally and externally. In accepting the reports, the Government is implementing certain recommendations immediately. Other provisions will be phased in. The fact that the Government does not implement all aspects immediately caused us concern, but then we realized that in order to look at the matter objectively one cannot look at the legislation in isolation. One must also take full cognizance of the surrounding circumstances. One must take cognizance of what is happening in other great Western countries. Many great countries have been brought to their knees economically and have had their stability shattered because labour organizations have taken advantage of the situation. It is therefore obvious that we must learn from the mistakes made by those countries. It is also obvious that we cannot rush into a situation overnight, thus creating in South Africa the same unfortunate circumstances that have been seen in other countries. In our particular and unique situation we cannot afford even to have an experiment of that nature.

I should like to give an example. There are millions of Black, Coloured and Indian children at school, and the Government has spent thousands of millions of rand on a massive Black education infrastructure. Having brought about a situation, partly through Government actions, in which 260 000 Black workers will come into the labour market each year, for the next 10 years, the Government has accepted as a way of life the fact that these people must be properly trained and educated and that they will have to be absorbed at every level of our economic life. In view of the intensity of the Government’s educational programme for the Blacks it is obvious that there is a corresponding duty resting upon the Government, upon commerce and upon industry to ensure that the labour market can absorb the work-seekers from year to year.

There are matters which we feel could have been taken further in drafting this Bill. I will deal with those as I proceed. In this Bill, and in other legislation passed earlier this session—e.g. the Competitions Bill—as well as in the Wiehahn and Riekert Commission reports I discern three distinct principles. Firstly there is revealed a belief in the free enterprise system. Secondly, there is a belief in gradual or evolutionary change, and thirdly a belief in consultation, negotiation and consensus amongst all parties in matters of common concern. I am very interested in Prof. Wiehahn’s reaction to this legislation, as he is after all the man who chaired the commission. He is one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable man, on this particular subject in South Africa. According to a newspaper report, dated 29 May 1979, Prof. Wiehahn, after the Bill had been published, said in Geneva, amongst other things—

He then goes on to say why—

I want to put that to hon. members of the PFP. Here we have the chairman of the commission saying he is not disappointed with the omissions from or the modifications to the legislation. However, he admits that the Bill is not completely in accordance with the report.

Then he did not mean what he wrote in the report.

The hon. member for Parktown is not as naïve as all that.

I do not believe Prof. Wiehahn is naïve either.

No, but Prof. Wiehahn accepts the Bill, and he is carrying on with the next chapter of the report. He is overseas at the moment explaining the report and the consequences of this legislation to the rest of the world. That means he is happy with the situation, and I am convinced that he will continue with labour legislation in this country. I also believe he will continue to assist in matters of this nature for many years after the hon. member for Parktown no longer sits in this House. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I quote from the newspaper report again—

I suppose the PFP would like to see them integrated immediately, in view of the fact that they have an hon. member in their party who would like to see the Communist Party re-established in South Africa—

There are, for example, three types of Black labour in South Africa. We find that statistics are a few years out. However, these were the only statistics I could find. Firstly, there are approximately 475 000 frontier commuters, as they are called. Secondly, there are 629 000 migrant labourers who live in self-governing homelands. Thirdly, in independent States we have 794 000 workers that can also be classified as migrant labourers. We feel that group No. 1 can be included by the Minister in the trade unions. We see no problem with that. If Black people from kwaZulu live and work in Durban or Pretoria, where commuters are geographically very close to the White areas, we would support a positive attitude on the part of the hon. the Minister to allow those workers to become members of a trade union. As some workers may be citizens of independent States, it is obvious that the hon. the Minister cannot act in isolation but will have to consult with those sovereign independent States in regard to those workers.

The question of mixed trade unions and the necessity for all parties in the industrial council to approve the affiliation of a new member, are matters that will have to enjoy the immediate attention of the hon. the Minister and the National Manpower Commission. These matters, together with the definition of “employee”, are subjects that will require a formula of negotiation and compromise. In view of the complexity of our labour situation, it is absolutely vital for a very senior man to be appointed to the chairmanship of the National Manpower Commission. The recommendation of a manpower commission can ensure a more flexible and dynamic approach to labour matters in order to meet the many and varied problems and challenges that arise in our rapidly changing times. I hope that the commission will be a representative commission in the sense that when the problems of a particular industry are discussed, a representative of that industry is co-opted onto the commission for the purpose of conducting the relevant discussions. I hope the hon. the Minister is with me on that particular point.

The most important recommendation is the principle of statutory work reservation being abolished by the repealing of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1976. If there is an unfair labour practice, the matter goes to the industrial council. If the council fails to settle the dispute, it goes to the industrial court. Where there is no industrial council, the matter goes to a conciliation board, and if the board cannot arrive at an agreement, once again the matter goes to an industrial court. The non-Whites, particularly the Blacks, will have to be moved into higher skilled categories of work at a much faster rate than in the past if the shortage of skilled workers and other bottle-necks retarding economic growth are to be avoided. The abolition of statutory work reservation should not only serve as an incentive for workers to equip themselves better for the labour market, but should also serve as an incentive for employers to provide training and retraining facilities and opportunities for those workers who desire to improve their skills.

This Bill must be the first phase in ensuring, firstly the creation of employment opportunities, secondly the practical introduction of changes, thirdly the maintenance of industrial peace and, fourthly, the training and retraining of workers. The major immediate challenge facing South Africa is economic growth. It is, in fact, under conditions of unemployment and poverty that people become dissillusioned, frustrated and angry. The Government, employers and employees must stand together in building this country into one of the mightiest nations in the world. Each needs the other, and if something is wrong it must be corrected. The only things that one cannot afford are the crippling and senseless strikes that one has seen in economies throughout the world. South Africans of all races are going to find, in the years ahead, that they will have to depend more and more on one another, even more than ever before, to withstand the economic and other onslaughts that face this country.

Now I come to clause 10 which deals with the admission of parties to industrial councils. The question of admission not being possible unless all the parties agree is a matter on which I should like to address the hon. the Minister. It is not easy, in fact it is sometimes impossible, to gain 100% approval. I therefore want the hon. the Minister to look at this matter very carefully. In fact, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we feel that 66% or two-thirds approval is sufficient because that is the acceptable figure at present. To gain 100% approval is in my opinion aiming for an impossible target.

We do not agree with every aspect of the Bill, as I have mentioned to the hon. the Minister, but we see in this Bill the ingredients—a starting point—for building a bigger and better South Africa. In the circumstances we shall not oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in consequence of the contribution by the hon. member for Walmer I wish to point out that he and the hon. member for Durban North have given this side of the House hope for the future this afternoon, for it seems they are ironing out their ideological differences with us so that from now on we shall be able to start discussing technical details with one another in a practical way.

I had the unpleasant experience this afternoon of hearing the hon. member for Houghton add the dubious figure of a Solly Sacks to her heroes’ gallery, in which there are already some very dubious characters. I find it interesting, and the hon. member for Walmer put his finger on the right spot when he pointed out that the HNP had also been added to the circle of friends of the PFP now. What a conglomeration!

Now that hon. members on this side of the House who preceded me in the debate, have dealt very thoroughly with the meaning of the legislation, its clauses and their implications, I should like, by way of introduction, to dwell for a while on the philosophical background or approach of the NP and the Government to labour legislation in South Africa. First of all I should like to quote from a work by a world-renowned authority on labour matters—

I am quoting this from Sloteman.

The point of view, the philosophical approach of the NP is that industrialization is probably the major single determinant of socio-economic development or the development of the socio-economic structure of a community. In South Africa we had the case—the hon. member for Durban North referred to it, and in my opinion he made a very valuable and intelligent contribution with regard to many aspects—that the rapid industrial development, which actually amounted to an industrial revolution, caused the social and cultural development of certain groups of our people to lag behind. In this process, those groups have lagged a long way behind. South Africa is now faced with the problem that at an early stage of the social and cultural development of these groups, it is confronted with the labour norms obtaining in advanced and developed industrial countries.

Surely the Government has to be realistic about the disparity that has resulted from this. It is a recognized fact that disparity exists, and I could prove that by quoting from experts on the labour situation, but unfortunately I do not have the time. As a result of this disparity the Government has to approach the situation realistically and cannot allow the implementation of norms that could not be applicable here to distort the social structure of South Africa.

The major difference of opinion between members of the official Opposition and us, apart from their fundamental differences with us on an ideological basis, lies in the very fact that they expect us simply to apply the norms of developed countries to the South African labour scene. Today it was again hinted at by the hon. member for Houghton, as has often been done over the years, that we should simply accept the concepts of trade union autonomy and absolute freedom of association lock, stock and barrel. This is an approach that is so irresponsible that it stops one in one’s tracks.

I should like to associate myself this afternoon with the appeals made by the previous few speakers who told the PFP: For heaven’s sake, let us have a more realistic basis in our approach to these problems; let us lift this out of the arena of petty politicking, because what we are concerned with here is one of the most important pieces of legislation and one of the most important facets of any society. I venture to state that in view of the aforesaid facts, labour legislation is not only important in respect of the training and utilization of manpower, but it also makes a far-reaching contribution towards causing the social structure to assume certain shapes. Labour in its various forms and at its various levels is the principal determining factor for the level of material welfare of every individual. Consequently it is of vital importance to every person.

It is also a fact—and we should take realistic cognizance of that fact—that a satisfied worker, a worker who experiences fulfilment and gratification in his work, is a happier and more complete person and is very definitely a more positive component of a happy, stable and steady society. If we take all these facts into account in respect of the disparity I have referred to, and the plurality of the South African social or national scene, it is surely obvious that labour legislation in South Africa is a more sensitive, difficult and complex than in any other country in the world. I should therefore like to associate myself with the previous speakers who complimented the hon. the Minister on the appointment of the very representative commission —and this we have to admit—that made a very penetrating analysis of the entire field of labour in South Africa. The report of the commission is a very specialized source of information which the Government could draw on in the formulation of labour legislation now and in future. However, there is one thing that I want to make quite clear this afternoon—and I do not want there to be any doubt about this—and that is that South Africa is not governed by commissions, but by the National Party Government that is now in power. This Government, and no one else, will decide what and to what extent the recommendations of this or of any other commission, are to be embodied in legislation. I wish to bring home this point very clearly this afternoon. It was referred to this afternoon—and it is true—that the chairman of the commission accepted this as normal and was quite satisfied with the reception his report met with.

It had become very necessary for this commission to be appointed, because it had been almost 23 years since really fundamental labour legislation in South Africa was placed on the Statute Book. I should like to say at once that those earlier laws were sound laws. The 1956 legislation with regard to Black labour relations and industrial conciliation ensured two decades of very good, stable labour peace in South Africa. However, as I have said, we have been experiencing an industrial revolution during this time. There have been rapid changes. A few years ago there were signs of potential widespread labour unrest, which served as a warning for us to accommodate the altered circumstances, perhaps by means of other legislation.

What struck me as being particularly constructive in the amendment Bill before us, was the provision embodied in clause 2 to establish a National Manpower Commission. This has already been referred to, but I should just like to dwell on this for a moment. Inter alia, this Manpower Commission will, on an on-going basis, survey and analyse the total manpower situation; evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of labour legislation and labour practices in the light of prevailing and anticipated developments; work in close co-operation with other departments of State and statutory bodies, and conduct research in connection with manpower training and utilization in the future. This is very important, for if we experience a growth phase again, as we expect will be the case—and we are sure we are not wrong—optimum training and utilization of the manpower of South Africa will be of vital importance to the economic future of South Africa.

This commission has to submit a comprehensive annual report to the Minister on the overall labour situation in South Africa. The Minister has a free hand in the appointment of this commission, so that he can make the commission very representative of employers’ and employees’ organizations and specialist bodies in the field of labour. It is only sensible and realistic that this commission should advise us on on-going basis, since labour legislation in South Africa should always be seen in the context of the South African setting. After all, our particularly distinctive situation in reality demands that.

Although this has already been mentioned, I should like to dwell on this briefly again and to emphasize that the spirit and attitude of the labour legislation of the Government has always been from the point of view of the protection of workers. Even section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956 did not have the favouring of workers as an undertone, but the protection of workers. The provisions of section 77 had a racial connotation. We concede that and we shall not try to argue that away. However, at that particular juncture it was necessary for such a measure to be placed on the Statute Book, precisely in consequence of the activities of, inter alia, the friends of the hon. member for Houghton, such as Solly Sacks.

It is therefore correct then that in this amendment Bill the principle should be maintained, and that the approach adopted is still based on the principle of the protection of workers. The racial connotation is disappearing, but the PFP is not prepared to regard this as a disappearance of the racial connotation and is still searching for a racial connotation in this legislation. I want to say that any person who, under these circumstances, is still looking for a racial connotation in this particular amendment Bill, is being disloyal to South Africa in an altogether incomprehensible and unforgivable way.

What are the facts in connection with the inherent safeguarding mechanisms in respect of minority groups, other groups as well as individuals? The fact has been mentioned here that an unfair labour practice may also be declared a dispute on which an industrial council initially has to decide. Hon. members, among them the hon. member for Walmer, objected to the fact that this decision has to be absolutely unanimous. However, this affords other groups, minority groups and individuals, a very definite protection which the hon. the Minister thought they might need in future, and consequently I think that for the time being we should not deviate from these principles. I cannot speak on behalf of the hon. the Minister, but in general we feel that it is indeed necessary that this protective measure should remain in force for the sake of minority groups. It is also true that if an industrial court returns a verdict in favour of the injured party, the employer or the employers’ organizations will be instructed to restore the situation to the one that prevailed before the injury occurred. I can hardly imagine any group or individual being afforded a more meaningful and a greater protection.

I should like to spell out briefly—the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark also referred to that—what an unfair labour practice could imply. It could happen that a certain employer or employers’ organization decided that it wanted to get rid of a certain group of workers that had performed work in a certain category up to a certain date, and wanted to replace them with other groups. It could then start getting rid of these people for all kinds of petty and unjustifiable reasons. If a complaint is lodged, the National Manpower Commission has to consider it and if the commission discovers a trend, it can declare this to be a dispute and refer it to the industrial council for settlement. It is then that the requirement of a unanimous decision becomes applicable. Ultimately this also gives the individual, who has access to the Minister himself, the right, through the National Manpower Commission—and this is one of the excellent functions of this commission—to have such an alleged malpractice investigated.

That brings me to the industrial court defined in clause 8. As has rightly been remarked here, this court has an elevated status, since its president is appointed by the Minister by reason of his knowledge of the law relating to labour matters. This court will have jurisdiction in all provinces and may also create other juristic bodies to operate elsewhere.

With the inclusion of certain categories of Black workers in the definition of “employee” we must very definitely be realistic and take into account that there could be a substantial increase in the number of workers who belong to trade unions, or in the number of trade union members. I can even foresee that this would also apply to the workers who, under the previous dispensation, already qualified as employees in terms of the existing Act. I think that in that cadre, too, there is going to be a substantial increase in the number of trade union members belonging to that particular group because they will feel that as a result of the other body that has come into existence, they should increase their bargaining power.

Other hon. members said—I just wish to refer to this briefly—that in view of the fact that there is going to be a vast increase in the number of trade union members, the Government would definitely have to take preventive measures against the possible political side-effects which this kind of thing would bring about and which has been so clearly illustrated in other countries of the world. In view of the immense hostile onslaught on South Africa, the Government is thoroughly aware of the fact that there might be elements—I think we may accept that such elements exist—that would, in many other fields, abuse and exploit industrial relations for their own political benefit.

A Government would be stupid if it did not immediately take preventive measures against this. This is what the Government is undoubtedly doing in clause 6, in terms of which trade unions are prohibited from granting financial assistance to a political party or to incurring any financial expenditure with the object of assisting any political party. Unregistered trade unions have no bargaining power either and they would consequently be adversely affected by this. Nor may they receive any moneys by means of stop orders authorized by the employer, and this is going to make it very difficult for them to exist.

The 1956 Act brought an end to an old dispensation and era and created a new one. Before 1956, through the instrumentality of, inter alia, Solly Sacks, the new hero of the hon. member for Houghton, a large number of mixed trade unions came into existence. At the time the Government identified certain dangerous trends with regard to these trade unions and foresaw that even graver and more dangerous developments might take place. For that reason, the Government decided that it would build the concept of parallelism into mixed trade unionism in South Africa. Since then, we have in reality been able to speak of parallel trade unions, for the law required that different race groups should be organized into different branches, that they should meet separately, and that the executive should be under White control. However, the Minister had a discretion with regard to the admission of Coloured people to the executive. He also had a discretion in other cases, where the number of workers was too small to form an effective trade union of their own, to allow such people of one race group to join the trade union of another race group subject to the conditions, as I have already stated, contained in the Industrial Conciliation Act; in other words, a parallel trade union.

The executive of this study group and the group itself feels that with the far-reaching changes that have been effected, circumstances might arise which might make it essential and desirable for the discretionary powers of the Minister to be augmented to a certain extent in order to accommodate certain circumstances that might arise. However, I shall come back to that during the Committee Stage, and I am merely intimating that at that stage I shall move an amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sasolburg was undoubtedly correct when he said that South Africa was not being ruled by commissions, but by Governments. None of us would have it any other way. The difference between the hon. member and us is not that we want a commission to govern South Africa, but that we want the Government to govern South Africa in accordance with the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission, which we consider to be sound recommendations. The difference between us is that the recommendations are not being implemented here, whereas we want them to be implemented. In any event it is the Government that has to implement the report; I readily concede that point to the hon. member.

Where the hon. member was completely wide of the mark, of course, was when he asked how anyone could look for a racial connotation in this legislation. In fact, the hon. member devoted the last two or three minutes of his speech to giving the House a highly complicated explanation of parallel trade unions, of whether there should be White people in charge, and whether the hon. the Minister could allow a Coloured man to be admitted. If the hon. member would glance at clauses 3 and 5, he would see that the legislation is still interspersed with the very same old-fashioned apartheid which the Wiehahn Commission wanted to remove.

In the final definition this discussion ought to be concerned with the survival of the free market system. It is worthwhile emphasizing that that system is characterized by the unimpeded right of workers to associate, to organize and to bargain, to exactly the same extent as it is also characterized by the right of the entrepreneur to invest and to manage according to his own judgment. Without sound labour organization, there cannot be sound free enterprise, and that is our main reason for feeling unhappy about this Bill.

While I was listening to a few of the hon. members who have already spoken, I wondered, with all due respect to them, whether they had ever had any actual dealings with a trade union, had ever spoken to a trade union leader, or knew anything of what had happened in practice in the trade union movement in South Africa during the past few years. As was repeatedly emphasized by speakers on the Government side, and was in fact mentioned in our amendment before the House, there are facets of this legislation that are to be welcomed, and one of these facets is that now, for the first time, some of the Black people are being afforded the opportunity, subject to certain conditions, of becoming full-fledged members of trade unions.

But what will the Bill mean in practice to those Black workers who, in recent years, have already organized themselves in trade union organizations which, though unregistered, have worked well and have achieved many benefits for their members and also for the employers who were concerned with those people? Let me just say in passing that we have to go according to the Bill, and not the good intentions of the hon. the Minister for the future. The typical unregistered Black trade union would find that between a quarter and a third of its members would be entitled to join a registered trade union. If those members were to have themselves registered, it would mean that that minjority who would quite probably, but not necessarily consist of the more sophisticated members, would be able to form a new trade union and apply for provisional registration. If they were to obtain this, they would not be allowed, except under highly exceptional circumstances, to join existing trade unions. This could only be allowed if their numbers were so small that it would have a negligible effect on such a trade union. They are therefore compelled to join a separate Black trade union, and this would, sooner or later, unavoidably enter into competition with the already existing multiracial or other trade unions. On the other hand the remaining two-thirds of the members of the trade union as it exists today, would be left to one side, still unregistered, but now subject to a new provision, namely that their colleagues who have crossed the line and have obtained registration as a new trade union, would not be permitted to have any relationship with them.

Crazy.

If a reason had been advanced why it should be the inexorable law that only Black people who would qualify under section 10(1)(a), (b) and (c) should be entitled to trade union rights, I should at least have seen a measure of logic in this. However, no such statement has been made. In fact, the hon. the Minister went out of his way to say that he was in fact going to do something with regard to the commuter. During the past few days and weeks, therefore, he has been saying that in public. If that is the case, why does the hon. the Minister first want to make it impossible for Black trade unions to do so and then afterwards, after the harm has been done, employ piecemeal methods to try to repair the damage? After all, one would have preferred the hon. the Minister to have told the House today: “Look I want Black people to be able to belong to registered trade unions. There are technical problems, however, and problems are being experienced with regard to definitions, but I believe that I shall be able to devise a plan, although this will take time. In the meantime, by means of this legislation, I want to appoint the Manpower Commission and the industrial court, bodies which I may need. They are going to carry out interim research in this field and then, next year or whenever it may be, when I know what Black people are being taken up into the trade unions, I shall come to this House again with a logically drafted Bill”. How much better would it not have been if the hon. the Minister had done that? The way matters stand at present, the hon. the Minister is expressing good intentions and introducing legislation which could only create the greatest confusion in a trade union movement which, as it stands today, is worthwhile to its members and to those people with whom it has to bargain.

Until fairly recently we succeeded in maintaining industrial peace in South Africa, despite the fact that we had prohibited Black workers from exercising normal trade union rights. The reason why this was possible probably lay in the fact that at the time those workers, virtually without exception, were unskilled, mainly illiterate, and migrant labourers and that any one of them could at any given moment be replaced by someone else. They were very poorly remunerated and were also of very low value to their employers. All that contributed to their actual bargaining power being insignificant, as appears from the history of the few efforts that were made to organize them effectively.

With the development of the economy during the past few decades, this state of affairs has changed substantially. Black workers have gradually been asked to do work of an ever higher standard, and they have been trained accordingly. They have been far better remunerated and their value to their employers has constantly improved. The point has been reached where their true potential bargaining power has become substantial. In my view all this was proved by the events of 1973, when large numbers of mainly unorganized workers peacefully but very effectively went on strike and immediately shocked the business world and the Government into other perceptions. The process of reconsideration, investigation and reflection then started, and this ultimately led to the appointment of the Wiehahn Commission, which in turn led to this debate today.

The major and welcome change that has taken place, is that the whole of South Africa, except for a few far-rightist reactionaries, today accept the principle that trade union rights should be extended to the Black people. In my view, this is something which each one of us should welcome. However, it immediately creates the need for suitable bodies and machinery by means of which they can exercise these rights in such a way that peace and prosperity can be maintained in our industrial life.

Before turning to the report and this Bill, I should like to deal with a few general principles. It is a cardinal truth that between employee and employer in terms of the free market system there are always conflicting and competing interests on the one hand, and common interests on the other. The conflict arises substantially from how the available surplus from the undertaking is going to be distributed, that is to say, between wages on the one hand and profits on the other hand. The common interest is always there, namely that in the first place there has to be a surplus to distribute. The undertaking therefore has to be prosperous and possess all the various systems which are equipped to achieve these objectives, whether in South Africa or elsewhere. Against this background, there is very little doubt, if any, that the most effective and most satisfactory system is that system which permits free bargaining between independent organized labour and organized employers. Normally it is also desirable that at the level of individual undertaking there should be a works council or a similar body where matters concerning the daily management of the organization can be dealt with. I want to say in passing that I am pleased that the commission recommended this. I am looking forward to the legislation that is going to result from that.

However, the cornerstone of the system remains the fact that the workers themselves should be free to create the form of a representative organization which they themselves prefer. If they were to be coerced by their employers, this could be disastrous. If they were to be coerced by the Government into adopting a particular line of action and not the one they prefer, that would—to put it mildly—also be disastrous.

Next, we can consider what the Wiehahn Commission had to say about two cardinal principles: Who may organize and how they may organize.

†These two principles underlie the legislation before us. On the subject of who may organize and who may belong to registered trade unions, the commission came down very clearly in favour of the admission of Black workers as workers, not as people classified according to section 10 of the Urban Areas Act and not as people who happen to come from certain parts of the country where constitutional development is at certain stages, but Black people as workers to be admitted to the registered unions and the industrial conciliation system.

Hon. members have read the report and I need not quote at length. However, there is a telling passage in paragraph 3.32, and I quote—

Is the hon. the Minister telling me that all these things that the Wiehahn Commission says are true of the Black man who lives in Durban and untrue of the Black man who lives in Kwa Mashu? Is he telling me that all these things apply to a Black man from Soweto, but do not apply to a Black man from Ga-Rankuwa or Babalegi? There is absolutely no logic in the Bill before us. What the hon. the Minister is seeking to do is to fit the very healthy sound economic arguments of the commission into the very unsound and illogical political framework of the NP.

The commission carefully examined and did not just pass over the question of commuters and migrants. The hon. the Minister knows this. It is spelt out on page after page of the report. The commission examined the position of commuters and migrants closely and found no grounds to exclude them. They particularly said that they would not exclude them, because the right to organize and associate was a moral right those workers ought to have. Not the commission, but the Government, has seen fit not to grant that. If it is for some transitory technical reason I say that this legislation should be withdrawn until we have overcome it However, if there is a reason why the man who lives in Kwa Mashu is not fit to be organized while the man who lives in Soweto is, we should like to hear about it.

The second great issue that is at stake here deals with the sort of structure. The question is who may organize and how may be organize. When we deal with how he may organize, the sort of structure the future union should take, the commission was equally clear in its findings. In paragraph 3.66, on page 29 of its report, the commission says that three approaches are possible, namely—

1. (i) permitting Black unions to register as such alongside unions for other races …
2. (ii) permitting the registration of mixed unions only …
3. (iii) permitting the registration of unions irrespective of the composition of their membership in race or colour (or sex).

Then, in paragraph 3.69, the commission goes on to say—

First of all, we all respect this commission. From all sides of the House words of praise have come for this commission. Secondly, this report represents the distilled wisdom of thousands of experts in the field of industrial relations. Thirdly, it represents, as the commission says, the vast weight of all the evidence it heard from employers, employees and others in South Africa. The commission also says this choice cannot be dictated by the State. However, what do we see? Along comes the Government and proceeds to dictate the choice. The hon. member for Houghton referred to the fact that there are a few of us left in the House who voted against the legislation of 1956. We then said to the Government that attempts to bind and to bend the economy of South Africa to suit the particular ideological purposes of NP politicians of the hustings would in the end fail.

There sits one of them over there.

Yes, there sits the hon. the Minister of Community Development, someone who was devastatingly eloquent in telling the Government that very true thing in 1956. So, the commission came along in this connection with the recommendation we find in paragraph 3.153.2. I quote—

Yet, in clause 3 and clause 5 of the Bill, we again find the Government with its old apartheid religion, still thrumming away in terms of the legislation put before us here this afternoon.

The Government is still trying to ensure that there will be apartheid in the trade unions, when every manager notes that to introduce race rivalry into industrial relations is to ask for trouble. If you ask me which of these two great shortcomings in the Bill is the more serious, I am not so sure. However, even the definition of an “employee” is perhaps not as serious as the insistence on maintaining apartheid within the trade union movement. I have been brought up listening to hon. members representing the NP and NP thought telling me how desperately dangerous it is to let Black people into trade unions because then there would be competition and undercutting. I have never accepted that. However, if there is a chance of competition and undercutting it comes when one forces people to sit in separate racial unions. It does not come when one allows trade unionists themselves to decide, as the commission has said they should decide, who will be admitted to their trade union and how they will organize them.

The proposals in the report are clear and enlightened. They are made by enlightened and experienced South Africans. They are consistent with the views of most employers in South Africa and of many, many unions. They are in accord with belief and practice in the Western democratic free enterprise nations, tried and proven in practice. No wonder they were greeted, when they were published, with a great wave of relief and optimism. No wonder that South Africa’s shares rose everywhere. To some extent the shares literally rose. However, they especially rose in the sense that a wide spectrum of observers became quite persuaded that the nonsense of enforced racial separation and the injustice of discriminatory provisions against Black workers were at last to be abolished. Hard on the heels of the Wiehahn report came the White Paper. Looking back now with hindsight one can see that it was carefully drafted in order to enable the Government to ditch the Wiehahn proposals and their essential features. Though, at the time, one did not realize just how far into cynicism the Government was going to plunge.

Paragraph 6.21 of the White Paper is of particular importance because it introduces the concept of permanent and temporary workers without making any attempt to define these terms. Only when the explanatory memorandum on the Bill itself appeared did we realize that the intention was to exclude, from trade union rights, all frontier commuters and all migrants on the grounds that they are temporary, whilst the man who has section 10(l)(a), (b) or (c) qualifications is permanent, a proposition devoid of any sort of logical basis whatever. It is an astounding piece of cynicism and deception. The distinction between a temporary and permanent worker can, in certain circumstances, be valid and important, and it could in some sense have been made the basis of the legislation. We could at least have discussed something reasonable to distinguish a worker who is permanent, i.e. a worker with an open-time contract who is going to work for his employer as long as it suits them both, and a fixed-time contract worker who is only working for six months and will then go away. That makes sense, but that is not what we are told. We are told that anyone who lives in Kwa Mashu is, for that reason, a temporary worker, even when it is perfectly apparent that he is not.

Is there no one on that side of the House who has ever managed a business? How do those hon. members think that peace is going to be preserved on the workshop floor when a worker from Atteridgeville, say, can have full trade union rights while his neighbour at the same workbench, doing the same work, with the same skill and at the same pay, is denied them on the grounds that he comes from Babalegi? What sort of harmony is that going to make for, do those hon. members think? It has been a remarkable achievement that over the years of the operation of the 1956 legislation the Black unions did not bleed to death, for I remember the hon. the Minister of Labour of that day saying that he was not going to kill or destroy the Black unions, but was merely going to let them bleed to death. What is remarkable is that they have not bled to death. They have remained alive, albeit on a small scale, they have remained responsible, they have co-operated with the registered unions and they have co-operated with the employers. That has gone on over this long period of time, and yet here we have the Government coming along and seeking to make distinctions between different present-day members of those unions, and this is bound to introduce confusion and trouble.

I should like to quote, from the commission’s report, the last two sentences of paragraph 3.63.3 on page 29 because I think these words are particularly telling. Various reasons are given why migrants—it is migrants who are under discussion—should be admitted as employees—

That is a very telling phrase, and the very least that the Government owes to the working people and the country, if the Government is not going to pay any attention to what the commission says there, is to say why.

Now I come to that other great issue about workers organizing themselves in the way they want to organize themselves and not being forced into apartheid patterns. In that respect the hon. the Minister has really treated his commissioners with contempt. I have quoted what they said. They said that this must be left to the workers to sort out for themselves. Every writer or speaker of stature on this subject—everyone I know of, at least—has said the same, but no, the Government will tell the workers how they are to organize because, in the words that became familiar to me in the 1950s when the last legislation was being introduced, they know what is good for them.

I have not said much …

We are glad you admit it.

I have referred, only in passing, to two provisions of the Bill, and I only referred in passing to the National Manpower Commission and the industrial court. My reason for not having spoken at length about these is that I can see no objection to them. That is not to say, however, that it is not possible to have a debate about the details, and that can be done in the Committee Stage. But one will not, in particular, be able to judge the National Manpower Commission until it has existed for some time and until one has seen how it performs. By all means let us have these things. They can do no harm and may even do considerable good.

Industrial relations is a facet of our economic life. It is a most important facet and is clearly destined to become vital in the years ahead. Industrial relations may well be the central theme of our political life in the decades to come. The hon. the Minister’s commission has offered him a model founded on justice, developed by intelligence and experience and tried and proven in practice. He has taken the recommendations of his commission, however, and he has distorted them into a recipe for confusion, jealousy, inefficiency and strife, and he has done all this, as far as I can see, for no reason other than the fear of losing a few votes to the HNP.

Right.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note how the hon. members of the official Opposition continually succeed in shaking all the feathers from a pillow, after which the members of the House, who have a more positive approach, have to put those feathers back again. It is also very obvious to me that the hon. member for Parktown had prepared his speech before he listened to the Second Reading speech by the hon. the Minister. Of course, he could not deviate from the speech he had prepared in advance. It is obvious that he got bogged down in the definition of “employee”, and never looked beyond the first part of that definition. The hon. the Minister conceded that there would be cases, for example the commuters from Kwa Mashu, and also others, who would have to be taken into account. For that very reason we have the definition of “employee” contained in paragraph (b). It provides that the Minister has certain powers also to classify certain people as employees in certain cases. That takes care of the problem to which the hon. member devoted three quarters of his speech.

He also stated—and in that respect I am in agreement with him—that a worker had the right to organize. In this regard he referred to certain paragraphs in the report of the Wiehahn Commission. However, he committed to refer to paragraph 3.52 in which it is stated—

That gives one the impression that this is a case of “people who live in glass houses must not throw little rocks”. After listening to the hon. members for Parktown and Houghton, one is not surprised that that party came fourth in the by-election in Randfontein. If the voters of Randfontein had had to listen to the discordant notes that have come from that side of the House, one would not have been able to understand how they could have polled even 600 votes.

However, I do think the hon. the Minister must have listened to the rest of the debate with a certain measure of satisfaction. I should like to tell him that he must know that as Eugene Marais put it: “In elke roos ’n dowwe blaar; in elke lag ’n sug van pyn, en hy wat laaste lag, is skoppensboer”—and that is the hon. member for Houghton. Take, for example, her approach to the industrial court.

†I should like the hon. member for Houghton to listen to this point.

I am listening to every word.

She argued that the industrial court has only judicial functions and no legislative functions whatsoever. I would like her to consult the hon. member for Groote Schuur or the hon. member for Sandton on this point Let them instruct her on the doctrine of stare decisis. It is only in countries like France where there is a code de Napoleon where there is an absolute legal situation.

*Of course the courts have law-making powers. This is an elementary fact.

When we take stock of the labour situation in the Republic, the important aspect of it is that peace prevails in the field of labour and that there are very few strikes and a very small number of work stoppages in South Africa. This fact has to be attributed to four factors, namely in the first place a loyal workers’ corps in South Africa; in the second place, a responsible employers’ organization; in the third place a sympathetic Government; and in the fourth place an Industrial Conciliation Act that creates machinery in the labour milieu that is without equal in the entire world. But now the hon. the Minister states in Empact—

One of the most severe tests of an established and dynamic society is its capacity to adapt itself to the changing patterns of time.

That is precisely what is happening with this legislation which follows in the wake of the Wiehahn Report.

The report immediately strikes one on account of its indisputable logic and its sound and motivated argumentation. There are various chapters which one could refer to, but let us consider the chapter on freedom of association. One gets an idea there of how profound has been the research into the conditions in all parts of the world as far as this concept is concerned.

With regard to the industrial court too, the extent to which the commission conducted research into conditions in all parts of the world, is obvious. It appears from paragraphs 4.8 to 4.12 of the report that the commission conducted research into this type of industrial court in European countries, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, the USA, Canada, Malaysia, Singapore, and Trinidad.

With reference to the Bill, I should like to dwell on two concepts which it deals with. The first of these is unfair labour practices and the second concept is the industrial court.

It is a very good thing that no effort is made in the Bill to define unfair labour practices, for such a definition would, in the nature of things, be restrictive. In the event of a dispute that neither the industrial council nor the conciliation board can settle, a potential complainant should be free to obtain finality in a simple, inexpensive and expeditious way in the industrial court.

It might perhaps be argued that this would restrict the Minister in the exercize of his functions in terms of section 43 since he is not authorized to decide whether or not there has been an unfair labour practice in a specific case until such time as an industrial court has given a decision in the matter. This is not really a problem, since clause 13 refers to an alleged unfair labour practice. The Minister is therefore able to restore the status quo ante pending the decision of the industrial court.

Regardless of what the detractors of the Wiehahn report and of the hon. the Minister might say, I should like to state unequivocally that if one considers the definition of “unfair labour practice”, read in conjunction with the provisions of clauses 8 and 12 and section 43, it is obvious that no conscientious worker need have any fear that his security of livelihood or labour would be prejudiced or jeopardized in any way by the new legislation. Surely it would be the primary duty of the industrial court, for the sake of industrial peace, to maintain in tact the existing labour pattern in its existing happy setting. Moreover, the idea of consensus with regard to industrial councils must also be emphasized. In this regard I am also referring to clauses 10 and 11.

This is the type of orderly progress the NP, which is always the friend of the worker, is constantly initiating and establishing.

I now come to the industrial court itself. It should be emphasized that what is envisaged with an industrial court, is that legal action rather than strikes should be encouraged. All possible means should first be employed to prevent a conflict. In this connection I think employers should devote themselves afresh to the following objectives: In the first place, that the senior executive bodies, in particular, should participate more enthusiastically in a system of industrial relations. In the second place, that the top management should create an atmosphere that is conducive to the development of sound industrial relations. In the third place, that employers should make a thorough study of labour legislation. In the fourth place, that managers should undergo intensive training in the control and management of labour relations. In the fifth place, that trade unions should confidently be allowed to perform their task and that in the field of organized labour, the committee system should be enthusiastically promoted, even on a regional basis.

It is essential to note that once a dispute has been referred to the industrial court, the initiative is no longer in the hands of the employer and the employee. It therefore remains essential that disputes should be avoided and that consultation should continually take place between the management and employees, as regards both White and Black workers. When the dispute arrives at the industrial court, however, it is essential that this court should not only take cognizance of juridical considerations, but that it should also observe equity as a guiding principle. In the field of labour, in particular, the “law of equity” is of cardinal importance.

It is to be welcomed—and here I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria East—that consideration is being given to the appointment of the chairman of the existing industrial tribunal to assist the president of the new court. In that event, in particular, the court would take a very close look at unjustifiable or unfair changes in the established structure of an employer’s labour corps, or of other actions that threaten industrial peace or could lead to dissatisfaction.

Furthermore, the industrial court will also investigate and hear cases of unfair discharge from service, unjustified changes in conditions of service, underpayment of wages, unfair treatment, and other grievances.

It is to be welcomed that it is being envisaged that the procedure should be simple, that the costs should be low and that there should be the least possible delay with regard to the verdict to be given.

Finally, it is a hopeful sign that so much progress is being made with the committee system. If one refers to the report, one will find that the 27 Black trade unions that will now come under effective control, only have a maximum of 70 000 members, whereas, according to paragraph 3.19 of the report, there are 764 000 employees in 2 928 works committees and liaison committees. That proves only one thing, viz. that this system works well and should be expanded and encouraged. The close relationship between a specific management and the employees on the work floor, has to be basically sound, and, as in the case of married life in a bedroom, the relations have to remain sound. If a dispute were to leak out there and reach the ears of outsiders, even though it might be sympathetic outsiders, the chances of restoring good relations would have suffered a setback.

Circumstances such as those quoted in paragraph 3.9 of the report, namely the in limine dictum in the Bosman case, that a works committee has no locus standi to act on behalf of workers, should be eliminated.

Let all of us, the Government, employers and employees, co-operate, as the commission ideally puts it, “to maintain and promote industrial peace”. Changes and developments should not be allowed to disrupt the peaceful interrelations between employer and employee or among employees themselves. Consultation and co-operation between employer, employee and trade union before the introduction of new developments into the workshop, are to be encouraged.

May this legislation, as it is going to be adapted in accordance with future reports of the Wiehahn Commission, also be envied by the rest of the world as has been the case with our legislation in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I shall comment on some of the aspects dealt with by the hon. member for Brakpan during the course of my speech, but I primarily want to add my voice to the general feeling of disappointment in regard to the very limited scope of this Bill, in relation to the welcome and far-reaching recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission. Here we had an enlightened commission’s report and we had a clear acceptance on the part of the Government. This really produced one of those rare moments when there was some hope in one field at least, namely the very important field of labour relations, that this country was now set on a course of shedding all the old, out-dated and unnatural restrictions on our labour and manpower resources, and of moving into an era of enlightenment with regard to our labour policies and labour legislation. We know there have been very high hopes and expectations amongst workers and management around the country, and also amongst observers outside South Africa, that with the Government’s declared acceptance of most of the recommendations of the commission it has seen the light in regard to an enlightened labour policy in this country. It was hoped that the new labour charter, which one anticipated would be produced, would have been in keeping with the realities of the South African situation and would have been a charter which would stabilize labour management relations and would recognize the right of all South Africans in the labour field to participate in collective bargaining and to associate themselves with and join trade unions in this country.

There has been criticism because we are opposing this Bill. It is because our attitude is one of profound disappointment at the fact that this Bill to be a far cry from the expectations I have outlined. It is very deeply regretted that the Government, and the hon. the Minister in particular, is missing a very great opportunity to bring about meaningful change in the labour field in South Africa.

Unfortunately one must say that this disappointing attitude on the part of the government is in keeping with the pattern of the Government’s general reaction to the dilemma in which it finds itself and in which it is going to find itself more and more as the years go by, when it finds that the sheer realities and practicalities of the South African situation clash with the political ideology that the Government adopts. I think this is the dilemma. Faced with the choice between these two considerations the Government inevitably and consistently opts for the ideology and twists and bends the practical considerations to fit in with it. I think that this is the problem one sees in so many instances, for example when the Government which, momentarily at any rate, seems to be moving in a reasonable and a practical direction, is all of a sudden stopped because it cannot bridge the confines of its own ideology. In this instance Government members are in possession of a report from their own commission of experts, a commission which, after two years of extensive research and deliberation, has made specific recommendations, particularly in regard to the two matters specifically referred to in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton, i.e. the question that South Africans of all races should be able to participate in trade unions and in collective bargaining, and that racially mixed unions should be allowed to operate. On these two specific aspects the Wiehahn Commission was very definite in its recommendations in the reports on the research it had undertaken. However, instead of accepting those recommendations, so well argued by the Wiehahn Commission, the Government introduces a Bill which effectively excludes the mass of our Black workers from the inherent right to involve themselves in collective bargaining and in trade union activities, and which also disallows mixed trade unions.

It would seem that by the introduction of this Bill the Government has tried to find a formula to adapt the commission’s recommendations to the Government’s political ideology. I think this is the reason for the weakness of this Bill, and this is why I believe that the hon. the Minister has missed a very great opportunity indeed of bringing into practice in South Africa a charter which would be realistic and enlightened. I believe that as a result of following this policy, of trying to find such a formula, the Government, instead of producing a Bill which ought to be a charter for industrial peace and harmony in this country, has in fact introduced a Bill which may well embody a recipe for discontent and friction in the labour sphere. We on this side of the House regret this very much.

The exclusion of migrant workers, and those who are called frontier commuters, from an inherent right to participate in trade unions, is dangerous and impractical and is, in my belief, based on fallacious reasoning. It is totally at variance, as I have said, with the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission.

When he introduced the Bill this afternoon, the hon. the Minister indicated that he would have to deal specifically with commuter workers in various parts of South Africa and he would have to declare them employees. I want him to apply his mind for a moment specifically to the situation which exists in Natal, and in particular in the city of Durban, at the present time. What is the history of the Black workers who are involved in the industries in and around Durban? Initially, with the industrialization of Durban in the pre-war years, the Black workers in Durban were accommodated in premises or barracks in the Somtseu Road area of Durban, the Baumanville area of Durban and in the centre of Durban. During the war years there was an influx of workers who settled in the Cato Manor area. After the war, and with the change of Government, in view of Government policy the Government decided that these people should be removed from the centre of Durban—and, incidentally, this is where they had acquired their section 10 rights—to a more remote area. Negotiations then took place with the Natal Estates to acquire a piece of land which is now known as the Township of Kwa Mashu, which lies to the north of Durban. At that stage it was perhaps an unfortunate siting because the industrial side of Durban was to the south of Durban. This in itself involved those Black workers in a good deal of difficulty and problems in regard to transport and getting to their places of employment on time. Nevertheless it was Government policy which decreed that they should be moved to the area of Kwa Mashu. Kwa Mashu was then included in the municipal area of Durban. So the Blacks lived in Kwa Mashu, and if they had section 10 rights, they retained those section 10 rights. Then there was an extension of Government policy, and the Government then developed, to the south of Durban, what is now the Umlazi Township. This was done by the taking over of the Umlazi Mission Reserve which became what is now known as the Township of Umlazi. Therefore in Durban we have these two great Black townships, Kwa Mashu to the north and Umlazi to the south, and this is where the major portion of the manpower of Durban’s industries is situated. For a long time there were discussions about what the future of Kwa Mashu was going to be, i.e. whether it was going to remain a part of, Durban or whether it was going to be included in kwaZulu. We know that at present both Kwa Mashu and Umlazi are included in what we know as kwaZulu, in fact what is euphemistically called the self-governing state of kwaZulu. So these two major townships are situated in kwaZulu. This, of course, has been a convenient way for the Government, for statistical purposes, to say that it has removed Black people from the White area of Durban and that they are, in fact, accommodated along the periphery of Durban. This, however, is the area from where the masses of Durban’s manpower resources are drawn. As far as I know the only Black areas of any note in and around Durban, areas which are not part of the kwaZulu situation but are in a White area, are the townships of Lamontville and Chesterville. It is interesting to look at the figures of the people involved. For example, if one looks at the population figures of Kwa Mashu, one sees that there are over 150 000 people living in Kwa Mashu. In the township of Umlazi the population is also over 150 000, according to the latest figures available. If one compares these figures with the figures for the other two townships I have mentioned, and which are outside the kwaZulu complex, we find that Lamontville has a population of only 25 696 and Chesterville with only 11 162.

Therefore it is quite clear that the mass of Durban’s industrial workers will find themselves in a position different from a minority who fortuitously happen to live in areas which are not excluded by the definitions in the Bill before the House at the present time. This is the present situation, and one wonders what happens to existing trade unions. Will they have to sit down and go through lists to try to establish what the addresses are of their individual members, and to exclude those who happen to live in the so-called self-governing area of kwaZulu, i.e. in the townships of Kwa Mashu or Umlazi. Will they have to divide their membership accordingly? If one looks at the situation of peace and understanding in the industrial and labour fields, one wonders how the Government cannot recognize that this very situation is bound to cause uncertainty, unsettlement and friction within those groups. I agree that the hon. the Minister made it clear this afternoon that these people are to be declared employed employees, but what the effect of this is going to be in Durban is that the hon. the Minister will be compelled, if he is sincere about all this, to give virtually the whole labour force there trade union rights and rights of collective bargaining, because virtually that entire labour force in the city of Durban are going to frontier commuters. The hon. the Minister is going to have to apply his mind to that because considerable numbers, in fact tens of thousands of people, will be involved, a situation which really makes nonsense of this entire provision. I believe that it is this sort of operation of Government policies in other areas that lead to these workers being frontier commuters. It is not the fault of the workers, because they were ordinary people working in a certain community, one of the great industrial areas of one of South Africa’s great cities. Due to the implementation of Government policy by other Ministers and other departments, however, it was decreed that the localities in which these ordinary people resided were to have a different status and were to become part of what is called a self-governing State. This was not the fault of the workers, but because of that situation they are now going to be penalized, in terms of this Bill, as opposed to those Black workers who happen, fortuitously, to live in the smaller townships which are not part of the kwaZulu set-up. I believe this is totally unfair and totally unjust, and I do not believe it will contribute to harmony in the South African labour field.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark compared this situation with the situation in Europe when he was dealing with commuters and with migrant workers. The hon. member for Brakpan quoted what the report of the Wiehahn Commission had to say about the situation in Sweden where, it is claimed, they have reached the stage where the local population of workers, as “landsburgers”, were almost treated on the same basis as migrant workers. I want to ask the hon. member for Brakpan and also the hon. the Minister whether they can really say that the Zulu who now, because of Government attitudes, finds himself living within five miles of the industrial complex in Durban where he works, in a self-governing State, is he not a “landsburger”? Why should he be discriminated against?

Look at paragraph (b).

Why should this man’s position fortuitously be different from that of his fellow Zulu who happens to live in another township that is not part of the kwaZulu complex?

Have you seen the definition in paragraph (b)?

Yes. That is the very point I am referring to. If that hon. member is going to rely on paragraph (b), it means that he is going to have exemptions involving tens of thousands of workers of the major labour force of the city of Durban. It therefore makes nonsense out of this whole piece of legislation. One wonders, too, what the reasons are for the Government differentiating between migrant workers, commuters and other workers. What are the tangible reasons for doing so? If one looks at the report of the Wiehahn Commission, it is obvious that the commission did not dodge this issue. It recognized that this was an issue on which there would be debate and perhaps dispute and differences of opinion. The Wiehahn Commission went into the whole issue of migrant workers and commuters very fully indeed and considered all the views, including those views of people who are opposed to the fact that there should not be differentiation between these various groups.

It looked and listened—it is set out in the report—to reasons advanced about there being a swamping of these migrant workers of the unions, to reasons why there would be abuses perpetrated by these people for political purposes. It also listened to reasons why the people concerned would be different, because generally they would have a lower standard of education, and would be inexperienced and incapable of operating in a sophisticated industrial relations system. This is all set out in the report of the Wiehahn Commission. These were the views expressed by those in opposition, by those who did not want migrant workers and commuters to have trade union rights and rights of collective bargaining. The commission rejected that point of view and argued the rejection very clearly and very carefully throughout I want to quote from page 22 of the report of the commission where the following is said in paragraph 3.46—

This was a rejection by the commission of this whole attitude. The commission went on, as has been pointed out by other hon. members, to deal with the proposal that there should perhaps be a phasing-in process. The commission dismissed that argument as well. It dismissed it in specific terms because, and I quote (para. 3.56)—

The commission’s attitude was that because this was the beginning of a new era it was highly desirable that Blacks from the start should be included in this process. There were other reasons advanced that should be of interest to hon. members in this House who are for ever looking at the situation of agitation and stability in South Africa. The commission went on to say that, and I quote from paragraph 3.57.2—

It is a logical argument If they are denied ordinary opportunities of participating and collective bargaining, this would perhaps be an encouragement for a large portion of our labour force to involve themselves in underground activities. Those are very cogent reasons. I wonder why the hon. the Minister has seen fit to ignore or to reject these aspects of the commission’s report. In looking at this problem, the commission examined the effect a limitation on freedom of association would have in industrial relations at the level of the enterprise concerned. The commission says, and I again want to quote (para. 3.59.1)—

It also says—

It is again a specific argument relating to a matter dealing with the operation of the enterprise itself and the attitude, within the enterprise, of various categories of workers.

In a further argument advanced in rejecting the point of view that there should be this differentiation, the commission found that the envisaged restriction would have a number of discriminatory and inequitable results. For example, it said that all Black workers are free at the present time to join trade unions, admittedly trade unions which are unregistered. It nevertheless said that migrants, permanent residents and commuters are, at the present time, able to participate in these unions. To exclude them now would be, in the words of the commission, to revoke a freedom they had enjoyed in the past.

The commission also pointed to the incompatibility of these restrictions with international standards and guiding principles. The commission came very strongly with the view that this sort of differentiation should not be present. I therefore again wonder why, in introducing this legislation which does contain some advances and some good provisions, but which falls far short of the hopes and expectations we had, the hon. the Minister has seen fit to ignore the very strong recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission on this very important issue. We find that in matters of this kind it is disappointing that this legislation does ignore these vital issues referred to by the Wiehahn Commission, and for that reason we have moved our amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Musgrave raised a hue and cry about the allegedly limited implementation in the Bill of the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission. The same complaint was voiced by the hon. members for Houghton and Parktown. However, I want to allege that in the first place, they did not listen properly to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister.

No, we said we should look at the Bill and not at the speech.

I want to allege, secondly, that they have not read the Bill properly in the light of the Wiehahn report. [Interjections.] I should like to quote from an article in The Natal Witness of 29 May 1979, an article in which the chairman of the Pietermaritzburg Chamber of Industries, Mr. Tony Hess, is quoted as follows—

The article goes on to quote Mr. Hess as follows—

This is important. The report clearly states that the recommendations cannot be implemented all at once. They will have to be introduced systematically. It is emphasized throughout that the most important aspect and the most important part of labour legislation is to bring about industrial peace. What we find in this Bill is merely the things which should be regarded as priority No. 1, things which have to be done now. Surely it was stated categorically that further guidance was necessary. It even says so in the White Paper, a document which hon. members who are objecting now make such a fuss about. It is made clear there that further research, guidance and advice will have to be obtained from and through the Manpower Commission in order to implement the things which are in fact recommended by the Wiehahn Commission and have been accepted by the Government.

Now my question is whose interests are actually being promoted by hon. members who are making such a fuss now. It cannot be the White labourer. Surely that is clear. They are not showing the slightest sympathy with the concern which is naturally felt by the White worker today. It cannot be the employer either, for surely the employer does not want to be faced all of a sudden with a situation in which only the Black labour force is happy, and the White labour force is suddenly militant My next question is: Can it be the Black worker? Once again I say that it cannot. There are several aspects in this Bill of which hon. members have conceded that they are positive and will benefit the Black worker. Nevertheless, those same hon. members are opposing the Second Reading of the Bill.

They are only being stupid.

If we can create confidence in this country between organized labour and the organized employers’ corps, we shall have achieved our aim. If we confidently and systematically implement the recommendations, in a meaningful and correct way, we shall in fact be giving effect to the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission.

Hon. members had a great deal to say about the principle of freedom of association. However, we should also have regard to the basic premise of the commission, which is stated by the commission at the very beginning of its report. I am referring to paragraph 1.19.1, in which the commission says that the basic premises are, firstly, freedom of choice, which is a product of the free market economy, based on individual freedom in the marketplace. However, it goes on to say, secondly, that Government control over the conduct of participants in the market is accepted in its broadest sense, and it is emphasized that the participation should as far as possible be free from interference. However, it is clear that there has to be control within the limits of which the freedom has to be exercised. Thirdly, the very important statement is made that industrial peace is regarded as the cornerstone of the commission’s recommendations.

When we look at paragraph 3.43 and the subsequent paragraphs, we see that the commission says the following in connection with the principle of freedom of association—

Then it goes on to say that this definition of freedom of association is enshrined in the International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 87 of 1948. In dealing with this problem of migrant workers, and in this case also of border commuters, the commission points out that nowhere in the world has a solution been found to this problem. The International Labour Organization has been attempting since its inception to resolve this situation. The commission also points out that in several countries, including France and West Germany, restrictions are imposed upon migrant workers in respect of considerations such as nationality, duration of residence or of service, and reputation or conduct. Separate trade unions are even created for migrant workers. It is further pointed out— and the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has also quoted this—that there are no legal restrictions in the USA and in New Zealand, and in spite of this, agricultural workers in the USA are not covered by the National Labour Relations Act. This means that migrant workers on farms cannot be organized at all. New Zealand, too, has absolutely no provision for trade union rights for migrant workers in a few of the bilateral labour agreements with Fiji, Tonga and West Samoa. These are countries which are supposed to be free, legally speaking. After discussing all these matters, the commission nevertheless comes to the conclusion and recommends that there should be full freedom of association, without qualification.

It is important to note, too, that this finding was made with a majority of seven to five, seven commissioners being half of the total number of members of the commission. The Government, too, fully accepted the principle of freedom of association in the White Paper. It is also laid down as the basis for trade union membership.

The hue and cry which is being raised is concerned with the fact that while the Government has introduced legislation at an early stage to implement things, now that they have become politically practicable, which deserve urgent priority and which the hon. members opposite have been fussing about for years, we are not doing the additional things which the commission recommends and which the hon. members never even advocated in the past. I think it is important that the proposed Manpower Commission be afforded an opportunity to study these matters further, to make recommendations and to give the hon. the Minister some guidance as to how this can be implemented. In this connection, the hon. the Minister has said that it is already clear to him that he will have to make certain adjustments in respect of border commuters. It must also be borne in mind, of course, that these people who are actually the subject of the debate this afternoon are in any event not excluded from bargaining power under the committee system.

While I am on the subject, I just want to refer briefly to the provisions of clause 4. The proposed new section 4B(1) provides that—

The proposed new section 4B(2) accordingly creates an offence in this connection. The recommendation and opinion of the commission in its report is that the works and liaison committees should be involved in a more unitary system in the labour set-up. In my opinion, too, it does not make sense to provide, in effect, that it would constitute an offence for people from the works and liaison committees to liaise with trade unions, which could actually be regarded as the ideal. For this reason, an amendment to this effect is printed in my name on the Order Paper.

As far as job reservation is concerned, I believe it is necessary to say a few words to put this in perspective. Job reservation per se has never been a principle of this party or Government. It has been a method of protecting workers in a meaningful way. Whether it is a shortsighted method is a debatable point However, the one thing we must be quite clear about is that job reservation as such has never been a principle. Meaningful protection of workers, on the other hand, will always remain a principle.

It is never a good principle.

Sir, meaningful protection of workers is always a good principle. The Manpower Commission will have to give a very strong lead, as is made quite clear in the White Paper too. It is going to be a task of very great magnitude. Therefore I just want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that in paragraph 2.45.6 of the commission’s report, it recommends that a strong professional secretariate be created for the commission. In paragraph 5.2.2 of the White Paper, this recommendation is also accepted “for implementation in accordance with the usual procedures”. For this reason, I find it rather a pity that this Bill only refers to secretarial and clerical assistance. I should like the hon. the Minister to give an indication, if possible, that he will in fact direct this assistance in such a way that it may be available to the commission in a really strong secretariat. In my opinion, occasional assistance is not enough to enable this commission to perform its task properly.

Perhaps I should also refer briefly to the provisions of clause 10, in terms of which membership of the industrial councils can be withheld from new trade unions wishing to be admitted by the veto of a single party in that industrial council. I can see the merit and the underlying idea of this as a transitional measure to prevent people from feeling unhappy and worried at this stage, but on the other hand, it would not make sense to leave the matter at that. For this reason, I have an instruction and an amendment on the Order Paper in this connection, too, in terms of which provision is made for an appeal, and I should like to suggest that they are meaningful and that I hope the hon. the Minister will consider them. I shall move them in due course.

Finally, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of telling the hon. the Minister that this is indeed a meaningful point of departure for the implementation of the recommendations of the commission. I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on a meaningful and positive White Paper which takes account of the realities of the day and in which the Wiehahn Commission also pointed out in principle that they pay no attention whatsoever to political implications, but that the people who take decisions will in fact have to consider such implications. Accordingly, I want to ask all hon. members of the House, as did the hon. member for Pretoria East, to give their support to things which really are positive and to co-operate in implementing them. Let us try to reassure people who are worried, so that we may gradually start to implement the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission in full in a meaningful way.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Randburg. He has the support of this side of the House to a certain extent in that there are amendments on the Order Paper concerned with two of the rather unpleasant facets of this Bill, namely sections of clause 4 and sections of clause 10. I shall deal with those matters a little later in my speech.

Firstly, however, I want to refer to a particular matter raised by the hon. member for Durban North. We found the attitude expressed by the NRP a little extraordinary to say the least. After looking at the Bill, they weighed up the advantages, accruing as a result of the Bill, against the disadvantages, and decided that it was certainly a step in the right direction. I must say that I am unclear as to the attitude of the NRP vis-à-vis trade unions. So, if I may, I want to read an extract from a speech—and I will tell the hon. members who made it a little later on—and then ask the hon. member for Durban North, or any other member of the NRP, whether he agrees with it. The extract reads as follows—

Well, that section of it is fine, but do the hon. members of the NRP, firstly, believe that trade unionism has outlived its usefulness?

Make your own speech.

The hon. member tells me that I must make my own speech. I am, however, going to quote from this particular speech because I think it is very important as far as the attitudes of hon. members of the NRP are concerned. The speech was made by Mr. Oberholzer, who is the sole representative of the New Republican Party in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal.

No, he is not. He is the sole representative of the New Republic Party.

All right, I stand corrected. He is the sole representative of the New Republic Party in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. He also represents them in the city council where he works hand-inglove with the Nationalists from day to day. That is the whole reason why Johannesburg has a Nationalist mayor today. In his speech, delivered on 15 May 1979 in the Provincial Council, Mr. Oberholzer categorically said that he believed that trade unions had outlived their usefulness. I think it would probably be worthwhile quoting some of the things he has said. He said—

Could I ask those hon. members whether they believe it should be done in a different way?

Get on with your speech.

I want to quote further from his speech—

Is that correct? He says that if one hands over any sort of trade union rights to unskilled Black workers, one is running into trouble.

He did not say that.

Did he not? Let me quote further to these hon. members—

Do those hon. members agree with that statement that if one hands over trade union rights to Black people, one is going to have economic warfare, as it were? Is this what they are saying?

We would not give you a nomination even if you went on your knees.

When it comes to those hon. members expressing their policy on labour matters, I find them very difficult to understand.

The hon. member for Durban North admitted that it was a matter of principle whether or not migrants and frontier commuters should be excluded from trade union membership. He said that it was an important matter of principle.

To be considered.

He says it should be considered. He is prepared to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, when there is a major matter of principle involved with which he disagrees. I cannot understand this at all. So with respect to the hon. members on my left, I find it very difficult indeed to understand this.

Why respect?

The hon. member for Sandton asks why I say “with respect”. Perhaps he is quite right, because I cannot respect this viewpoint. I think they have done a major disservice to their party. I would actually like to hear what the labour policy of the NRP is.

Did you not listen to me?

I listened to that hon. member, but I also read the speech of Mr. Oberholzer in the Transvaal Provincial Council, and so great is the divergence and discrepancy between them that I wonder what the official policy of that party is. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members are interrupting too much.

It would be very nice to know. Perhaps a later speaker in this debate will be able to tell us exactly what their policy is with regard to labour matters and whether or not they are going to repudiate what Mr. Oberholzer has said. [Interjections.] I specifically want to ask the party on my left whether or not they repudiate Mr. Oberholzer when he says that he does not believe that trade union rights should be given to Black people. [Interjections.] I shall make the whole speech available to those hon. members during the dinner break if they want to see it. They can look at it, and if they do not agree with it I should like them to repudiate Mr. Oberholzer. If they do agree with it, however, I should like them to say so.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Umhlanga can make his speech later on.

I should now like to go on to various aspects of this Bill. In company with many other hon. members in these benches I want to express my extreme disappointment at the fact that the hon. the Minister has not been courageous enough to really put into operation many of the suggestions put forward by the Wiehahn Commission. I do not know whether they had the Randfontein by-election in mind, or whether they felt that at this stage they had to project a fairly “verkramp” picture to South Africa, but certainly one can only say that this Bill is very disappointing. The hon. member for Randburg, whom I see has now left the Chamber, said that we are dealing with matters of extreme urgency, things that had to be done right now. He said it is important that they should be done immediately and that this Bill is the first step. Perhaps this is so, but let us analyse the situation. For example, let us take clause 10. I think it is very important that we look very carefully at clause 10. Clause 10 reads as follows—and here I should like some help from the hon. the Minister—

In other words, am I correct in saying that if a Black trade union, registered or unregistered, wishes to participate in industrial council negotiations, or in the work of an industrial council, it can be precluded from doing so by the vote of one White union which might already be in the industrial council? Is that correct?

Let us put it the other way round. If it is a White one, it could be barred from entering.

Quite so. I get the hon. the Minister’s point.

The reply is “yes”.

Thank you, but the hon. the Minister must be realistic. He knows perfectly well that as far as the majority of industrial councils operating in South Africa at the moment are concerned, there are no Black unions participating.

Yes, but why do you choose that example?

Well, it is not a bad example. I must say that I am encouraged by the notice of instruction which has been put on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Randburg which indicates …

I can tell you now that I am going to accept it.

I am very pleased to hear that. Thank you. At least we are now making some progress. In other words, we are going to be able to discuss this at the Committee Stage as a result of this notice of instruction. Perhaps I should go a little further and say that as the Bill stands it was a most unwise thing to do, and when one realizes that the hon. the Minister is reconsidering this matter, one realizes that perhaps the Bill was put forward a little too precipitately.

“Half-baked” is the word.

The hon. member for Parktown has come through with the right phrase, viz. “half-baked”. [Interjections.] However, I do believe that there are many aspects of the Bill which really merit further consideration by the Government before we pass them in principle.

I come back to clause 4. Let us take a look at clause 4. Again there is an amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Randburg and which he will move in the Committee Stage, an amendment which has to do with relationships with unions, but let us analyse the clause as it stands.

That you can do in the Committee Stage.

No, because this is a matter of principle and we cannot do it in the Committee Stage. We deal with matters of principle in the Second Reading stage, and it is necessary to examine this very closely. Clause 4 introduces a proposed new section 4B into the principal Act. The proposed new section 4B reads—

We shall leave out the amendment which I presume the hon. the Minister is going to accept, because it is not often that amendments, put forward by the other side of the House, are not accepted. I quote further—

Why do you not come forward with your amendments, as you are entitled to do?

Why should we put forward amendments until we know exactly … [Interjections.]

Order! We cannot continue the discussion in this way. The hon. member must get on with his speech, but I shall allow the hon. the Minister to put a question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall proceed with my speech in accordance with your ruling. We have to argue the Bill as it stands, and as such it reads—

As hon. members in these benches have pointed out, there are thousands upon thousands of migrant workers and commuters who are going to be denied union membership at this stage by the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Randburg said that there was a possibility that ministerial exemption could be applied in cases like this, and he referred, for example, to the anomalies in Durban which the hon. member for Musgrave talked about. Does the hon. the Minister realize, however, that what he is going to have to do is to grant exemptions, by way of his signature, to something like 20% to 25% of our total labour force in South Africa?

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended earlier tonight I was discussing the situation with regard to clause 4 and clause 10 of the Bill. I am very gratified indeed that the hon. the Minister has indicated that he is going to accept the notice of instruction which appears on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Randburg. We shall therefore discuss the matter along these lines during the Committee Stage. This is very encouraging, because it is real progress, and I certainly feel very much better about that particular clause as a result of that.

Support the Bill now.

We are certainly not going to support the Bill. Having approached the hon. members sitting on my left during the dinner hour, it seems that they are not going to participate further in the Second Reading of this debate. We are therefore at this stage not going to be in the situation of hearing from them whether they will support or repudiate the speech made in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal by the hon….

Read the speech out to us.

With the limited time at my disposal, I am not likely to read that speech. [Interjections.] To repeat words that are so ridiculous in concept, would be wasting my time. [Interjections.] I offered them this speech, but they are not prepared to take advantage of my offer and read it.

I would say that the main points that one has to consider when one considers whether or not one should support this Bill in principle at Second Reading, are certainly the provisions in clause 1, which excludes from the definition of “employee” migrant workers and frontier commuters. This is probably the thing that upsets us in these benches more than anything else. If one is going to exclude these people, one is in difficulty in any industry if there are sections of that industry who are refused trade union rights, because no trade union can speak on behalf of those people. If one has the situation where there are people who do not have the machinery through which they can express opinions apart from liaison committees and the committees that were mentioned by the hon. member for Randburg—I think we all realize that they are inadequate—one is going to be in trouble. We believe that as an absolute minimum it is necessary for everybody to have those trade union rights, and if one is going to be able to participate as a member of a trade union, one should be able to participate on a matter of free choice in the union of one’s choice with whoever one wishes to associate oneself. One of our cardinal principles is freedom of association.

Our amendments to the Second Reading of this Bill set out our objections and our feelings towards the Bill very admirably. I would therefore support the speakers in these benches who have said that we shall vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I promise the hon. the Minister that I will not take up much time. There are just a few aspects I want to broach. When I look at the contributions from the Government side, it seems as if two arguments in particular have been advanced. The one argument concerns the practical problems of the implementation of the legislation. The hon. the Minister himself said that labour relations in South Africa must be patiently developed. The hon. member for Randburg said that this could not take place overnight. In my opinion, the objective is to introduce practical measures to ensure that labour peace prevails.

The second argument focused on matters of principle. These were concerned in particular with the question: What is the basis of labour bargaining in South Africa, or what should it be? I think this is the area in which this side of the House is experiencing something of a problem with the Government. The hon. the Minister himself said that one of the most important tasks of the Wiehahn Commission was to analyse the labour requirements of South Africa, to project them into the future and then to recommend how we could achieve our objectives in a peaceful way and how we could maintain labour peace while satisfying labour requirements in South Africa. This was one of their most important terms of reference. One of the most impressive speeches I have heard on this subject was the speech made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. In it, he gave a very objective and clear analysis of the labour requirements and the problems South Africa is going to face in future. I listened to it carefully.

Against the background of that speech by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, I must say this evening that I was somewhat surprised by the standpoint he adopted on industrial conciliation. One point that has consistently been made by the Government side—and I accept it as a valid one—is that one must take care that labour organizations or trade unions do not become a political instrument in the South African dispensation, because the moment this happens, we are in trouble. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark stressed this very strongly, while the hon. member for Randburg was also very emphatic on this point. The hon. members for Brakpan and Sasolburg discussed this and the hon. the Minister himself said that we must guard against it.

However, if we examine the whole question of labour peace and of stability of labour, there is a problem I want to put to the hon. the Minister. The problem concerns the question: What is a stable labourer? The hon. member for Houghton pointed this out very clearly with reference to a statement by Dr. Verwoerd. He said that a stable labourer was a person who regularly and systematically worked for the same employer, did his work well, was reliable, etc. Consequently this is a purely economic definition of what a labourer is. If the Government’s main objective is to bring about labour peace, I would expect that their attitude would be to assist stable labourers of this nature with their industrial conciliation. However, we have exactly the opposite here, because in terms of clause 1 of the Bill, the people who are defined as being qualified to participate in industrial conciliation are not judged on the basis of how long they have worked for a person or how stable they are as labourers. The question is whether they qualify on the basis of a political definition of their situation. This is the important point.

The criterion is section 10. Is the employee a section 10 labourer or not? I want to put it to the hon. Minister as follows: These concepts, such as section 10 and the question of whether the labourer enjoys permanence in the urban areas, really have nothing to do with the purely economic nature of the man’s occupation. They have to do with a political definition of his situation. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that we have a fundamental dilemma in that we are using a political definition of a person’s situation in this legislation in order to grant him certain rights as a labourer. The result of this is that in terms of its own legislation the Government is going to be responsible for politicizing the labour movement among Black people. This is the irony of the situation, because on the face of it—and I accept the sincerity of the hon. the Minister—the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House want to attempt to keep industrial conciliation in South Africa politically neutral. As a result of this legislation, however, they are in fact going to politicize the Black labourer.

I should like to illustrate briefly why I am saying so. On the one hand there are those who qualify. We have had many examples of this from the hon. members for Musgrave and Parktown. They said that one labourer comes from one residential area, while the next man comes from another residential area. The one labourer can participate in industrial conciliation, while the other cannot. Now tension is immediately created among the labourers themselves on the question of whether they may participate or not.

As soon as the Government or any other body politicizes the labour movement, one cannot have peaceful industrial bargaining. This is a contradiction in terms. In spite of the hon. the Minister’s good intentions, the Government is in fact going to politicize industrial conciliation in South Africa precisely because it did not adhere to the Wiehahn Commission in this respect. This is exactly what they want to avoid. It is an inevitable consequence of what the hon. the Minister is going to achieve by means of this legislation. One need only look at clause 1.

When are you going to Ikeys?

The sense of humour of the hon. member for Brakpan is so pathetic that it really does not merit any attention.

The point I want to make here is that throughout the Third World, in this whole process of decolonization, an attempt has been made to cast labour in the trenches of those who ruled, viz. the colonial rulers. One need only go and read about Tom Mboya in Kenya to realize what happened there and how he used the labour movement—which was suppressed by the Government in that the Government told the people when and where they should go—to achieve his own political objectives. Therefore, I now want to risk a prediction. To the extent to which we are going to try here in South Africa to accommodate industrial conciliation to the political framework of the Government of the day, we shall not succeed in bringing about labour conciliation, but are going to bring about exactly the opposite: We are going to politicize labour development [Interjections.] Therefore, the first important point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that we have a strange dialectic here, because the Government is ostensibly saying that it does not want industrial conciliation in South Africa to acquire political overtones, but the fact that it will acquire such overtones will be a direct consequence of the legislation which is being introduced here.

Secondly, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. Does he not agree that the question of what constitutes unfair labour practices is going to be the central issue in the settling of labour disputes? One can do one of two things. Either one can have an independent, objective body to decide what unfair practices are, or one can define it clearly by means of legislation. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that neither of these two things is being done by the proposed legislation. There is no clear definition of what constitutes unfair practices, nor is there a clearly independent body that is going to decide what constitutes unfair practices. Consequently, if one has a vague or arbitrary definition of what constitutes unfair practices, one aggravates conflict in the labour situation rather than resolving it Consequently, I want to ask the hon. the Minister another question. Will it not therefore be better to give a clear definition of what constitutes unfair labour practices?

Now I come to a point made by the hon. member for Pretoria East, and I want to put a specific question to the hon. the Minister. The hon. member said we saw racism or race in every piece of legislation that came before this House, etc., and then embroidered on that by saying that if one were to examine clauses 8 and 2, which deal with the question of the industrial court and the Manpower Commission, one would see that they contained nothing that would prevent Blacks from serving on them. In terms of the legislation it is clear that the hon. the Minister constitutes the industrial court as well as the Manpower Commission. Now I come to my question to the hon. the Minister. Does he foresee the possibility of Black people serving on both these bodies?

Who served on the commission of inquiry?

No, this is not a trick question. I am asking it as a simple, honest question. The hon. member for Pretoria East asked it as well. I am asking the hon. the Minister whether he foresees that Blacks will in fact be able to serve on them.

Yes.

The hon. the Minister says “yes”. I am pleased he replied to my first question. This brings me to my second question. Who is then going to recommend what people shall serve on them? Is the Minister himself going to decide or is he going to listen to representations from various labour bodies? I am merely asking this to gain clarity on this matter.

The Minister always assumes the responsibility for such appointments.

Yes, of course, but how is the hon. the Minister going to become involved in this process, because there are various ways? He can select himself, or he can say he will listen to recommendations. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Stilfontein should not become so excited. I am not scolding him. I am speaking to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now we come to the last point. In most of the research one reads on labour conciliation and labour legislation one thing is very clear, and that is that when trade unions develop in a specific society, it is usually a sign that the labour is committed to the existing economic process, in other words that he wants to have a part in it, that he wants to participate and negotiate. Particularly when one then excludes certain categories of labourers from that economic process, it is one of the most decisive ways of ensuring that the whole economic system of that society is questioned. It is in this respect that I want to put the following hypothesis to the hon. the Minister: If we are deliberately going to exclude an appreciable number of Black labourers from the bargaining process on the industrial level, we are creating the situation in which as many labourers as we are going to exclude, are going to question the system. Then one ultimately arrives at the situation in which no bargaining whatsoever can take place on labour.

Mr. speaker, now that we have come to the end of this debate I think we can say that for most of the speakers who have taken part this has been a good debate and I think, too, that they approached it in a very positive spirit. I want to thank them all most sincerely for doing so. In replying to the debate, I think it would perhaps be more meaningful if I were to begin by making a few remarks concerning what has been said here by Government speakers.

To begin with I want to refer to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, who was the first speaker on the Government side and who really put the legislation into perspective. I want to thank him most sincerely for that. He singled out the theme of protection as a principal concept of this legislation. It is indeed true that the keynote of the Bill is that it attempts, in so far as it deals with people and their relations, to establish protection for the future, because if one is unable to achieve this, it is pointless coming forward with this legislation, because then we should not be able to maintain labour peace in any case. I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution.

The hon. member for Pretoria East dwelt on matters relating to the industrial court. He advanced certain arguments in that regard and I do not wish to react to them except to give him credit for them. He quoted a number of examples of problems that could arise. He said, inter alia, that there were provisions in provincial ordinances that affected legislation of this nature and also the position of the worker. He asked what was now to become of them. I want to tell him that the whole aim is that this matter be looked at in the future, if not by the Wiehahn Commission then in any event by the Manpower Commission concerned, which will in the future have to give constant attention to the whole field of labour. I can therefore tell the hon. member that as far as this is concerned, I do not believe that anything will be overlooked.

He also referred to the issue of national servicemen. I concede that it is most important that we consider the situation of national servicemen. The hon. member for Walmer also referred to this in passing. The fact is that after the national servicemen returned last year, we eventually still had 5 000 vacancies left. In other words, they are indeed being looked after. In any event it is very important that we consider the situation, as has indeed been done by the department and the Apprenticeship Board. There is in fact a disadvantage attached to national service, since the national serviceman loses time in the interests of his country, and when he comes back, he finds that he has to compete for a post. This is indeed a most important matter. However, I want to assure the hon. member that we are indeed already giving attention to this matter.

The hon. member for Sasolburg discussed the PFP’s mistaken approach in regard to criteria in other countries. Let me say at once that the hon. member for Sasolburg is right and that I share his sentiments in this regard. We cannot apply criteria and use yardsticks in South Africa in a difficult situation like the labour situation and then seek to adopt models from abroad. South Africa is different. The fact is that in the labour world, South Africa has up to now had the wrong model. It is a miracle that in spite of the fact that we have taken over the British system we have been able to change it in such a way as to avoid the conflict and dissatisfaction prevailing in Britain today.

It is of the utmost importance that when we move forward we should always bear in mind that the tests we apply must take into account our specific circumstances, particularly where we are dealing with various race groups and with inexperienced people who are now entering the labour market. We shall therefore have to approach the matter in such a way as to prevent racial unrest in the country. That too, is why we are circumspect and cautious with regard to legislation. I want to tell the hon. member that by moving too fast we can make mistakes. I do not want to make out that what we have embodied in this Bill is the alpha and the omega. Nor do I want to claim that it contains the world’s wisdom. However, we have done our best to draft a piece of legislation adapted to South African conditions and geared to achieving labour peace in the country.

The hon. member for Brakpan raised a very important point. He discussed the key to success. The key to success in future is going to be the relations on the factory floor itself. This will depend on how relations between employer and employee are handled, how training is effected and the warmth and sympathy with which it is handled, not only by the department but also by the parties concerned. I want to say to the hon. member that I agree 100% with what he said.

The hon. member for Randburg discussed the question of freedom of association. If hon. members of the Opposition had read their commission reports as carefully as has the hon. member for Randburg, they would have seen that enough is said in the report with regard to freedom of association for them not to have interpreted it in as one-sided a way they did. Freedom of association, including freedom of association at the labour level, is limited by the free market system and when one speaks about freedom of association it surely cannot mean that one must have the kind of freedom of association in the free market economy of our country that will cause us problems. I do not wish to cast reflections but I could mention a country which has total freedom of association within the market economy today, and that country is Britain. Do we want the conditions prevailing there in this country? Of course not, and if freedom of association on the workshop floor necessarily means that we will have the kind of freedom that permits interference in the same way as in Britain, then we ought not to have any such freedom of association in South Africa. We in South Africa are trying to establish a type of freedom of association which also entails security. The hon. member also referred to the secretarial and clerical aid provided for by the legislation and asked whether it was adequate. I do not think the hon. member need to concerned unnecessarily. Sufficient aid will have to be available to the National Manpower Commission and also to the industrial court to enable them to carry out their functions properly.

Then I want to say to the hon. members for Randburg and Sasolburg that I have considered their amendments and I am prepared to accept their amendments. I also wish to express my appreciation for the responsible way in which the hon. member for Durban North took part in the debate. This hon. member made a few statements which could just as well have come from this side of the House. Among other things, he adopted the standpoint that changes could create unrest and that consequently the way we did things was important. The hon. member is correct. That is why I appreciate the fact that the hon. member did not behave as members of the official Opposition have done but instead sought to be helpful.

The hon. member asked what would become of the remaining job reservations. I think all hon. members can listen attentively to what I am going to say about this. As far as the history of job reservation is concerned, we have had 28 determinations over the years. Of these 28, three have in fact lapsed because—I am tempted to say—they were replaced by others. Consequently 25 remained. Twenty of these have now been phased out, and therefore five remain. Now it is being laid down in legislation that the job reservation determinations will remain until they are phased out, but I am honour bound to the trade unions in South Africa, and I do not intend to leave them in the lurch.

I do not intend to break my word. From the outset I have said very clearly to those of them who are afraid of the situation that could develop, that in the course of our negotiations, the trade unions themselves said that the job reservation determinations should be withdrawn. Hon. members are free to consult the record. The trade unions themselves requested that they be withdrawn. As far as the rest are concerned, I have undertaken to negotiate with them, and if the legislation is passed, I shall not summarily withdraw the other determinations tomorrow. What I will do, however, is to begin at once to negotiate—indeed, negotiations are already in progress—in order to attempt to convince them that this legislation affords better protection to the interests of the workers than what they think they are giving up. We can negotiate with one another in a meaningful way. To tell the truth, I have already gained the impression that they are satisfied with this measure. A trade union ’phoned me the day before yesterday and told me that it was very satisfied with the protective measures relating to groups embodied in this Bill and that they could see that what they were getting now was better than what they had before. This is the meaningful way in which one must conduct affairs in future.

The hon. member also indicated that he would move amendments. When this debate is over the hon. member may as well come and show me his amendments. At this stage I do not wish to undertake to accept his amendments but I am interested to see what he wishes to propose. I do not wish to adopt the attitude that only an amendment moved by this side of the House is good enough. That is not my approach. I should therefore appreciate it if the hon. member could come and show me his amendments so that I can see whether there is anything in his amendments that I could perhaps accept.

I also wish to refer to the speech by the hon. member for Walmer. He made a sensible contribution. He also discussed national servicemen. I think I have already replied in regard to that matter.

I should now like to deal with the speeches made by hon. members of the official Opposition. A few years ago, when we discussed in this House a labour situation which could cause problems in the future, I was always very open. From the outset I told hon. members exactly what we wanted to do. I spelt the matter out to them. We never kept anything back. It was always our intention to create a kind of dispensation in which all could participate so that peace could prevail in the future labour situation in which there would be far more people than there are today. That was when we appointed the commission. The commission was prepared to hear representations from everyone. It sat for a long time. Indeed, I think that I appointed a good commission.

We do too.

To tell the truth, before I appointed the commission I consulted a great many people. The commission has now submitted its report.

In this debate, however, one thing happened which happens so often that it sometimes passes unnoticed. The hon. member for Houghton made two remarks which, particularly at this time, when we are introducing delicate legislation, are extremely damaging to our image within and outside South Africa. I see that other hon. members on that side of the House are now sitting and grinning. The hon. member said that Black workers were doomed to retrogression. She gave the impression that no Black worker in this country would have a chance to progress in future. Why did the hon. member say that? What did she mean by saying it?

She is bitter.

Although the Government is here establishing a dispensation by means of which it seeks to promote goodwill and confidence among all the workers of South Africa, the hon. member for Houghton tells the Black people that they are absolutely doomed and that there is no future for them. I cannot imagine anything more dangerous than to tell the Black workers at this stage that the Government is being fraudulent—that is what she implied—that the Government wants to do them down and that they will never have any future. That is what the hon. member intimated.

She is a communist and an agitator.

It is not only the harm within South Africa …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Are hon. members permitted to use the terms “she is a communist” and “she is an agitator”?

Yes, Mr. Speaker …

Order! The hon. member may not say that. He must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Hon. members must refrain from statements of that nature. The hon. the Minister must be permitted to put forward his arguments.

I ask hon. members whether they can imagine how much venom to be used against South Africa can be derived from this abroad. All the good work we are doing is destroyed by saying that a Black man will in future have no place and no chance of development, and will remain backward. If that is to be believed, how do you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that we can have labour peace in South Africa if 80% of our labour force is to believe in future that the Government is cheating them?

She never said it.

I reject it with the contempt it deserves. [Interjections.] The hon. member said it. That was the theme of a part of her speech. She also said a second thing, which is even more important and dangerous. Hon. members must listen carefully to what she said. She said that leaders of the workers were being restricted because they were leaders of the workers. That is what she said, and that is still more dangerous.

Why then are they restricted? [Interjections.]

Order!

Every right-thinking South African knows that people are restricted because they are engaged in matters that pose a threat to the State. But the hon. member for Houghton has made the extremely dangerous statement that a leader of workers in South Africa, because he is a leader of workers—a Black leader of workers—is in a position where he can be restricted. [Interjections.]

Order!

There are hundreds of Black leaders of workers in South Africa with whom the Government has the best of relationships and with whom I personally maintain the best relationships, but the insinuation made by the hon. member is that if a man concerns himself with labour matters in South Africa and he is Black, then he is in danger of being restricted. However, I want to go further and say that this insinuation is intended to harm South Africa because she wants it to be publicized abroad. She intends to damage the country by doing so because she knows that it is dangerous and despite that she still says it.

Calm down. Come back to the truth.

Those hon. members are taking part in this debate knowing that this is an extremely dangerous to say in the labour world of today but the hon. member does it nevertheless. The hon. member for Houghton has never taken part in a labour debate …

How long have you been in this House, then?

Order!

She has never taken part in such a debate in this House without the intention of harming South Africa by what she says. Those hon. members are so leftist, they are so hand-in-glove with the foreign elements and the dangerous elements that it no longer makes any difference to them. But the difference it does make is that those hon. members, the so-called official Opposition, came last in Randfontein. [Interjections.] That is the result of that, and their rejection there is reflected throughout South Africa. As far as the labour situation is concerned, I do not require their attentions in the future. [Interjections.] I now come to the hon. member for Parktown who was so pious here. The hon. member ought to know full well that over the past few days and weeks I have met thousands of employers throughout South Africa.

Thousands?

I say thousands. We discussed this situation with the employers of South Africa as well. What is more, representatives of the companies with which the hon. member for Parktown is associated were present Now the hon. member is making out that he does not know what I discussed with them there or what I told them.

I never said that.

I say that the hon. member is making out that he knows nothing about it.

I deny that I ever said anything of the kind.

The hon. member can go ahead and imply that he knows nothing about it, but I maintain that he does know. But in spite of the fact that he knew that I had reached an agreement with regard to the position of the commuters, he nevertheless argued as if he was unaware of that.

Get your facts straight. [Interjections.]

Order!

As far as commuters are concerned, I said very clearly at the outset that as workers, they were tested on the basis of the two concepts: place of residence and place of employment, in other words, it was determined whether they had a place of residence and a place of employment. I also pointed out expressly that there were two groups of workers, viz. the commuters and the contract workers. Because there are tremendous problems relating to commuters and contract workers, problems which still have to be sorted out, I have told the representatives of the companies of the hon. member for Parktown on various occasions that as far as commuters are concerned, I shall grant exemption from the outset, that we shall negotiate about that immediately and that they need not have any fear in that regard. I also put it clearly to them that the only reason why I am not including commuters now is that there are many technical problems involved which we must still iron out.

That is exactly what you must do in those circumstances.

However, there is another group of workers as well, viz. the contract workers, that have to be borne in mind.

I too am a commuter.

For example, there are the contract workers that enter the country from Mozambique to come and work here.

You are a lot of swindlers!

The hon. member for Parktown must tell me whether he wants me to grant trade union rights to contract workers who come here from Mozambique to work on our mines. Does the hon. member want me to grant them those rights?

Are you going to give me an opportunity to reply to your question? [Interjections.]

The hon. member can just say “yes” or “no”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Bryanston entitled to say that we are a lot of swindlers?

Order! The hon. member is not entitled to say that and he must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members would be well-advised to listen to the hon. the Minister’s speech in silence. He did not interrupt them earlier this afternoon but listened to everything they had to say.

But he is being very arrogant.

Order! Hon. members must abide by my ruling.

Can hon. members see now how pious is the argument of the hon. member for Parktown? Hon. members on that side of the House argued against the Bill the whole afternoon, and in the light of that I want to ask the hon. member: Does he want me to give trade union rights to the contract workers from Mozambique? He cannot reply “yes” or “no” to that, but deems it necessary to give an explanation. That shows us how difficult it is to decide on this kind of thing.

Tell us about Kwa Mashu.

The hon. member need not refer to Kwa Mashu, because I said in Durban—the representatives of the hon. member’s companies were also present—that I would help Kwa Mashu’s people, and quickly, too …

Put that in the Bill.

I do not wish to waste my time further on that hon. member. [Interjections.]

Therefore hon. members have done two ugly things this afternoon. In the first place they made an insinuation aimed at causing us harm in these times, and in the second place they piously argued here about a matter about which they knew more than they pretended. I know for a fact that the hon. member for Parktown knows better. However I shall leave the matter at that.

What are you referring to now?

You need not make such a fuss. Andries is not here.

You are absolutely revolting.

Order! The hon. member for Welkom must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

To come back to the Bill, I want to say that what we are dealing with here is a developing situation in which we must move forward, viz. that people are entering the South African labour field in growing numbers. There are two problems in particular to which I want to refer in this connection. The one problem is to give them work—whether the economy of South Africa is going to be strong enough to create employment opportunities so that they are able to enter the labour market. This is one of the problems South Africa is faced with. However this is not a problem which this legislation is concerned with. The legislation does concern the question: How will the people who enter the labour field be accommodated in the present labour situation? As far as this is concerned we must take fears into account. In the first place, there is the real fear among White and Coloured workers that in view of the influx of larger numbers, a competitive situation could arise in which they could lose their position and be supplanted. They fear that a situation could develop in which they could lose the competition. This is a legitimate fear, a fear which must be understood and which we do understand. However there is a second fear as well. This is a fear which will arise particularly among Black people who are going to enter the labour situation and those who are already there. They fear that they will remain in a backward position in the future, that provision will not be made for them and that they will never be able to make progress. In other words, they are afraid that they will remain third-class workers. That, too, is a legitimate fear. It is in the light of that fear that it is so dangerous to make remarks such as that which the hon. member for Houghton made this evening. However, there is a third fear as well. It is the fear that is felt among employers that by way of its legislation the Government will not create a climate permitting mobility and development.

What we are now trying to do by way of this legislation is, in the first place, to create two instruments which are to assist in this regard. The one instrument is a labour court, a body which would not pass judgment on legal matters only but which would also consider interests. The matter has been argued about and questions have been put to me. For example, questions have been put to me in regard to the concept of unlawful, wrong or dangerous legal practices. This is not a concept which, as has been suggested, I can embody in legislation. This is something which must develop with time. When one has an instrument which takes into account the circumstances and interests, it builds up a code for itself, and we shall in future be building up a code of equitable labour practices.

The second instrument, which we shall not be able to do without in future, is the proposed Manpower Commission which will be in a position to handle the situation for South Africa, which will be at the Minister’s disposal and also at the disposal of every employee, every employer and everybody that has a reason to have a situation investigated and wishes to be advised. This, therefore, is not solely a commission to decide on how the situation must develop, to identify and prevent bottlenecks and to consider the whole question of training and development of the various groups. It will also be a commission which can furnish advice and handle problems for the bodies that require it.

However, there are two issues we have been saddled with over the years, issues that have elicited important arguments in this House. These two matters are now being dealt with by this legislation. The one concerns the issue of the right of Black people to be included within the ambit of the Act as workers. This was not the case formerly. This is now being done in order to afford them the opportunity to participate in trade unions. That right is now being granted them and is being limited by certain restrictions set by the State, not only as regards the Black man, but also as regards the White man, the Brown man and the Indian. One of the restrictions is that the financial position will be considered. Consideration will also be given to their political participation and all those things that are equitable and ought to be built into our labour situation in South Africa. This, therefore, is what we are trying to do, and I regard it as a major step forward, not only to afford Black people the opportunity to take part in trade unions, but also because one gets a situation in which one can exercise control of all trade unions and all trade union activities. The second important matter to which we give consideration in this legislation is the issue of job reservation. We need not again argue this point at length. Hon. members are aware of the facts. Moreover, I have just made a remark on the subject. Statutory job reservation is now being done away with. There I agree with the hon. member—I think it was the hon. member for Randburg—who made the point that there is no such thing that statutory job reservation is a principle. It is not a principle. The principle is the meaningful protection of workers groups or interests. This is now being done in a different way. The leitmotif, the all-embracing principle in accordance with which action is taken, is the important principle of the right to self-determination of interest groups. In other words, due to the provision we are making for a changing situation, it is also possible for trade unions to be established, to co-operate with others, to protect their interests and to go to court to be able to do so. Here, then, we are introducing the principle of the right of self-determination of interest groups. Once we have done these two things, then, in my opinion we have come as far as we can, as far as the broad principles are concerned, and if the commission is, in addition, directed to look further and, as one might say, put flesh on this framework, and also to continue to do other things, then all this will remain within the framework of this set of principles that we have laid down. Once we have accepted in principle the legislation before us we accept the guidelines on the basis of which we can continue to build, and I cannot see how we can have other guidelines for South Africa. I think that these are the only guidelines we could have at this stage.

However, I do foresee that we may come forward with additional legislation in the future. This brings me to one of the very important things mentioned by hon. members, the issue of the formula by which to determine precisely what a worker is. The fact that I am unable to say this evening precisely how we are going to formulate this in future, is merely due to the fact that one is dealing with various groups of people. One has people who already belong to independent States and people who do not yet belong to independent States. One has people living in one country and working in another. They can strike in the one country and live in the other country. After having gone on strike he can cross the border of one country and go and practise so-called “picketing” at a factory. All these practical problems have to be ironed out and therefore I repeat that I would prefer to move slowly at the start, so that whatever we may do, we do right, rather than to allow myself to be pressurized by anyone into doing now what we may find out tomorrow is wrong. I do not wish to maintain that everything we are doing today is right, but what we are trying to embody in the Act here is, to the best of our knowledge, the right thing at this stage. All we are trying to do is to provide for mobility for the future.

Mr. Chairman, when this debate adjourned on the previous occasion, I was dealing with the position of school boards. I now want to deal with a few other points arising out of the proposals we received after we had asked for suggestions and comments and had adjusted them partially.