Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, we must see this Bill against the background of the very unfortunate problems which we experienced with Black education and which, to a large extent, reached a climax in 1976. Consequently any possible changes which might be made in the nature and quality of Black education were awaited with great interest. As the hon. member for Musgrave said, this Bill contains quite a few good points. I want to tell the hon. the Minister right at the outset that there is no question of my questioning his goodwill, intentions and integrity when I put forward certain problems which we are experiencing with this Bill. The good things in this Bill which one is particularly grateful for are that Black education is to a large extent, as far as its format is concerned, being brought into line with the departments of education for the other population groups. In clause 3(c) of this Bill it is being provided that there should be greater liaison between all the departments of education. In clauses 37 and 38 we are now, for the first time as far as I know, entrenching in legislation the principles of free and compulsory education for Black people as well. Those, then, are the good features of this Bill, and we are grateful for them.

As we stated in our amendment, however, there are certain important deficiencies and problems which this Bill is not coping with, deficiencies and problems which we have always had, throughout, in Black education. These are still present. The first of these to which I wish to refer is of course the old question of apartheid in education, education on the basis of race. The hon. the Minister and we are aware that this remains a problem in South Africa. One of the difficulties is that if one is going to entrench the principle of race in the provision of education in a country like South Africa formally, on a statutory basis—particularly from a White Government point of view—one is going to experience problems and will have to expect conflict. Why? One of the principal reasons is that, as long as this is the case, there will always be the suspicion—whether founded or unfounded—that there will be a problem with inferiority of quality. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the hon. the Minister, for example, experienced problems with the establishment of a teachers’ council.

It could have led to there being a reluctance among Black teachers to commit themselves to such a council, and that is why the hon. the Minister had to provide a special formulation in clause 31 for the council which is envisaged there. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it seems to me that one of the solutions to this problem in the long-term would be that we should have a homogeneous expenditure for education in South Africa, but that there should be a diversity in the training itself. Discrimination and the provision of educational facilities is not concerned so much with the curricula and syllabi, but with expenditure. People are not interested so much in there being a measure of diversity on a regional basis, on a cultural basis, etc., but the State, as the principal provider of capital, should not be seen as discriminating in respect of the expenditure on education. This is one of the cardinal problems of education in the Third World, even in those countries where there are no more Whites. I am thinking for example of a society such as that of Nigeria. In Nigeria Gowon committed himself some time ago to free and compulsory education, knowing full well that he did not have the capital nor the teachers and schools with which to realize these ideals. However, he did not experience problems because he had committed himself to these principles, but because there was discrimination in the provision of education to the various tribes and groups in that society. When this first began to dawn on people the Government was immediately accused of discriminating in respect of certain groups and favouring others. This is a greater problem in South Africa, particularly since there are Whites and Blacks in the same society. It is a well-known fact that education in a plural society is one of the most explosive elements one can find. There are many emotions and feelings associated with the provision of education. Consequently when we on this side of the House advocate one department of education, I want the hon. the Minister to understand us very clearly. We are not advocating compulsory and integrated education for all in the form of the same syllabi, etc. We are not saying that people should be forced, but that the diversity which is maintained in education in a society such as South Africa’s should to a large extent be the function of the various communities. Above all, the Government of the day may not discriminate in the provision of capital for education. I know this is a tremendous problem, because we are saddled with historical problems, and so on, in South Africa.

In this connection I want to mention an example to the hon. the Minister. I am thinking here of two scientists in the field of education who are now coming forward with pioneering ideas on how one could cope with this problem. They are Prof. Theo Hamf of Frankfurt, Germany, and the well-known economist Dr. Milton Friedman. For a plural society they propose what they call a coupon system of education. They say that it is merely the function of the State to make available a basic amount per child for education. According to this system each parent receives a coupon for his child, and this coupon, for example, is worth R150 or R300. These coupons are made available to parents throughout the society in a non-discriminatory way. The parents may then choose which schools their children should attend. The parents can help to organize, and they can contribute from their own pockets to the education of their child. The important point here, however, is that no distinction is drawn on the part of the State between children, regardless of what cultural or racial background they come from. The State does not draw any distinction in regard to the provision of capital for education. This would remove a great deal of the heatedness about education from that society. This is the object which I believe the hon. the Minister should pursue, and that is where this legislation falls short.

Although the question of racially separated education is entrenched in the legislation, there is still a slight possibility that the hon. the Minister could solve these problems which I have just mentioned if he could work out a clear financial programme on how the gap could be bridged. I think it is extremely important that the Government should come forward unequivocally with a five-year or ten-year plan to indicate what they have in mind for bridging the gap which exists at present between Black and White education, for it is in this area that the greatest credibility crisis could arise. Principles such as free and compulsory education, just like motherly love, are good principles and everyone is in favour of it. However, the problem arises that when this principle is not complied with, all hell breaks loose.

Here we now have a situation in which the hon. the Minister says that in terms of the provision of this legislation, the Government is committing itself in respect of the principles of free and compulsory education. This is a good thing and it is important, but the immediate question which arises is: How is it going to be realized? In this regard one of the most important provisions in this Bill, is the one contained in clause 2(3). It reads as follows—

This implies that a report on the entire year’s activities in Black education is tabled in the White Parliament. It is this White Parliament that has to decide how much money will be made available for Black education. The White Parliament has to grant approval. It is the hon. the Minister, sitting in the White Parliament who has to go to the Cabinet and ask for money for Black education. Can hon. members see what tension could arise? That is why it is extremely important that the hon. the Minister should demonstrate his bona fides, not to this House, because the House may say that he is a good or bad Minister, but to Black education. The way in which he must do this is to obtain money for Black education from the White Parliament. Consequently a credibility gap may arise if we in the White Parliament say that we are in favour of free and compulsory education, but we do not spell out, in a clear-cut capital or financial programme, how this is going to be accomplished. Then it becomes a mere hollow cry, and eventually they are going to ask: But what does it matter, because the House has to decide on White, Coloured and Black education, etc., and it is the House that decides how the money is distributed? People will then begin to make calculations, and it is when those calculations have been made that we can expect trouble. It is not merely a question of a credibility gap that has to be bridged. It is a question of survival for us all. Consequently it is of cardinal importance that there should be no discrimination in capital spending on education, and it is equally important that the hon. the Minister should spell out to us what programme the Government has in mind to bridge this gap. These, then, are to my mind the two principal deficiencies in this proposed legislation, deficiencies which I am stating to the hon. the Minister in all sincerity. On the one hand one still has the principle of race entrenched in the proposed legislation and, on the other, there is no clarity on how the gap could be bridged.

Then, with reference to clause 40, I should just like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. I know the hon. member for Virginia said yesterday that he was very grateful for clause 40 which, for the information of hon. members, is concerned with who may visit a school. The hon. member for Virginia explained this clause by saying that it was in fact a clause which protects the school principal, which helps him. It could be seen—I readily grant this—as a clause which will help the school principal, but it could also be seen as a clause which contains paternalistic implications, and therein lies a danger. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the department or the Government is not cutting a rod for its own back by inserting this provision on who may or may not visit a school. Let us take a simple example. Let us look at clause 40(1)(d). It deals with the parent’s right to visit the school in which his child has an interest. I quote—

I now want to put a question to the hon. the Minister, because I was not on the Select Committee.

You do not know what it is all about.

Well, that is why I am asking for the necessary information. If the hon. members who were there had spoken properly, all of us in this House would have known what it was all about. However, they did not tell us, and consequently I am simply asking the hon. the Minister. May a parent go to a school which his child is not attending? For example, if the child goes to another school to attend a school sports meeting, may the parent go there as well? This is merely a question. As I see it, there is insufficient clarity in the Bill itself. It is in this respect that a school principal is, in my opinion, dependent to a certain extent on a formal provision, and the complaint may arise that the department or the State is deciding for a school principal who may go to his school. I am not very happy about this clause. I can understand why a measure of protection is necessary, but I still feel that this type of measure simply becomes, in the long run, a rod which one is cutting for one’s own back.

These, then, are the principal problems and objections which we are, in a constructive spirit, stating to the hon. the Minister. In spite of all the good elements and features of the Bill we nevertheless feel that we cannot support it and that is why we moved our amendment.

Mr. Speaker, before I react to what the hon. member for Rondebosch said, permit me, in the first place, to convey my congratulations and gratitude on behalf of this side of the House to the hon. member for Virginia who acted as chairman of the Select Committee. It was truly pleasant to attend these meetings of the Select Committee under his competent guidance, to be able to serve on the Select Committee and to be able to work with him. I think I am speaking on behalf of all the members of the Select Committee when I thank the hon. member for Virginia for the way he took charge of these proceedings.

This brings me to the hon. member for Rondebosch. He made one important statement, and I shall refer to it in the course of my speech. Before I come to that I first want to refer to a general statement which was made in passing and which we cannot simply allow to go unanswered. I am referring to the statement which the hon. member made that in respect of this entire dispensation a measure of suspicion will nevertheless continue to prevail among the Blacks and that an inferiority in respect of Black education exists in this Bill. I think that that is a dangerous statement to make. It is a disgraceful statement, for what is being envisaged with this Bill is being subverted by an irresponsible statement such as the one which the hon. member for Rondebosch made.

The hon. member advocated that there should be one department of education in South Africa. He spoke of a homogeneous spending and a diversity in training. I shall indicate in the course of my speech that what the hon. member for Rondebosch said here is clear, deliberate discrimination in the field of education and that it is a subtle exercise of what he tried to hold up to us here.

The long title of the Bill reads as follows—

As I have said, strenuous efforts are being made to make out a case for the creation of one department of education. This was done, inter alia, by the hon. member for Rondebosch. Apart from the fact that Black leaders and educationists have already, on various occasions, declared themselves to be opposed to the creation of one department, I wish to argue—and in this connection I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Virginia—that it would be pedagogically wrong to create a combined department of education. For that very reason, too, this side of the House cannot accept that principle politically. The Opposition is vehemently insisting that discrimination should disappear. They are the so-called champions of the Blacks. One arrives at the conclusion that the criterion for them is no longer what is fit and proper in the interests of the Black people in South Africa, but mere political gain and political games. I want to state categorically this morning that to make provision in this legislation for one department of education would be blatant and rash discrimination against the Blacks in the field of education.

It is an historical fact—and in this connection the hon. member for Rondebosch conceded that we were correct—which we do not want to argue away that the Whites in South Africa have an advantage over the Blacks in the sphere of education. The backlog which the Blacks have vis-à-vis the Whites is probably attributable to various factors, factors which we probably need not go into now. To argue about them now would merely be a counterproductive exercise and would not achieve anything. Consequently we accept that the education of the Blacks has to be developed. We also accept that financially and otherwise there is an almost superhuman task that has to be accomplished.

If one department has to be responsible for all education in South Africa it will perforce be faced with only two possibilities. I should like to spell out these two possibilities. If we accept the principle of one department of education, the one possibility will be that Black education, in all its consequences, will to a full extent have to be on the same basis and level as that of the Whites. Then we cannot speak of diversity in education, for then we are saddled with a tremendous problem. If we consequently accept that there should be one department of education, we must also accept that the level of education of the Blacks will be the same level as that of the Whites. This will mean immediate compulsory education for all Black pupils, up to Std. 8 or the age of 16 years at least. It would have to be implemented immediately. The principle of mother-tongue education at all primary and secondary schools would have to be implemented immediately, but then we shall see the consequences which one department of education would entail.

The second alternative which the department has is to take into consideration the present standards of education of the various population groups within the framework and the functioning of such a single department, and apply the principle of diversity, but this will entail that education will then be offered on a differentiated basis and, in my opinion in a discriminatory way. Surely it goes against the grain of every educated person to think that one places an education structure under the control of one department and then offers education on different levels. White education is in a developed stage and Black education is in an undeveloped stage.

For that reason we wish to propose, by way of an amendment, the insertion of paragraph (d) to follow paragraph (c) in clause 8(3). This paragraph (d) makes provision for exceptions in regard to the granting of exemption from registration for education. In terms of this proposed provision exceptions will consequently be made in (a) the case of correspondence colleges, (b) schools for theological training, (c) informal education without reward and (d) schools of other departments of education.

The committee was of the opinion that the principle of separate education would be relinquished in terms of clause 8(4). White schools cannot undertake the education and training of persons of colour in an unqualified way. The right of admission of persons of colour, in this specific case, Blacks, should still be exercised in highly exceptional cases, and not as a general rule. The Government has committed itself to avoiding and eliminating areas of friction. Apart from the discriminatory effects which uncontrolled admission would cause, it also, undeniably, creates the potential for tension and friction.

The Whites, more specifically the Afrikaners, also had the experience, at one stage in their history when they had to fight for their survival as a nation against a flood of liberalism, of having to make up, through their own efforts, the natural backlog which they had in education. The fact that the Afrikaner at one stage had to fight for what was his own, his language, his education and his Church, only made him stronger. It gave him an awareness of his own identity, something which he preserved and which he clings to.

Do we now wish to deprive the Blacks of the same feeling? Do we wish to place the Blacks in the same position? Do we want to deprive them of what is their own? Do we want to deprive them of their traditions, their culture and their national customs by means of education? It would be a sad day if we were to try to make westerners of the Blacks in South Africa.

Education cannot be equated to the driving of a motor-car or to watching a television programme. I believe that education is a national asset and a national involvement. We may not deprive a nation of these things. We may not deny them their own nationally orientated education. That is why I welcome this Bill which we have introduced for the purpose of placing the education for Blacks in South Africa on a fine and sound basis. I thank the Government that introduced this Bill to place Black education on a proper, positive foundation. That is why we gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Gezina in the thanks which he conveyed to the chairman of the Select Committee. From the first day it was very clear to us that the chairman was an educationist who knew his profession, a man who had made a study of his subject. What impressed me in particular was his insight into the submissions we received; in other words the homework which he did before the committee commenced its activities. I want to congratulate him on the guidance which he gave us on the Select Committee.

Yesterday evening the hon. member for Durban Central gave the hon. the Minister some advice and said that the next time he would have to allocate a little more time to the work of a Select Committee. However, because we had a chairman like the hon. member for Virginia, the time was more than sufficient. We managed to dispose of the work as a result of the guidance of the hon. member for Virginia. I should also like to thank the officials who assisted us, as well as the persons and bodies who made the submissions which were of great assistance to us.

For me as layman it was of course difficult to make a contribution in the sphere of education, and consequently my approach to the matter was rather cautious, but during the sittings of the committee I soon realized that the members of the official Opposition had found themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They had to choose between sound judgment and party philosophy and alas, they chose party philosophy as usual. Consequently the hon. member, on behalf of the official Opposition, moved an amendment in which he stated that the legislation failed to provide a positive programme for the elimination of inequalities, and so on.

Nothing is further from the truth. The aim of this Bill is in fact to do something of a positive nature, and it is eliminating those inequalities which do exist in the education of these people.

I think we should look instead at what motivated the official Opposition to move such an amendment. In the first place I want to quote an extract from the submission made by the South African Council of Churches. This is a resolution adopted by their executive committee—

The word we should really look at is “expose”. These people want to expose something which does not really exist. They want to create the impression that the legislation is unjust and that it is not a positive step in the right direction.

Secondly, I want to refer to a paragraph in the submission in which reference is made to the standpoint adopted at the Catholic Bishops’ Conference—

This is important: “They will consider it inferior, no matter how much it is improved.” In other words, the positive aspect must be ignored. To this day we are still waiting for the official Opposition to urge the Blacks to accept that this legislation is a positive step. They must remember that Rome was not built in a day.

[Inaudible.]

Unfortunately I could not hear what the hon. member for Parktown said. I shall therefore leave it at that.

It was not important. He was just mumbling.

As I said, Rome was not built in a day, and in view of this I want to ask the following question: If the impossible were to happen—and after Wednesday I am more convinced than ever before that it is impossible—and the PFP were to come into power, would they do overnight what they are professing here should be done? Would they be able to make equal educational facilities available immediately? They must be careful not to make promises here which they will not be able to keep, if they should perhaps find themselves in the position where they have to keep them. That would cause chaos. An attempt is being made to give gradually, and the hon. the Minister was honest about the matter. He said that there could in fact be deficiencies, but that attempts were being made to improve the situation by gradually giving what was necessary and by making adjustments as these might become necessary in future. Is it perhaps asking too much of the official Opposition for them to act in a responsible way at some stage or other? Their motion reads, inter alia, that although Black education will be free and compulsory, it should not be accepted because there are inherent inequalities in it. In the motion it is also said of the Black people that they are frustrated and discontented. Would it not have been better if the hon. members had said to them instead that although they may be frustrated and discontented, they should accept the legislation since it at least makes provision for free and compulsory education, something for which they had been asking for a very long time? However, that is not what they did, because they have to echo the opinion of the Council of Churches and the Black people have to be incited into agitating against the Government Yesterday evening the hon. member for Groote Schuur asked a question by way of an interjection—he had a great deal to say here—and tried to insinuate that the educational syllabi were not the same. I should like to quote to this House what the United States-South Africa Leadership Exchange Programme had to say about syllabi—

What is inferior then?

That hon. member ought to know. After all, he is one who made these insinuations, and I think he should find out for himself. I have quoted from a document that was submitted to the Select Committee, and that document states that it is not true. So much so for the argument of the hon. member for Groote Schuur.

Tell that to Soweto.

I think the hon. member is in a much better position to talk to the people of Soweto because they are his friends and he goes their often.

That is right. We do, and it is a pity you do not.

The hon. the Minister explained the matter very clearly in the first part of his speech. He referred, inter alia, to liaison and said (Hansard, 4 June)—

Consequently I cannot see what purpose was served by the interjection made by the hon. member for Groote Schuur, unless it was a further attempt to sow suspicion.

Let us look instead at a few positive aspects of this legislation. The first I want to look at, is the question of a separate department. The hon. official Opposition is opposed to a separate department simply because they should like to bring about integration in schools overnight. The hon. member for Durban Central, to a certain extent, expressed a negative opinion on a separate department. However, he went further and said that his party had adopted a federal policy. My party also has a federal policy, and I now wish to ask the question …

What is your policy?

If the hon. member would come and speak to me in my office, I shall explain my policy to him. [Interjections.]

You cannot do it in public?

The hon. member will need some time to take it in and I shall need a great deal of time to explain it to him. The question I now wish to ask is this: Do we not all realize that a great deal still has to be done in future so that each group will be able to look after its own interests? If we work along those lines—it is after all what is envisaged with federation—surely it will definitely contribute to that if a separate department is created which will be concerned only with its own educational matters. I think the hon. member should forget about our arguing in favour of the establishment of only one department. We should regard this legislation as a step in the right direction because, when the time arrives, these people will be able to take care of their own affairs.

I have already referred to the question of liaison. I have also quoted an extract from the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister. Liaison with other departments of education will ensure that proper planning and development takes place in future. Improvements will also be effected in this way. I see all these factors as a great advantage if this department is able to effect liaison with the other existing departments of education in order to draw on the years of experience which the White departments of education have at their disposal. In this way they will be able to avoid the pitfalls which the White departments of education of necessity had to negotiate. In this way, too, they will be able to achieve success sooner and find their feet sooner than would otherwise have been the case.

The Black child who is eager to learn and who wants to improve himself—and there are thousands of them—is not asking for integration in schools. The Black child is not asking for one department of education. He is merely asking for an opportunity to be able to study. This is consequently what is being envisaged by this legislation. The Bill seeks to afford the Black child an opportunity to study. We should also be careful that we do not incite the Black child into making all kinds of demands. We must not tell them to reject this matter because their education is being administered by a separate department. We should not incite them by telling them that they should reject this matter because it ostensibly does not provide an equal opportunity; that they should therefore stay at home and not go to school. We should rather encourage them by telling them that an opportunity is being created for them here to go to school; that educational facilities are being provided for them here. Although this might not be, as the hon. the Minister rightly commented, precisely what is correct and desirable at this stage, it remains a step in the right direction, and there is consequently no reason why it should be opposed at this juncture.

Let us rather improve the situation by ensuring that education for Blacks is placed on an equal footing with that of Whites sooner. Let us rather recommend to those people that they should avail themselves of the opportunities which are being offered to them, instead of referring them to the philosophy of the PFP. In this Bill adequate, full-fledged, free and compulsory education in future is being envisaged. That is what is important. Those are the aspects we should emphasize. I am certain that no right-minded person could object to this. No right-minded person would allow feelings to be aroused over a critical matter such as education.

Another positive step is the establishment of the Council for Education and Training. This will also afford an opportunity for consultation and discussion. These days we hear so often that there should be consultation and discussion. Here a body is now being created which will promote that very aim, a body which makes consultation with experts possible. At some stage in the future a case could possibly be made out for an elected council. It is the view of both the PFP and the NRP that this council should be fully elected. A case could possibly be made out for this in future. However, I do not think that it is of such cardinal importance at this stage that we should now waste time with arguments on how the council ought to be constituted. All that we should ask is that the council should consist of experts. That is what is important.

The question of mother-tongue education has been thoroughly discussed. All I can add to what has been said is that it would be a good thing if Black as well as White children could be proficient in as many languages as possible. This has always been my view. I know that it is also the view of various other hon. members. I believe that the White child ought to be proficient in a Bantu language. It is equally important that the Black child, besides his own language, should also be able to speak English and Afrikaans properly. The more languages one knows, the better one is equipped for life. This is also a factor which will be conducive to better race relations.

Compulsory school attendance is of course something we are all endeavouring to achieve. Here we are now moving in that direction. As the hon. the Minister said, it will be applied gradually. He said that it would be applied on a regional basis. I just want to request that we ensure that no one is compelled to go to school at the expense of a person who would like to go to school. We must ensure that those who want to go to school voluntarily, avail themselves of those opportunities and are afforded every opportunity to do so, and that it is not said that those who do not want to go to school, must go to school, while those who do want to go to school are unable to do so. I am convinced that this department will concentrate on this and ensure that it does not happen. If it should happen, a dangerous situation could arise, because the scholar and his parents will begin to grow suspicious of the school, the system, perhaps the teachers and in particular the department, on which suspicion is already being cast from certain quarters. Parental involvement is of the utmost importance here, just as it is at a White school. This is what is being envisaged here.

It is a fact that when the parent is involved in a school the child takes a greater interest. When the parent helps to build up the image of the school, the child tries to play his part, and does far better than when the parents are disinterested. It is so easy to draw comparisons, and it is so easily said that the school facilities of the Whites should be compared with those of the Blacks, Coloureds and the Indians. However, nobody thinks of what was done to establish what the Whites have. Admittedly the department provided the buildings and the staff. However, there are many other things which are associated with a good school for which the parents of the children of that school have to dig into their pockets and put their shoulders to the wheel themselves. I am thinking of the beautification of school grounds, of equipment which has to be purchased and the modern tendency to have a school bus for the convenience of children participating in sport, etc. These are the things which should be perceived and weighed up. It is being said: “Look at what they have, and look at what you have.” However, let us, at the same time, ask them how they achieved those things, and who made a contribution. Let us at the same time say that if the Black parent plays his part they will be able to establish the same facilities for their own children.

There is nothing more splendid and valuable for a person than self-reliance. We must bring it home to these people that they should help themselves, that it is also a positive deed to ensure that there are sport and recreational facilities for their children.

If we weigh up the positive aspects of this legislation against the negative and misleading way in which it is being presented here, it leaves us with no other choice but to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has more than fortified our resolution to oppose this Bill. Every reason that he gave for supporting this Bill is full of fallacies. Anybody knowing anything about the history of Bantu education, as it has been called for years in this country, would realize that the hon. member does not have the slightest idea of what he is talking about. [Interjections.] What he did was to stand up and tell us things he believes, because he wants to believe them. However, it is so much better to believe in the truth.

These are facts.

They are not facts. When the hon. member for Groote Schuur interjected and said “Tell that to Soweto”, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said that the hon. member should go and tell them as he went there often and that the people in Soweto are his friends. It is more than obvious that the hon. member has never set foot inside any of the Black areas in South Africa. He does not talk to Black leaders and does not have the slightest idea of what is going on in the minds of Black people.

I have no reason to go to Soweto. [Interjections.]

Beneath it all is the idea that it is infra dig for a White man to have any real association with Black people. [Interjections.]

You were chased away on one occasion.

I ask the hon. member to repeat that outside. I shall sue him the way I threatened to sue two Transvaal newspapers. [Interjections.] I took them to the Press Council and they both had to withdraw on their front pages, because their allegations were completely untrue.

Were you not chased away? [Interjections.]

No, I was not chased away. I was literally fêted, and I have photographs to prove it. If the hon. member would like to repeat his allegation outside the House I think I could get some extra pocket-money, and it would be … [Interjections.] The hon. member must have read the rebuttals that had to be published on the front pages of Die Transvaler, Hoofstad, Oggendblad and other newspapers. I must say the hon. member is a nasty little man.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said that Rome was not built in a day. Now, that is a really brilliant observation as far as the whole history of Black education is concerned. I want to remind the hon. member that in 1951—that is 28 years ago—the Eiselen Commission on Bantu Education, of which the hon. member has probably never heard, recommended that within five years in South Africa there should be introduced a system of free and compulsory education which should be phased in for the first four years of school.

Now that it comes, you oppose it!

That happened 28 years ago and even today we have not yet reached the stage where the first four years of school have been phased in for Bantu children. I refer to Bantu children because it was a commission on Bantu education which made that recommendation. Now the hon. member says that Rome was not built in a day. I want to tell him some more about the education of Black children in this country, because he says glibly that they do not want the same standards as White children.

I did not say that.

He says that all they want are opportunities. He went on to say that it was a good thing to have a little self-help. I want to tell the hon. member that Black people have been paying for the education of their children for all these years …

So did the Whites.

No they have not. White people have not paid for the tuition of their children ever since …

[Inaudible.]

It was phased in in the 1920’s. Schooling was free and compulsory and they only paid for the additional so-called luxuries, e.g. recreational facilities and sports fields, etc. But they did not pay for tuition or for books. The Black people, however, have been paying all these years. So the hon. member must not talk out of ignorance in this debate. Now, more than 25 years later, we have not yet reached the preliminary stage where every Black child has at least four years of school, and that the Eiselen Commission laid down as the minimum amount of schooling that a child had to have, otherwise any schooling which he did have was to be utterly useless. In other words, if a child did not stay at school for four years he might as well not go to school at all, as he would leave school not even functionally literate, and any money which had been spent on his education will then have gone down the drain.

The whole story of Black education which has built up this resistance among the Black people in South Africa, more particularly among the Black youth of South Africa, exploded in 1976 and the following years of unrest. Medium of education was the prime cause of that explosion, although I must say immediately that it was by no means the only cause. It happened to be the spark, the trigger, but it was by no means the only cause of file unrest.

The whole history, as Black children know, has been one of dissatisfaction since 1953, when the Bantu Education Act was passed. From that time onwards the church schools, with the exception of the Catholic schools, closed down. They did not want to be taken over by the then Bantu Education Department. The really good standard of education which young Black children were getting through the mission schools, was lost entirely. That was a terrible shame. The history of Black education from then until now has been a history of neglect and indifference. It is a story of badly qualified, underpaid teachers who have to conduct double sessions in classrooms of up to 60 children per classroom. It is a story of badly equipped and overcrowded schools. It is a story of children being turned away by the hundreds everytime a school year begins. Worst of all, it is a sad saga of a monstrous drop-out rate, as the hon. the Minister will admit. We have discussed this before. Something like 40% of the children drop out between sub-standard A and Std. 2, and 65% have dropped out by the time Std. 5 is reached.

Why?

Why? Primarily for economic reasons. Less than 1% reach matric, may I add. Under economic reasons, which constitute the main reasons why, there is the fact that the parents of Black children have had to pay for their schooling and their books, and also the fact that the family needs the earnings, however pitiful they may be, of every member of the family. So the children are sent out to make a few extra rand a month in whatever jobs they can get, e.g. delivering messages or caddying at golf courses, etc. That is why.

Tell us about 1948.

1948? I do not know what the hon. member is referring to. [Interjections.] If he would tell me what he is referring to, I would try to reply to him, but I am afraid I cannot guess what is in his tiny mind. That is too difficult. This is all a reflection of what happens in a society in which 80% of the population is excluded from having any say in the law-making processes of the country. In other words, when 80% of the population does not have the vote, one does not really care very much about giving them equal opportunities as far as education, training, housing and all the other welfare facilities are concerned, albeit it is the duty of a modern State to provide for its citizens.

As we all know, the amount that was spent on the education of Black children was pegged, for a large number of years, at R13 million per annum. It was pegged at that figure for a large number of years, in fact until 1970. It was only from 1970 onwards that the Government realized that this amount of R13 million, apart from the fact that inflation had eaten enormously into the value of money, was obviously also hopelessly inadequate, and that it was also morally indefensible to peg the amount at that pitiful figure of R13 million per annum. Since then it has gradually increased, and I am glad to say that now it has come up to a very considerable amount. The amount for education, in the homelands and the Republic, today stands at about R182 million. I think that is about right. For primary and secondary education the amount is about R111 million. That brings the per capita expenditure to roughly the highest it has ever been, the figure today being about R70 per annum per Black child as an overall figure, and that is pretty good, considering the miserable amount it used to be. What we also have to consider, however, is this figure in relation to what is spent on White children, and there, of course, there is this terrible disparity because we are spending something like R700 per capita per annum on White children. Also, as I said in the Education Vote, and I do not think the hon. the Minister can fault this reasoning, one cannot merely compare the figure of R70 per capita per annum for a Black child with the figure of R700 per capita per annum for a White child. What one has to think of is the overall expenditure on the education of a child, and since White children have free and compulsory education for at least ten years, one spends at least R7 000 per White child throughout his whole period of schooling, but since the average Black child spends five years at school one spends something like R350 on a Black child. So there is where the huge disparity lies, and I do not know at what stage we are ever going to be able to catch up. It is going to be an enormous task.

The hon. the Minister is going to have to battle with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, to get a much greater allocation of funds for Black education. I would suggest, though, that it is a very good investment indeed. It is an investment in good will for the population of South Africa, and most important, too, an investment in the future because, to come back to the whole question of the utilization of labour resources, unless one has people who are basically well educated, one cannot train them and, as we all know, by the turn of the century South Africa is going to suffer from an acute shortage of skilled manpower. So it all fits together and, as I said, we are therefore going to have to increase enormously the amount that we spend. That is why the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave last night is so important. It shows on the one hand that we are fully in favour of certain aspects of this Bill, as is also obvious from the speeches that have been made, and that we realize that the Bill has certainly introduced some improvements, particularly in regard to free and compulsory education and also the recognition given to the very delicate question of mother-tongue education in so far as it will be left more to the parents to decide in which language they want their children educated, when the vernacular as the medium of instruction is abandoned after the first four years of schooling. In paragraphs (b) and (c) of the hon. member’s amendment he comments on the fact that the Bill—

1. (b) fails to provide a positive programme for the elimination of the grave disparities in education and other school facilities available for White and Black children, respectively;
2. (c) fails to remove the basic causes of frustration and discontent expressed by Blacks about the education of their children.

Much therefore hinges on what the appropriation is going to be for the hon. the Minister’s department. We have said—and it is our basic policy—that we do not want a separate department for Black children. That is our basic objection to this whole Bill. It is also the basic objection of many Black teachers and educational organizations, who have submitted memorandums to that effect to the Select Committee. However, while this separate department remains—and unfortunately we have no power to change that state of affairs—it is absolutely essential that the hon. the Minister should be voted more money in order to reduce the obvious disparity between White children and Black children in their educational facilities in South Africa. It is no good telling me that we have more Black children at school in South Africa than is the case anywhere else on the continent of Africa. I do not even know, incidentally, whether that is correct. If one takes Nigeria and other big countries like that into account, I am sure it is not so.

One should take it in proportion to the population.

Perhaps it is so if one takes it in proportion to the population, but that is not the point. We, at least, cannot consider the Black portion of our population as foreigners and therefore compare them with other foreigners. We consider them as citizens of South Africa and compare them with other citizens of South Africa. In other words, we compare the education of Black children in South Africa with the education of White children in South Africa. That is the first point.

The second is that the hon. the Minister is at least going to have to try to set out some time-scale in which he is going to try to introduce this system. Naturally, we are aware that it cannot be done overnight. The hon. the Minister does not have the schools, he does not have the classrooms and he does not have the teachers. So, it is all going to take time. I suggest, however, that we use the model that was used for White children in this country, a model in terms of which from 1920 onwards education was phased in in regional areas. It was made compulsory for children in certain areas to go to school.

Did you not listen to my Second Reading speech in which I referred to this matter?

I am agreeing with the hon. the Minister. I absolutely agree with him on this point. We know what the position is in that regard. I am really replying to the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, although I do not know why I am wasting so much time on that foolish speech. He of course came with the business of things having to be done overnight. I agree that one is going to have to phase it in. The hon. the Minister must, however, give us a time-scale of some kind. Unless he provides some timescale he is not going to remove the basic causes of frustration among the Black children. I believe it is essential to do so, because one is dealing with a very radicalized young Black population today. We are no longer in the ’sixties when one could tell them to wait and be patient. Young Black people in South Africa are not prepared to be patient any more.

They have been told not to be patient.

They have gone through a baptism of fire in the years from 1976 onwards and as a result they have become radicalized and impatient, and I want to say that I can understand their impatience. They have waited since 1951 for the recommendations of the Eiselen Commission to be brought before the House and implemented.

Since then you have told them not to be patient.

I did not tell them anything, as a matter of fact. Let me tell the hon. member that it is they who told me. I listen to what they have to say; I do not tell them anything.

I wish I could believe you.

I do not really care whether the hon. member believes me or not—let me just make that quite clear. I just want to say that one of the great differences of which children are very well aware, is the difference between the very poor qualifications of their teachers and those of White teachers. Just over 2% of the Black teachers have professional qualifications with university degrees, only 13% have professional qualifications of any kind at matric level, 48% have Std. 8 and something like 18% have Std. 6. I know there is a new teachers’ training college in Soweto. I attended the opening of it. I was very pleased to see that that college is going to be able to retrain and improve the qualifications of Black teachers. I hope we are going to invest in education. That is really what it is all about. We are investing in the future of South Africa. If one invests, one can expect good returns in this country. It is a country which is crying out for skilled labour and skilled manpower. One cannot, as I have said, train people without educating them.

The main demands which have been made by educationists of all races, almost unanimously by African educationists in the African community, are not met by this Bill, despite the fact, as I have said, that advances and improvements have been made. The main demands which have not been met are, firstly, the demand for the transfer of education for Africans to the Department of National Education—in other words, the abolition of administrative segregation in education; secondly, the demand for some positive goal in terms of a time-scale for the introduction of free and compulsory education for African children as envisaged by the Bill; thirdly, the demand for raising the per capita expenditure on African children to the level of the expenditure on White children and thus providing an equitable distribution of educational resources; and fourthly, the demand that African teachers be paid salaries equal to those of White teachers holding the same qualifications. The basic demand of Black people and Black educationalists, and certainly of ourselves as envisaged in the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave, mainly concerns the scrapping of Black educations and the introduction of a national syllabus and one educational system for all children.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Minister had listened attentively to the excellent contribution made by the hon. member for Houghton, I believe that certain points would have been brought home to him in no uncertain way. In the first place I think he will realize that it is precisely on the level of education for the Black child that the Black man in South Africa experiences the grossest form of discrimination against him, and this grossest form of discrimination is also the one which hurts him the most, because discrimination in respect of the education of his child is the discrimination he feels most acutely and which causes him the greatest pain. I think that if the hon. the Minister had listened to what was said on this side of the House, he would realize what proportions that discrimination has already assumed. One need only look at the difference between the spending on the education of the Black child and the spending on the education of the White child in South Africa. This is something which the Black man in South Africa feels, which hurts him very much and which he considers to be a great injustice. It causes rebelliousness to build up in the minds of the Black man against the White man in South Africa in respect of education.

I also believe that the hon. the Minister realizes that a very great task lies ahead and that it is a task which should be tackled now with daring and courage. We on this side of the House are convinced that the hon. the Minister approaches this problem with the necessary sympathy; I have no doubt about that, but what I also want to bring home to the hon. the Minister is that sympathy is not enough. Sympathy is not nearly enough. He can express that sympathy every day and he can discuss the matter every day, but it will not solve the problem and it will not make any difference to the rebelliousness of the non-Whites in this case either.

What is required of the hon. the Minister is determined action and perseverance and he must show that he has the ability to persuade the Cabinet and the hon. the Minister of Finance to make the necessary funds available to him to get down to this problem and to take active steps to solve it as quickly as possible.

It is no use saying that the problem must be solved overnight. We realize that it cannot be done overnight. However, it will be of no avail either if the hon. the Minister and the Government wish to solve it gradually over the next 50 years. What the hon. the Minister must do is announce a programme and say that he is going to narrow the existing gap year after year by, say, 10% per year over the next five years, or even over the next 10 years. It will have to be ensured that there are clear indications throughout South Africa that the problem is being solved and that the necessary facilities are being created to narrow that gap.

I said that it is in the sphere of education of the Black child that the grossest form of discrimination is being applied for all to see, and where the gravest problems for our race relations in South Africa are being caused. I should like to refer to one aspect of these, viz. that of the farm schools. During the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote there were various hon. members who also referred to that topic, inter alia, the hon. member for Witwatersberg, and I regret that he is not present here at the moment, because I think he has certain qualms of conscience when it comes to farm schools.

Farm schools are a tremendous problem for the Black child in the rural areas of South Africa. According to a reply furnished to me by the hon. the Minister there are at present 4 467 farm schools with 8 649 teachers and the number of pupils is given as 420 085.

To begin with the number of pupils: It has been the experience—and the hon. the Minister can establish that this is in fact true—that less than half of the children who ought to be at school in the rural areas are in fact attending school. There are of course many reasons for this. In the first place the availability of farm schools is of such a nature that there are many areas where there are no farm schools available for the Black children of that area, or the schools are situated so far away from the children that it is impossible for them to get to the school.

Of course no transport facilities are provided for Black children in the rural areas. The children have to be dependent on the employers of their parents or they simply have to walk in order to get to the schools. Consequently, one of the first and greatest problems is that there are no schools available in many areas, and where schools are available, children are not provided with transportation to enable them to get to those schools. This is the first factor which contributes to the fact that less than half of the children who ought to be at school are in fact attending the farm schools.

There are other problems as well. There is the problem of parents who do not ensure that their children go to school.

What is the solution?

There are parents who do not want to send their children to a school because they need their labour, for example to look after babies while the parents go out to work. I have experienced this problem a great deal, because I had the privilege of representing a constituency in the Transvaal Provincial Council which had a very large rural area, viz. the old Randburg constituency. There were approximately 20 farm schools in that area and since I was interested in those schools I considered it to be my responsibility to establish precisely what problems were being experienced there and to lend a hand wherever I was able to do so. One of the problems I encountered there was that a tremendous number of children did not attend those schools. A second factor I want to mention in this connection is that I found that most parents in that area were both working and that they found it necessary to keep their children out of school to take care of their households and to look after their younger children. This is also a major problem which contributed to poor school attendance there.

A third factor which contributed to the situation was that certain employers made use of child labour on their farms and that the children were consequently kept out of school. So there are three factors which contribute to the fact that there are a large number of children in the rural areas of South Africa who do not attend these farm schools.

The next problem I want to refer to is the provision of accommodation. Hon. members are probably aware that the department does not build schools for farm children in the rural areas. What they do in fact do is to grant a farmer a subsidy of R1 000 for the construction of one classroom, followed by R800 for the construction of an additional classroom. This is done in cases where farmers are persuaded to provide a school or where the farmer himself decides to provide a school. If one were to take the present building costs into consideration, it is a fact that for R1 000 one can build almost nothing. Today, R100 per sq. metre is considered to be a very low cost for the construction of any type of building and at a cost of R1 000 one can only construct a building of 10 sq. metres. One must take into consideration that these farmers have to provide the land themselves and that many of them have to bear most of the costs of the buildings which are constructed there themselves. They must also bear the costs of water supply, toilet facilities, etc.

That is why I submit that the subsidy which the State is paying for the construction of a farm school is not nearly sufficient, since it cannot even come close to covering the costs involved in the construction of such a school. Consequently this is one of the first problems which are being experienced in regard to accommodation for these schools.

When one considers the kind of accommodation one sees that it varies tremendously. It varies from what is virtually a kind of slum accommodation to reasonably good accommodation. The quality of the accommodation seldom depends on whether or not the farmer is wealthy. The financial means of the farmer or of the individual who provides the school seldom has anything to do with it. What is more important is the approach of such a person. Although some farmers are not very wealthy, they provide very attractive and very good schools, while other very wealthy farmers provide extremely poor accommodation for their schools. I believe that it is a responsibility of the State and not of the farmer. The provision of schools is in the first place a primary responsibility of the State because the provision of education is the primary function of the State.

I now wish to focus attention on what is being provided in the form of equipment and books in these schools. One really feels ashamed when one visits the schools and sees what the children are being provided with there in the form of equipment and books. It amounts to almost nothing. If the farmer or the parents did not make a small contribution or if a contribution were not made by some other organization for the purchase of equipment and books, those children would receive precisely nothing. A few months ago I visited 10 of these schools in the north-western areas of Johannesburg. If one draws a comparison between what is being provided for children in the White schools and what is being provided for children in farm schools, one cannot but feel ashamed of the tremendous lack of equipment and books.

You are now conducting a Vote debate.

Yes …

Order! The hon. member is discussing the matter in great detail and I believe he is discussing matters which he will not be able to discuss under any clause during the Committee Stage.

No, Sir, I am making an appeal to the hon. the Minister for these farm schools, for this type of school is terribly important. To my mind this is a very grave problem which the hon. the Minister is going to be faced with. At this stage I should like to make use of the opportunity to bring this matter to his specific attention. [Interjections.] I believe that this legislation …

[Inaudible.]

Unfortunately I did not hear that interjection. Does the hon. member for Brits want to put a question to me? [Interjections.] If the hon. member wishes to put a question, let him do so then. [Interjections.] I did not hear the hon. member’s question.

I want to continue, and discuss the control which is being exercised over these schools. In the nature of things, these schools have been established in remote areas and it is difficult to exercise control there. Consequently I believe that a tremendous deficiency exists when it comes to the control which has to be exercised over these schools. I believe, too, that the State should assume a far greater responsibility in that respect in order to ensure that the standard applicable to those schools is on a par with the standards of schools in other areas. One of the problems of course is that Black children only attend these schools for a year or two. Children do not attend farm schools for four, five, or six years. They only attend those schools for a year or two. Consequently we find that almost none of those schools go further than Std. 2 and there is a tremendous restriction on the level of education which is available to those children.

If those children wish to attend a high school, the fact of the matter is that no high schools exist for them. If they want to attend a high school they have to go to one of the homelands. Those are areas which are frequently situated hundreds of miles away, and where no facilities are made available to them for school attendance.

That is not true.

I think that this problem of providing the Black child of South Africa with education is a tremendous problem. It will require a vast amount of money to be able to do it effectively. But it is imperative that it be tackled on every level now and that an adequate indication should be given of the steps the Government intends taking in order to achieve those targets. When the hon. the Minister speaks of education for Black children he must please not forget the children in rural areas; he must not forget the farm schools of our country. He must also include them in the steps which the Government intends taking. I have the feeling that attention is now being given to the Black children in the urban areas …

Urban Blacks?

That is correct, yes—“Urban Blacks”.

Which party uses that term most often?

Mr. Speaker, this party does not think …

You do not think at all.

We do not think in terms of urban or rural Black children. To tell the truth, the approach of the PFP is not concerned with Black, Coloured, Indian or White children. We think in terms of the children of South Africa, regardless of their race or colour. [Interjections.] That is why our representations in this entire discussion boil down to this: We must provide the children of South Africa with the best possible educational facilities. To be able to do this we argued that it is only possible provided education in its totality falls under the control of a single department. I want to add, however, that even if the hon. the Minister were able to provide the Black child with the very best education, the suspicion that that education is not on the same level or of the same calibre of that of the White child will nevertheless persist as long as Black education is dealt with by a separate department. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned this is a very important factor, although the Government does not seem to realize it. It is of vital importance. To convince the Black man that his child is being provided with education of the same standard as that of the White children in South Africa will only be successful if the planning, the co-ordination, the implementation and the control of education in South Africa falls under a single department. The Black man cannot understand why it should then be necessary for the education of his children to be administered by a separate department. To him it looks like a swindle. It seems to him as though the Whites are applying it solely with a view to discriminating against Black people.

It is you who prompt them to think that.

I am prompting him? Oh please, that poor hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is always implying that we are inciting the Black man. Surely the Black man is not all that stupid.

The fact remains that you prompt them.

The Black man realizes these things. He feels them. He experiences them. [Interjections.] He has personal first-hand experience of these things. It is not necessary for him to listen to us to realize that he is being discriminated against Every minute of every day he experiences the discrimination which this Government is applying against him. It is not at all necessary for us to bring it to his attention. All we are trying to do is to bring those things to the attention of the Government and to make representations to them to do something positive so that that discrimination can be removed. That is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, may I just quote to the hon. member … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must ask leave to put a question or raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I put a question to the hon. member for Bryanston?

Order! The hon. member may put a question.

It is in the form of a remark of one of the fellow travellers of those hon. members who said the following—

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Witwatersberg has also entered the Council chamber, because I have a bone to pick with him. It has extended over a period of a few years. In a certain respect I must actually thank him, because it was as a result of an action on his part that I began to take an interest in farm schools and have remained interested in farm schools over the years. I want to mention this again in the House today, just to illustrate the type of behaviour of this Government and what the consequences are. There was a farm school in the constituency of which that hon. member was the MP and I was the MPC.

I am still the MP.

I was the MPC and he was the MP. That farm school had existed for decades and it had 250 pupils. In the 1970 election the NP, just as they did recently, were scared stiff of the HNP, and then the hon. member organized a petition against that school. The people of the area had nothing against the existence of the school. They were happy with the school, which rendered a great service to the area. However, for the sake of a few miserable HNP votes, the NP had that school closed down. The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development, one of the so-called enlightened spirits of the party, took the decision at the time to close down that school. A total of 250 children were then without a school. With the exception of 30 children, no provision was made for them. Solely for an ideological political reason, that school was summarily closed down and those 250 children were left without a school.

Order! The hon. member must now return to the Bill. He cannot discuss the administration of the department any further.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude with that I merely mentioned it to illustrate the gross discrimination, the denial of human rights and the suffering caused by the actions of that department.

Mr. Speaker, for their contributions, and the replies which they have already furnished to some of those who objected to the Bill, I should like to express my gratitude to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Virginia, and the hon. member for Gezina. I am sorry that the hon. member for Marico was unable to complete his speech last night. Suffice it to say that I thank them. The hon. member for Gezina was modest enough not to mention his own share in the activities of not only the Select Committee, but also the caucus group of the NP which deals with educational matters. His work in this caucus group enabled us to discuss matters with one another and also to discuss differences properly with one another. For that I wish to express my gratitude to him and other hon. members of the caucus groups. I think I am justified in saying that in among all the other unfortunate remarks here, there have been a few contributions here for which I have reason to express my appreciation, even though I do not agree with them. In this regard I am thinking of the contribution by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He said quite modestly that he did not know much about Black education, but he nevertheless indicated that he was thoroughly aware of the positive things which can be achieved through education. At a later stage I hope to reply in detail to the few matters raised by the hon. members for Durban Central. I appreciate his speech and I also want to thank him for the contribution he made in the Select Committee. In the absence of the hon. member for Pinelands I wish to say I am sorry that he cannot be present at the discussion of a matter in which he takes a great interest and in respect of which he has made sound contributions. I should like my good wishes for a speedy and complete recovery to be conveyed to him. Furthermore, I wish to thank everyone who made contributions to this debate.

The hon. member for Rondebosch, who apologized for not being able to be present during my reply, made mention of the fact that we in this House take decisions about people who are not directly represented in the House. I do not deny this.

I wish to repeat—in case all hon. members are not aware of it—that the draft Bill was published as long ago as 1978. Therefore prior notice was given, but even before that was done, the teaching bodies manned by Black people were fully consulted in the whole matter, long before the Whites were consulted about the matter. Therefore they were fully informed and notified in good time of what was intended. Although they cannot take part in the proceedings of this House, they nevertheless had the right to air their opinions. The doors of my department were open to them and they made use of the opportunity to come and discuss with us their opinions on matters concerning Black education. They also did so later by way of memoranda.

I should like to put it for the consideration of hon. members who spoke and did not have the privilege of serving on the Select Committee that the report and proceedings of the Select Committee is available to everyone. I should like to ask the hon. members for Houghton and Bryanston, who did not serve on the Select Committee, whether they have read the report and proceedings of the Select Committee.

[Inaudible.]

I say the hon. member for Houghton did not read it.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton did not read through the report and proceedings of the Select Committee which was appointed out of consideration towards people who held other views, nor did the hon. member for Bryanston look at it. If people who are interested and wish to participate in a debate, did not have the time to read the memoranda we received, I understand it. But for heaven’s sake, they should at least have taken the elementary trouble of reading the report and proceedings of the Select Committee.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton has the habit of constantly chattering and cackling when someone else is speaking. I have great respect for a lady at all times, and I also have great respect for that hon. member. She need not pull a sour face about that. She is too pretty to wear that kind of expression. In any case, she cannot put me off my stroke by pulling a face at me. [Interjections.]

†I would be only too pleased to sit down and to allow the hon. member an opportunity to address me if you rule accordingly, Mr. Speaker. We cannot carry on in this way with her continually chattering. I did not interrupt her when she spoke. So I please ask her to show me the same courtesy. If she is incapable of showing me that courtesy, I shall nevertheless carry on amidst all the interruption and try to reply to her questions, in all fairness to her.

*We are debating a Bill which was discussed thoroughly after it had also been referred to a Select Committee. I concede that the Select Committee had very, very limited time at its disposal and I know it is not fair and just to expect people to work at such speed. That is why I said, and I repeat it, that I am grateful to members of that committee for having heeded the call, made a proper and thorough study of the Bill and reported to us in record time.

I now come to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave, and for clarity’s sake, I just wish to read it to hon. members—

First I wish to make a few comments on this first point. It states here “perpetuates an educational system in the Republic”. This is so. We are perpetuating the system which has existed over the years and which grew in good soil. In that regard I have no quarrel with it. It does, however, strike one that the word “differentiates” is used. The word “differentiates” is an improvement on the totally negative word used by some other members of that party, those members who know no other word than “discriminates”. If the hon. member says we differentiate, I say “yes”. If they are going to vote for this amendment because we “differentiate”, I should like to put a few questions to them. Why do we have English- and Afrikaans-medium schools in this country?

†Is that not differentiation?

One department.

No, we are not talking about the departments now.

Well, I am.

I am talking about the amendment which states that it “perpetuates an educational system in the Republic which differentiates on the basis of race”. I shall be coming to the “race” aspect in a moment.

And it discriminates.

That hon. member has put his foot into it again.

*Can the hon. member for Bryanston not let one debate pass without…

The truth is that it discriminates, and you know it.

Order! The hon. the Minister must proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I may disagree on many things, but when I hear that kind of interruption I think that most hon. members in this House will agree that if rudeness and continually insulting behaviour are necessary qualifications for a man to become a good Parliamentarian, the hon. member for Bryanston is very well-qualified indeed to become one of the best known politicians this country has ever had.

We only want to discuss the facts.

Order! The hon. member has had his turn to speak.

The hon. member speaks about “discriminates”.

†I should like to ask the hon. member for Musgrave whether he wants to substitute the word “discriminates” for the word “differentiates”. He moved the amendment and therefore, in all kindness, I am putting this question to him across the floor. Is he prepared to change that word to “discriminates”?

I am not substituting anything. The amendment stands.

May I then appeal to the hon. member to plead with the hon. member for Bryanston not to talk a lot of nonsense? “Differentiates” is the word used in the amendment.

I say your policy discriminates.

Sir, if they disagree amongst themselves it is up to them to solve their problems.

*As far as the words “on the basis of race” are concerned, I want to say I am glad that there is an improvement in this regard. In the past they said “on the grounds of colour”. I am glad that we have now broken away from the concept of colour which they were for ever dragging in.

The second part of the amendment states that the Bill—

I must differ here because the Bill as a whole and the work of the past years has been aimed at eliminating these very disparities—I do not deny that they exist. This is an honest attempt to achieve that. The second part reads further—

Why are Coloured and Indian children not included as well? I leave it at that.

The third part of the amendment reads—

†Why are those “basic causes of frustration and discontent” not spelt out in the amendment? We just get the vague phrase “the basic causes of frustration and discontent”.

*I think we could cut a long debate short by associating ourselves with the hon. member for Rondebosch and other hon. members—including the hon. member for Durban Central, who also spelt it out clearly—and say that our Black people do have reason to be dissatisfied with the educational system of their children. I concede that. One of the reasons is that there is a major disparity in expenditure in respect of the education of Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. It is no use denying the truth. I think we are wasting our time by talking about the truth and by continually repeating it. Where this is the case and it has to be rectified, we must rectify it together. I wish to allege that this Bill is an attempt to lay the foundations on which we shall be able to eliminate these disparities. I have already said—I do not know how to emphasize it enough—that to ask me and the Government to prepare a programme for the next five or six years, is asking the impossible. I am not going to submit a programme while I know that I cannot guarantee it I am not going to promise people things when I know that I cannot implement it. I ask for understanding in this regard. Let me put it simply. Five to six years ago the growth rate in the country was such that we could spend certain sums of money and could continue with planning. What happened after that? During the past few days there were tremendous shocks and the country will have to absorb them. I am referring, inter alia, to the increase in the price of petrol. What is our country going to do if the price of petrol has to be increased further and we cannot find the means to stop the inflationary conditions and continue with development? We can dispute about whose fault it actually is, but we cannot escape the basic fact that we do not control the oil prices. Neither can we get away from the fact that there are other factors which influence our country’s development. Consequently I cannot say what our gold price or balance of payments will be in future and therefore what our programme for the following five or ten years will be. All I can promise—and I have indeed said this during the discussion of my Vote—is that we shall try to eliminate the backlog as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. I indicated the most important aspects in respect of which there is a backlog. I am not going to paint the same sombre picture again. The hon. member for Houghton also said this today and she is correct in that respect. A tremendous backlog has built up and not only since 1953. The Eiselen Commission was appointed to investigate just this. They found that a tremendous backlog exists and recommended that the matter be rectified. I concede that the progress was not as desired. It was not as desired as a result of circumstances which I do not think it is necessary to discuss at length. I do not wish to preach, but what would it benefit us if I were to tell a long story about the responsibility of the city council of Johannesburg for the building of schools? This is so. The hon. members for Houghton, Yeoville and Johannesburg North know this. In Johannesburg, where the people who are favourably disposed towards the United Party and the Progressive Federal Party were in control, the largest backlog imaginable existed when the then Bantu Affairs Administration Board took over the responsibility for the building of schools. I should like to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow, who gave good service as a member of the city council of Johannesburg, whether that is not true.

They did not receive enough money.

Do hon. members see the kind of thing about which we can err? Other city councils did receive money, and therefore I want to ask the hon. member, who served on that city council for many years, why they did not receive money? Surely they have their sources of revenue.

It is the richest city in the country.

Yes, it is the richest city in the country, but it was in that city that there was the greatest backlog. [Interjections.] But I am now guilty of doing what I asked others not to do. Where would it get us if I were to talk for days about what the old UP Government did not do, or say that one thing or another caused a mess? We are in 1979 and there is a tremendous amount of work to be done. A backlog exists, no matter who caused it, and we must rectify matters. This is mainly what I am interested in and this is why we call for everybody’s co-operation.

A backlog does, of course, exist in respect of classrooms. One must, however, calculate what it would cost to eliminate that backlog. We did not make a secret of this. For the existing school population we need 7 000 classrooms at the moment to eliminate double sessions. If one takes into consideration the fact that each classroom costs R10 000—and this does not even include the furniture—one realizes what a burden we shall have to carry if we have to build 7 000 classrooms to eliminate the backlog. This gives us some idea of the enormity of the task which awaits us to provide basic facilities only. Hon. members of the Opposition and also hon. members on this side of the House have pointed this out. The hon. member for Virginia referred to the backlog in respect of the qualifications of teachers. We cannot improve the qualifications of the teachers overnight. One does not train a teacher within a year or so. These things do not work like a sausage machine. The people have to undergo proper training and we cannot provide them with that overnight I have already said that we are engaged in an in-service training programme for teachers. We are also engaged in the training of teachers at the new training colleges. Therefore we are working in that direction, and this Bill provides the space in which we can continue working on these improvements.

Mention was made of the disparity between the expenditure on the education of Black pupils and the expenditure on the education of White pupils. I have never denied this, and anyone who denies this today, will only be denying an absolute fact. I think it was the hon. the Minister of Community Development who, by way of an interjection, asked which Government would be able to eliminate this disparity tomorrow or would dare say that it would be able to do so within 10 years. What Government could do this? A Government can, of course, submit a blueprint for a ten-year plan or a five-year plan and, at the end of the period concerned, say that the plan has been executed or that only part of the plan has been executed. However that is not how things work. Any Parliamentarian knows that we are dependent on the funds allocated to us. Like everyone else I ask for a bigger allocation, but then we should at least be realistic. Therefore I was surprised that the finances which we have to have, were discussed under this legislation. Surely we have a system of annual allocation and all hon. members of this hon. House know that this is our system of budgeting. How am I to lay this down in legislation? Who in the Opposition can explain this to me? Can the hon. member for Parktown, with his special knowledge of finance and of the parliamentary system, explain this to me? How does one lay down in an Act the question of expenditure and gradual increases in expenditure? Surely it is ridiculous to ask this. Why do we then debate about it for hours if we know that the legislation only creates a framework within which one can work while the allocation of funds is a totally different item?

I should like to deal a little more fully with the hon. member for Houghton before I come to the hon. member for Musgrave. The hon. member for Houghton made a few interesting statements here and there is a lot of truth in some of them.

†I do not want to be the judge of a fight between the hon. member and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central did put a few positive views on this Bill and criticized some aspects of it. But I must put a question to the hon. member for Houghton: Why, with the positive contribution that she can make and that she has made on so many occasions in this House, is it that every speech of hers must start off with the type of remark that she made against the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central? She said that he did not have the slightest idea of what he was talking about.

He does not.

I do not want to be a judge between the two hon. members, but the hon. member in the course of her speech, seeing that she accuses the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that he does not know what he is talking about, had a lot to say about mother-tongue education and the dissatisfaction of the Blacks because they are not allowed to pick the medium of instruction.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No. May I please continue with my reply in peace? She said that the question of mother-tongue education was one of the reasons—although she admitted that it was not the only one—for the 1976 explosion, as she saw fit to call it. I want to consider the views of the Black people, not White people speaking for them condescendingly and paternalistically. I know of White people who are genuinely interested and I listen to them too. This document which I have here expresses the views of Black people, and not only in South Africa. But I want to quote the views expressed by Black people in South Africa. Let us deal with the question of mother-tongue education. I can give hon. members extracts from a paper read by the Secretary of my department after he had made a thorough study of the situation. Hon. members can check what the Secretary states here. He says—

Who disputes that?

I quote further—

But the hon. member for Houghton talked about mother-tongue education, that that was one of the reasons for the riots in 1976. How do I understand this whole matter now? If that does not say something about mother-tongue education, perhaps what I am going to quote now will mean something to the hon. member, she who accuses other members of not knowing what they are talking about.

You entirely misunderstood what I said.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton has now made her point and she must now give the hon. the Minister his chance.

May I point out to the hon. member for Houghton, after she has accused the hon. member of not knowing what he is talking about, that her party’s motion asks for one department. Prof. Kgware, the rector of the University of the North, is a recognized Black leader in the educational field, and he says that integration at school level only works when you have two communities with more or less similar traditions, histories, views of life, stages of development and socio-economic positions.

He said: “Any unprejudiced observer of the South African scene could see that this was not the case in South Africa. There was no uniformity and equality even between English- and Afrikaans-speaking groups. Integration between Black and White in a uniform school system would be a crime towards the Blacks.” This is what a Black leader says. When considering the issue of one educational department, whom do I have to listen to: the hon. member for Houghton, who professes that she knows what is going on in the minds of the Black people, or do I have to listen to a Black leader?

Is he against one department?

Yes, of course. Seeing that I have very little time left, I am quite prepared to give his statement to any hon. member who is genuinely interested in Black education.

The second main question—and I shall have to rush through this—is the issue raised by the hon. member for Musgrave and others that this whole Bill invites suspicion. If one invites memoranda on a Bill, the hon. member will agree that one will get memoranda that criticize and memoranda that suggest improvements, but none which fully agree with the contents of a Bill saying how pleased they are about the Bill. That is a fact. I admit that there are people who are against some of the clauses, but we have tried to come to an agreement with them. The Select Committee did just that, and I think it has succeeded in doing so.

Lastly, I want to refer to the question of free and compulsory education. Free compulsory education, seen in the context which the hon. member for Bryanston mentioned, is completely out of the question for a number of years. It is no use arguing about it, because the finances and the qualified teachers are not available; so we shall simply not be able to cope with it.

*The hon. member for Bryanston also referred, inter alia, to what the hon. member for Witwatersberg had said in this regard, and I should now like to avail myself of the opportunity to bring the hon. member’s staking contribution to the attention of hon. members once again. It is true that one does not always mention here in the House the trouble which hon. members on this side of the House go to when they investigate a matter, because facts are often transmitted in the course of confidential discussions. I should, however, like to tell that hon. member and anyone else who may still have doubts, that if anyone has taken trouble to have facilities provided for the Blacks in his area and has had to convince people who have protested out of a spirit of wilfulness, it is the hon. member for Witwatersberg. As was said today and also previously here in the House, the hon. member for Witwatersberg and also the hon. member for Bryanston touched on one matter which is of extreme importance. We cannot but place on record the contribution of agriculture, of the farmers, to Black education. To my mind they have not yet been thanked properly. One does not, however, only express gratitude in words. Yesterday officials of my department and I met representatives of agriculture and of Administration Boards throughout the country. We conducted discussions with them on how the system of education in the rural areas, for instance bus transport and all the other facilities, can be improved so that the schoolchild in the rural areas can enjoy the same privileges as his counterpart in the urban areas. I have before me a document dated 18 January 1978—hon. members can come and have a look at it if they are interested—which was issued when the first memorandum by the S.A. Agricultural Union was submitted to me. On 16 April I had discussions with the executive of the S.A. Agricultural Union to discuss the whole financing pattern and further planning, including that for secondary education for Blacks in the rural areas.

†I want to repeat that the farming community and organized agriculture agree that there should also be secondary education for these people. How it is going to work and how we are going to implement it, I do not know yet. We shall give the matter our attention, we shall consider the views of organized agriculture and together with the local people we shall work out a scheme to enable the authorities to give the maximum facilities and to develop to the full all those children whose interests are entrusted to this department.

*I am sorry that I had to cut my reply short. I should have liked, for courtesy sake, to react more fully to hon. members’ arguments, but the time does not allow me to do so. Where I did not reply to a question or statement, I shall do so by letter.

Finally, I should also like to express my gratitude to hon. members for those contributions which enabled us to move forward positively on the road which should still carry us much further.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. B. R. Bamford, D. J. Dalling, Dr. Z. J. de Beer, Messrs. I. F. A. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, J. F. Marais, P. A. Myburgh, H. H. Schwarz, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, S. S. van der Merwe, H. E. J. van Rensburg and A. B. Widman) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

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

I want to motivate this briefly. It is very clear to me that the present provision in fact restricts the discretion of the hon. the Minister to one decision only. It is also the opinion of some of our friends with legal training that once the hon. the Minister has accepted a norm linked to a certain number, he would find it very difficult to accept another norm at a later stage. Because of changing circumstances, one has to ensure that it will be possible to accommodate situations which arise. For that reason I suggest that the discretion of the hon. the Minister be extended and widened in scope.

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

It will probably be felt that we are showing a little less appreciation than we ought perhaps to show for the motion moved by the hon. member for Sasolburg. Consequently I hasten to say that we are thoroughly aware of the fact that his motion, if it is carried, will mean a change for the better in the legislation and that we welcome it as such.

†It should be apparent to anybody who paid attention to the Second Reading debate what is at stake here. The hon. member’s proposed instruction reads—

That may be one reason for wishing to do it. However, there may be many other reasons. We are anxious, as must be apparent to those hon. members who have been following this debate, to move away from a situation in which legislation of this kind concentrates on the colour of people’s skins instead of the kind of work they do and the kind of training they have received. We should wish to see every opportunity being available under all possible circumstances to workers to exercise their right of autonomy in deciding what sort of industrial organization they wish to have.

*I do not think it is inappropriate to refer to certain paragraphs of the report of the Wiehahn Commission, paragraphs in which the importance of the autonomy of industrial organizations to which I have just referred, is emphasized.

†For example, one can begin by looking at paragraph 3,66, wherein the commission poses three possibilities in regard to how unions are to be structured. According to the commission, the first possibility is—

or secondly—

or thirdly—

As we have made plain, that is what we—like the commission—would like to see. The hon. member’s proposed instruction goes some way towards this ideal by making it possible for the hon. the Minister and his officials to make exceptions to the otherwise rather rigid apartheid structure which is contained in the legislation. However, it still only permits the hon. the Minister to do so after he has done his sums and added up the number of Whites, Coloureds and African workers in a particular situation. We do not think that the legislation should be concerned with counting heads and examining skin colour. We think it should look at economic criteria, which are important in this respect.

Secondly, it is plain from the commission’s report that the weight of the evidence they took, presumably from experienced people, from people who knew what they were doing—was overwhelmingly in support of the concept that race should not be a criterion when deciding upon registration, the determination of the area or the interests of trade unions. In paragraph 3.69 of the report the commission states—

The proposed instruction still makes it possible for the State to decide what the composition should be and, what is more, to decide on a basis of head-counting as between races.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended, I was motivating my amendment to the proposed instruction moved by the hon. member for Sasolburg. I said that one of the major deficiencies of the legislation before this House was the utter failure of the Government to take cognizance of the very strong recommendation by the commission that there should be trade union autonomy in the sense that trade union members themselves should be entitled to decide on the form of organization preferred by them. I also quoted from the commission’s report to prove my statement. Next I want to quote one final extract from the commission’s report, and what I am going to quote emanates from the chairman of the commission, Dr. Wiehahn, himself. After two groups of commissioners had stated their divergent standpoints, Dr. Wiehahn summarized the matter as follows in paragraph 3.83.1—

According to my knowledge of South African trade unionism, all trade union leaders— White, Black and Coloured—with a few unimportant exceptions, are practical people who exert themselves to promote the practical interests of the workers they represent. They are not people who become followers of ideological trends. There are a few exceptions, but this is true in general. I have always been impressed by this practical approach of theirs. Over the past few years and months in particular I have been impressed by the way in which the trade union leaders of various racial communities have come to the realization that their interests are essentially common interests, that sound industrial relations are in the interests of all workers and that unity among all workers is in the interests particularly of the workers’ class as against the employers.

[Inaudible.]

Consequently I think there is no reason whatsoever for the exaggerated fear of the hon. member for Verwoerdburg and his like-minded friends of allowing the natural process of co-operation of people from different backgrounds to proceed in the one single economy in which all of us have to live in South Africa. I believe this fear of this is exaggerated and I am pleased that I am able to assure him that his fear will prove to be unnecessary. The hon. member is younger than I and he will probably see this process grow further than I shall.

However, what is necessary in this regard is that the hon. the Minister and his colleagues apply their minds to the considered opinion of the commission that the time has arrived for workers to be allowed to have the type of structure and formation they deem fit in trade unionism and in the field of industrial relations. I see the hon. member for Newcastle is shaking his head. Apparently he does not believe that other people should have what they believe is best for themselves. He believes the NP caucus should tell everyone what is good for them. However, this is not the case. The economic forces will eventually prevail and the hon. member may live long enough to see how wrong he is.

Mr. Speaker, the ideal that was sketched by the hon. member for Parktown is, I am sure, contained in the vision outlined by both the Wiehahn Commission’s recommendations and in the vision of the hon. the Minister. I think that to expect that the highly stratified occupational divisions in South Africa will change overnight is being a little super-optimistic. At the same time, however, we believe in this party that matters concerning employer or employee organizations are always best handled, both in terms of policy determination and administration, by the people most intimately concerned, i.e. the members of the relevant trade union or employer organizations.

The policy of our party is that the Government, and its legislation therefore, should be there purely to control excesses and distortions in private enterprise institutions in order to pre-empt or assist with the regulation of particular activities which may prove to be disadvantageous to the particular disadvantaged group, whether the group is disadvantaged in terms of its training, its skills or purely on the basis of economics.

The instruction moved here today by the hon. member for Sasolburg is interesting on two counts. Firstly I believe it is something of a precedent. I think it is about 18 years since an instruction of this nature has appeared on the Order Paper and has been moved. The second interesting aspect is the reconsideration of the matter and the indications, from the hon. the Minister, that he will assent to this instruction, thereby extending the principle of the relevant clause and, therefore, also that of the Bill. We in this party believe that the ultimate aim should be an unstratified occupational hierarchy in South Africa, the only differentiation in membership of a trade union being in terms of the members’ qualifications and skills rather than in terms of their colour or creed.

In this sense we find the instruction itself highly acceptable in the sense that it is a considerable improvement on the basic principle, but at the same time we also believe, like the hon. member for Parktown, that there may be more than one circumstance in which the hon. the Minister should be allowed to exercise the prerogative granted to him in terms of this instruction, so that he will be able to instruct the Registrar to register trade unions, not only on the basis of population group ratios, but also for other occupational reasons.

Therefore, very briefly, I should like to say that we shall probably be supporting the hon. member for Parktown’s amendment, as well as supporting the instruction as it reads at present. We do this because we have found that the log-jam in industrial relations has been broken by the introduction of the Bill, and it is now a question of regulating the logs which have broken loose and getting them to move in formation for the benefit of everybody concerned.

Let me reiterate, however, that we in the NRP believe that legislation and intervention should be minimized, but at the same time that one should take cognizance of the transitional development stage these trade unions are going to go through in South Africa. Therefore there is going to be the necessity for a certain measure of legislative control in the transitionary stage. The fundamental principle involved here, which we support, is that trade unions are for trade union members, and therefore the greater the degree of autonomy, consistent with their ability, the better they will be able to serve themselves and South Africa.

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

What the principle contained in clause 10 of the Bill amounts to is that a party to an industrial council has a right of veto in the matter of the admission of new parties to that industrial council. In practice it could happen that one specific trade union is a party to ten or even 15 industrial councils. If such a trade union were stubborn, it could effectively render the admission of new members quite impossible.

That is why I have moved that the Committee of the Whole House have leave to consider the advisability of restricting the principle of the right of veto as contained in clause 10, so that an appeal may be made to the industrial court in cases where parties feel aggrieved about the refusal of their admission to industrial councils in consequence of the right of veto having been exercised.

Mr. Speaker, we shall be supporting this instruction. [Interjections.] I do not know why the hon. member makes such an extraordinary noise. In the course of my Second Reading speech, I mentioned that one of the objections we had to the clause which establishes an industrial court, was the fact that there was no right of appeal. We had indeed drafted an amendment to that effect to be put on the Order Paper. So naturally, when we saw that the hon. member’s instruction was on the Order Paper, we clearly indicated that we would be supporting this instruction.

Question agreed to.

House in Committee:

Instructions stated to the Committee.

Clause 1:

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

Quite obviously, the purpose behind this amendment is to allow those persons presently excluded from eligibility to join registered trade unions to be brought back into the ambit of orderly industrial relations. I am referring, of course, to the people who are to be excluded by virtue of paragraph (a)(ii) of the definition of “employee”. I must say that the hon. the Minister has not informed the House—perhaps he will inform this Committee—of his reasons for excluding the vast majority of Black workers, for that is what it will mean, from trade union eligibility. The Wiehahn Commission in its report was adamant in its findings. On pages 23 to 29 a long and very complete argument was advanced by the commission for the inclusion of all workers, without exception, for trade union registration, provided they were employed in the Republic of South Africa. The Wiehahn Commission specifically mentioned that it wished frontier-commuters and migrant workers to be included for eligibility. It argued very carefully that, unless this was done, the whole rationale for a representative trade union would be lost. It stated that migrant workers and commuters should not be excluded because it felt that a high degree of representativeness in a union was absolutely crucial to the orderly operation of the industrial relations system. There is no doubt whatever that there are many areas where the degree of representativeness will be very badly affected by the exclusion of frontier commuters and migrants. Last night the hon. member for Musgrave gave us a very cogent argument about the inadvisability of excluding, for instance, the workers of Umlazi and of Kwa Mashu who actually live on the borders of Durban and who are to all intents and purposes permanently urbanized workers. They have been there for many years; it is decades since they were moved there from right inside Durban itself to just outside the city borders and into kwaZulu. They are stable, urbanized, permanent workers. There are other areas which are equally affected. In Natal there is the area between Durban and Pietermaritzburg which is served by Hammarsdale which is a growth point and which borders right on a Black homeland. Those people are frontier-commuters. Then we have the area of Mdantsane which is right next door to East London, but Mdantsane is in the Ciskei and those people are commuters. In the Transvaal we have the example of the thousands of workers who come from Bophuthatswana to work in the border industries of Brits and Rosslyn. So I could go on listing areas throughout the country where there are thousands of commuters who to all intents and purposes are stable, industrialized workers.

Yesterday, during the Second Reading debate, I gave a long quotation of what Dr. Verwoerd had said on the question of stability. In those days the migrant workers, who are the people I am now talking about, used to go back for anything from three to six months after they had served a term in the urban or industrial areas earning their living. Now, of course, we have a very different situation. We now have contract workers who come into the urban or industrial areas on contract, work for 11 months, or perhaps 11 months and a week, and then go back for their normal vacation period of three weeks to a month. Thousands of those people return again, on the call-in card system, to the same employer. To all intents and purposes they are as stable and in many cases perhaps even more stable than people who have section 10(l)(a) and (b) rights. I cannot understand the rationale behind this and I hope very much that the hon. the Minister will give us some explanation of this.

I will.

Well, I shall listen to it very attentively, because all the arguments put to the Wiehahn Commission against the inclusion of migrants and frontier-commuters are actually countered in the Commission’s report. The question was raised, for instance, whether these people could perhaps introduce some sort of subversion into the trade union movement. The Wiehahn Commission says very firmly that in such a case those people should simply be sent home and not just excluded from trade union activity, or that they should not have been admitted, in the first instance, to the Republic of South Africa. They argue this out right through, but I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by giving the details, because I assume that everyone who is participating in this debate has taken the trouble to read the report of the Wiehahn Commission. I therefore refer them to pages 22 to 29 where they will find all the arguments raised against the admission of frontier-commuters and contract workers being firmly countered by the Wiehahn Commission. As I have mentioned during the Second Reading debate, the idea of the phasing-in of those workers was also something the Wiehahn Commission was against.

I know the hon. the Minister has powers of exemption, I know that he has wide powers to allow people who are excluded by the law, to be eligible to be admitted to trade unions. We do not like this idea of a right by virtue of a ministerial exemption, because Ministers come and go, as we have certainly seen over the past few months. Nobody knows whether what is in this hon. Minister’s mind is in fact going to be in the next Minister’s mind. We therefore want a legal right enshrined in the statute for workers, be they frontier-commuters, migrant workers or workers falling under the provisions of section 10(1)(a), (b) or (c), to be allowed to join trade unions. Without that, I do not believe that we shall have industrial stability or peaceful industrial relations in our country.

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

In motivating this amendment, I should like to make a very strong appeal to the hon. the Minister to take cognizance of a number of factors in regard to what the outcome of the clause will be as it stands at the moment. Firstly, the clause as it is worded separates Black employees in South Africa into organized and unorganized work forces. As it is at the moment, the definition of “employee” will result in a minority having the facility, the right and privilege to become organized into trade unions, whilst the bulk of the workers in South Africa, on whom the South African economy is totally dependent, are still going to find themselves in the unorganized, though hopefully not disorganized, categories.

I think it is also incumbent upon the hon. the Minister to take into account the fact that at the moment a large number of Black South African workers who are members of unregistered Black trade unions, will be losing their rights within these unregistered trade unions. A large number of people who are not in possession of section 10 rights, which will become a prerequisite for membership of trade unions in terms of this clause, are at the moment participants in the provident and pension funds of these particular unregistered trade unions. They will therefore be losing those rights as well.

Furthermore, the hon. the Minister visualizes that, through the powers granted to him in terms of this Bill, he will be able to create exceptions to the rule, but I believe it is wrong legislation to lay down rules for the minority and to operate by permit for the majority. I think the hon. the Minister will also have to take cognizance of the discrimination that has been introduced by granting those people who do not have section 10 rights, the right to participate in works and liaison committees, but not the right to participate in trade unions of their own particular choice. I believe that this discrimination, if it is introduced, will be prejudicial to industrial relations on the shop floor, and will certainly not do our image overseas any good either. Therefore, we propose, by means of the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, that by definition every Black person who is within the boundaries of South Africa or comes from a territory which previously was within the boundaries of South Africa, provided that he meets the criterion of permanent employment, will be eligible to become a member of a trade union.

The other aspects of the clause were fairly well covered in the arguments of previous hon. members who took part in this debate and in the Second Reading debate yesterday, members who have similar amendments to mine on the Order Paper. I would like to make a very serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider very seriously adopting our amendment in order to facilitate the aspirations and hope for industrial peace in South Africa, aspirations we all share.

Mr. Chairman, the amendments moved by the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Durban North are identical in certain respects to the extent of their amendments containing strongly overlapping elements.

I should like to dwell for a moment on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North. In any event, I consider it unnecessary to devote a great deal of attention to the absurd amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton is attempting here to have a part of her party’s policy inserted into the Bill through the back door. [Interjections.] Yesterday the hon. member was opposed to the Bill entirely. Today, however, she is looking for gaps to take. After all, we know how the hon. member for Houghton operates. We know how easily she tries to slip in at the back door, particularly at times.

We are dealing here with an amendment by means of which the hon. member for Houghton is endeavouring to throw trade unionism wide open. She is endeavouring to throw it so wide open that there will be no difference between the Iranian who comes to work on the pipeline between Durban and Sasolburg, or the South Slav who comes to work in this country with a work permit and anyone else. I am deliberately mentioning these examples. In other words, no discretion and no directive with regard to who may belong to a trade union must be contained in the Bill.

What does Wiehahn say?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave must not come and ask me now what Prof. Wiehahn says. I, too, read the report. But I do want to point out to the hon. member that the Wiehahn report is not the Bill. [Interjections.]

Do you accept the report?

Yes, I accept it. It surprised me yesterday evening that the hon. member for Musgrave—and now the hon. member for Houghton does the same thing— was concentrating on Durban, on Natal, to such an extent. I wonder whether those hon. members think that they are going to win more than one seat in Natal. I want to issue a warning to the NRP. I detect secondary motives in these arguments advanced by the PFP. I think the hon. member for Houghton should like the Natal newspapers to write that the PFP fought for the Black commuters of Durban and Pietermaritzburg. I do believe that the hon. the Minister stated most emphatically in the Second Reading debate that he had already had discussions at various places in the country, among others in Durban as well. He also had discussions with the industrialists in Durban. In fact, the hon. the Minister indicated the problems that existed.

However, I want to leave the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton at that and address myself to the hon. member for Durban North. The hon. member for Durban North indicated yesterday that he was going to move this amendment He based his argument on the fact that some of the commuters and contract workers already belonged to registered trade unions and that they enjoyed certain privileges as a result of that membership of theirs. I want to submit to the hon. member for his consideration that it is in fact in respect of cases of this nature that a discretionary power should be placed in the hands of the Minister so that when cases of this nature arise, they may be judged on merit and the hon. the Minister may give his attention to them accordingly. I also want to ask the hon. member whether it would not be as well, in view of the evolution we are experiencing, to afford, as the hon. the Minister indicated, himself and the commission the opportunity of instituting further investigations into the whole question of commuters. When it comes to independent Black states and to Black states that are in the process of becoming independent, all kinds of agreements and citizenship are involved. All these things could be affected. Autonomy is another aspect that could be affected. For that reason I want to ask the hon. member to consider whether it would perhaps be as well not to demand the effecting of the deletion at this stage, as proposed by him. I think we should rather accept the clause as it is worded at present, and allow its provisions to develop in order to ascertain what will happen in future.

For that reason I am unfortunately unable to support either the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton or the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members who have been participating in this debate today, were present yesterday when I participated in the debate. The hon. member for Pretoria East, who has just spoken, repeated the arguments I had advanced. However, he was paying attention yesterday while this was not the case with the hon. member for Houghton. Now I want to repeat what is at issue. [Interjections.]

What is at issue is that we now have to accommodate millions of Black people in the labour situation. But we have to accommodate them by means of labour organizations. The millions of Black people within these organizations are in all stages of understanding and development. We are dealing principally with two main groups at the present time. The one group is the commuters and the other the contract workers. There are two types of contract workers. There are the contract workers recruited in South Africa and also in our independent states or states in the process of becoming independent. But contract workers are also recruited in Mozambique, Angola and various other places. Everyone has a distinctive problem. As far as the commuters are concerned, there are two types as well. There are the commuters living within travelling distance from a large city, and I take Pretoria as an example. They work in White South Africa but live in an independent country.

Such as what country?

Such as Bophuthatswana. The hon. member does not understand the situation. [Interjections.] Now I want to say what type of situation could arise. Suppose we have a strike in Pretoria in which Black people participate. Suppose that people living in another country and who are that country’s citizens and responsibility, participate in that strike. Suppose, too, that the very next day these citizens of an independent state employ “picketing” tactics in the strike. An international incident could result from this. I am mentioning this merely as an example of what could happen.

On the basis of these examples I told hon. members unambiguously that of all the things we had, there was one field—I had conceded this on a previous occasion—in respect of which I could see even at this stage that we would have to amend the legislation before long. I told hon. members this, and I told employers this. I said this last week and the week before. I told them that there was no ulterior motive. However, in view of the complexity of the situation and the type of thing we have to take into account so as to be able to do the correct thing eventually, I want to do only the minimum at this stage. For that reason I say in terms of the definition of an employee that it is a person living and working in the RSA.

This variety of other possible cases will be sorted out by us. That is why I reserve a discretion for myself, which I am most definitely going to exercise. Even at this stage I can tell hon. members that I know of places, towns and Black trade unions that need not approach me. After this Bill has been passed, I shall tell them that we have to get it off the ground in order to settle the matter. However, the hon. member for Houghton must not try to persuade me to anticipate matters at this stage and to create legislation with which I shall saddle myself with administrative problems tomorrow. All I am asking for is the patience and understanding of this House. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Durban Point has a few areas in mind. I want to tell him that I understand the circumstances in his specific area. However, I negotiated with industrialists in that same place and I shall do so again if necessary. If necessary, I shall reserve a flight immediately after the Bill has been passed to go and negotiate with them and to tell them that we have to make a start now in order to settle the matter. I want to tell the hon. member that there is a difference in degree between his proposal and that of the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member should just have some patience, because when we give consideration to the formulation of this during the recess, I shall bear in mind what he has in mind. I think he will have the necessary patience.

I should also like to tell hon. members that once we started considering certain methods of action, the problems really started cropping up. Hon. members must bear in mind that my department has to implement the thing, whereas a commission merely considers it. The day one starts implementing the thing, one realizes that the commission itself could not have foreseen certain problems. Consequently hon. members should not quote the Wiehahn Commission to me. I know along what lines the Wiehahn Commission thought, but ultimately I am the one who has to implement these things and who has to accept responsibility for them in this House. Consequently there is no ulterior motive or negative attitude with regard to the whole matter. If the hon. members want to do something good for South Africa, they must allow me to implement this, because if they argue about the matter, knowing what my point of view is, they can only damage the image of South Africa in the eyes of the outside world. Therefore I request hon. members to bear this in mind.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer briefly to the hon. the Minister’s definition of commuters. The hon. the Minister did not answer me yesterday when I dealt with the Durban situation. He ignored those remarks of mine entirely and I would urge him to apply his mind once again to the particular situation which exists in Durban.

You mentioned Kwa Mashu.

Yes, Kwa Mashu and Umlazi. I received no answer from the hon. the Minister yesterday during his reply to the Second Reading.

Those two places will have priority in our handling of the situation.

I want the hon. the Minister to apply this to the definition he gave in the speech he has just made on the question of what a commuter is. He cited the question of Pretoria and he said that these people work in Pretoria but live in an independent State. I asked him which independent State and he triumphantly said Bophuthatswana. I knew that was going to be the hon. the Minister’s answer. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, however, whether he reconciles the situation relating to Bophuthatswana, which in terms of Government policy has taken its independence, with the situation of the Zulu living in Kwa Mashu and Umlazi. They are part of a homeland which has not taken independence and has so far indicated that it does not want independence.

I take your point and I can immediately reply to it.

That is the particular point I want to make with regard to the commuter, because I believe it is totally unfair to discriminate against the Zulu worker of Durban, who is part and parcel of South Africa, who does not belong to an independent State and is part of the manpower structure of the city of Durban, as opposed to the Zulu worker who happens to live in a White area. This is a basic point. It is not the entire objection we have towards it, but it is a particular point on which I should like to hear some comment from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, now is that not enough to make one cry? I am probably a bad teacher. However, I should like to state again that there are in fact two types of groups. There are the contract labourers, and with them alone we have a variety of problems and circumstances. There are also the commuters. I have just told the hon. member that there are two types of commuters. There is one group in the independent homeland, and the other group is like those in Durban. However, what more can I do than to say that I myself mentioned Durban as an example of a problem to which I should have to devote attention? I travelled to Durban to have discussions on the same matters he is now asking me about. If it would mean anything more to him I should now like to promise the hon. member that as far as Durban is concerned, I shall give my attention to it at once, as I intended doing, and also promised to do. The matter in Durban is not a strange situation to me. It is a situation to which I must and shall devote immediate attention. All that I am asking the hon. member is that he should allow me to do it in the way I want to do it, and that he should not prescribe to me that I should do it in a way I do not see my way clear to doing it at the moment. There is no problem as far as Durban is concerned. The hon. member can go and tell the voters of Durban that the Minister will give attention to the Durban case. That is what I am the Minister for, and that is why I introduced this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, one should not be ungrateful to the hon. the Minister. Today he stated with even greater emphasis than he did last night and on previous occasions outside the House, that he was going to give attention to the question of the commuters, particularly the commuters of Durban—if I interpret him correctly—and not only the commuters of Durban. We do not doubt the hon. the Minister’s good intentions. The hon. the Minister is asking us to be patient, not to object now to what he is doing, since he is promising us that in future he is going to change what he is doing now and is going to do something else. Over the years, however, we have become accustomed to a certain procedure, which is that a Bill is introduced for approval or otherwise by Parliament. There are words on a piece of paper, and that is the Bill. It is a good thing that the hon. the Minister is envisaging something different to what is contained in the Bill before us, but he must really not take it amiss of us for adopting a standpoint with regard to the Bill as it reads at present. This is not a question of doubting the hon. the Minister’s intentions or doubting that the Bill is going to be amended in future. Last night I tried to chalk out what the practical problems were going to be in the meantime, between now and when the hon. the Minister is going to solve his problems with the commuters and possibly with some of the migrant labourers as well. In the interim period, the test of a man’s suitability to be a member of a trade union is going to have nothing to do with his development, education, skill or experience, but will merely be concerned with the fact that he happens to have lived in Lamontville or in Kwa Mashu when that township was incorporated into kwaZulu. Where he was living then, of course, was purely a question of chance.

However, let me get to the crux of what I want to say. The hon. the Minister said a few minutes ago—and what he said was true— that commuters are people in various stages of development. I assume that the hon. the Minister also means that that is also true of migrant labourers. I am sure it is also true in their case. Why does the hon. the Minister use the words “understanding” and “development”? Presumably he uses these words because he believes that workers with a high measure of understanding and development are more suitable for trade union rights than those with a lesser measure of understanding and development.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. member. I trust hon. members have listened to the hon. member’s argument. He holds it against me that I used the words “understanding” and “development”, as though everyone’s understanding and development were the same. I now come to my question.

No, that is not what I said.

But that is the whole argument the hon. member has raised here.

What is the question?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed to put his question.

Does he want to tell me that the understanding and development of the migrant labourers at the mines with which he is concerned, are the same as those of the people in Durban he was dealing with, people who have been accommodated in a responsible labour situation for 30 years?

That is not what I said.

Is there the same development and understanding in those two situations?

The reply to the hon. the Minister’s question is, generally, “no”. I shall now continue with the argument I was putting forward when the hon. the Minister put his question to me. I was asking the House why the hon. the Minister had used the words “understanding” and “development”. He presumably used them, I said, because he thought a man with a fairly high degree of understanding and development was more capable of exercising trade union rights than was a man with a lesser degree of understanding and development. When the hon. the Minister put his question I was on the point of saying that this was a reasonable argument. I think an argument could be made out for that on both sides. If a man says he is going to try to ascertain whether people have reached a certain level of development and that he is then going to enable them to exercise trade union rights, he has a logical argument to which I can listen. However, my very problem with this clause and this Bill is that this is not in fact being done. Now, I find it interesting and actually in conflict with the hon. the Minister’s own arguments that he should have mooted the words “understanding” and “development” this afternoon. The distinction he draws in the Bill—and that is what we have to vote on—has nothing to do with “understanding” or “development”. It is related to geographical chance and that is all that is involved. If, therefore, one man is on this side of the street and another on the opposite side, then only the man on this side of the street is entitled to trade union rights. I cannot see how this could be regarded as justified or logical. For that reason I gave the hon. the Minister a tip during the Second Reading. I know that he is being confronted with immense problems and that many of those problems are of a technical and complex nature. Less than a week ago, an eminent industrialist told me: “In my factory, there are 28 different kinds of Joe Khumalo.” Perhaps there are not quite as many as 28, but there is a considerable number of them with mutual differences, and the hon. the Minister knows that. I am aware of the problems. In that case, the hon. the Minister should rather have kept part of this legislation in abeyance altogether until he had thoroughly investigated these matters and was able to come forward with a logically defensible, justifiable dispensation. In the meantime, he could have gone ahead with the industrial court and the Manpower Commission.

While I am on my feet and since this is relevant, I come to the specific question which the hon. the Minister put to me across the floor of the House tonight, i.e. whether I wanted Mozambicans working on the mines to be admitted to the trade union movement. I concede that in this regard there is a real problem. This is a doubtful matter on two grounds. One is the relatively low state of development of these people. The other reason is that I think it is a debatable point whether people who are not and have never been South African citizens, should be admitted to the trade unions here. That is also a problem that is being encountered with the Gastarbeiter in Europe. There, the problem was solved in most cases by permitting them to join the trade unions although, in many cases, as I understand it, they are not allowed to become officials of the trade unions. I realize that this is an uneasy sort of compromise. In this respect, therefore, we do have a problem. If it had been up to me to make the crucial decision, after having read the Wiehahn Report and the arguments there in favour of the admission of such people, and taking everything into account, I would have decided to admit them to the trade unions. That is my full reply to the hon. the Minister. However, if the hon. the Minister wants to exclude these people but is prepared to admit commuters and migrants who are South African citizens and who, as far as their understanding goes, have reached a satisfactory level, I would be very grateful for that, and his legislation would be immensely better and its implementation by the poor employers and employees immensely easier.

What is it that we are looking for and not finding? It is not the hon. the Minister’s good intentions—we accept these and we are grateful for them—it is words in the Bill that make sense and are defensible.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown took up almost a full ten minutes for his speech, but what did he actually say in it? He actually said two things. In the first place he said he accepted certain of the hon. the Minister’s problems, that he conceded that the Minister did have problems with regard to people from Mozambique or Malawi. He accepts that, but the hon. member for Houghton does not. It is altogether contrary to her amendment. In fact it supports the amendment by the hon. member for Durban North.

In the second place, he asked why, in view of the circumstances, the hon. the Minister had not left this part of the Bill. In so doing, he is actually saying: Let us give the Black people nothing—then we point a finger at the Government and say “The Wiehahn Commission said you should really start allowing Black trade unions now, but what are you doing? You want to give them absolutely nothing.” Is that what the hon. member wanted? I should like to ask the hon. member what objection he has to Black trade unions which can now be registered, or to their members. Why does he not grant them the privilege of registering in terms of this Bill? Why is that hon. member opposed to their registration? Is he opposed to this because he sees a danger in it, because he is afraid that he is going to lose an argument or because his party is afraid that at some stage it will no longer be possible to use those arguments as part of their constant barrage against us? The hon. member for Parktown evidently has no easy existence in that party, since one can see that on the one hand he would like to meet the hon. the Minister by stating that he knows what problems are being encountered, but on the other hand he has to take into account the thinker of his party, the hon. member for Houghton, who says we should delete this entire clause. However, the hon. member is going to experience that problem as long as both of them remain members of that party. He should not try to give vent to his frustration here now. He is not going to get rid of his frustrations by on the one hand agreeing with the hon. the Minister and, on the other telling the Minister that he should in fact have left matters as they were.

I want to put another question to the hon. member. Why did he object to an expression the hon. the Minister used? Surely the hon. the Minister explained precisely what he was envisaging. Does the hon. member not want the hon. the Minister to tell the House how he wants to move forward in future? It is very easy. Yet he complains about it. I think the hon. member for Parktown merely rose to support the hon. member for Houghton, knowing full well that there is absolutely no substance in his arguments or the arguments of the hon. member for Houghton. For that reason, I think the hon. the Minister should simply ignore them.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is probably opportune to reply now to a few of the questions put to me by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. In the first place, he asked me what I had against the Black trade unions that were going to be able to register in terms of this Bill in the near future. For the edification of the hon. member who was either not in the House or did not listen, I should like to refer to the speech I made here yesterday evening. I said the practical problem that would be created, was typified by what would happen in a typically Black trade union as it exists today. Did the hon. member hear that? Does he remember now what I said last night?

Yes.

What I said last night in that content is my reply, then, to the hon. member’s question. It would be far better to stay our hand with the registration until the hon. the Minister has manifested his good intentions by effecting a few more amendments to the Bill, for then registration could take place without useful trade unions that exist today being threatened with destruction. That is what the Bill as it reads at present would bring about. That is my reply to that particular question the hon. member put to me.

The hon. member also wanted to know from me what objection I had to the hon. the Minister telling us what he wanted to do in future. I never said I had anything against that. If the hon. the Minister had risen during the course of the debate on his Vote, for example, and had stated that he envisaged granting trade union rights to three-quarters of the commuters and to five-sixths of the migrant labourers, I would have had no objection to that. What I do object to—that hon. member or any other member in the Committee can try to give me a reply to this question if he likes—is the fact that a Bill is being introduced and we are being asked to vote, not on the basis of what is contained in the Bill, but on what the hon. the Minister has stated he is going to do in future. Hon. members will agree with me that no Parliament in the world can work on that basis. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, for example, cannot introduce a Bill that provides that he was going to dispense with telex machines and then, in the Second Reading debate, tell us that we might as well vote in favour thereof, since it was his intention in any event to re-commission those machines again in six months’ time. Of course I am exaggerating a little to illustrate my argument, but this is the situation in which we have been placed. For the edification of the hon. member for Pretoria East—so that he need not rise again and ask me what I have said—I repeat that I do not hold it against the hon. the Minister at all for telling us what his intentions are. However, I shall abide by the procedure that what I vote on, is the Bill and the motion before us.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the comments of the hon. the Minister in reply to the remarks that I made earlier in moving my amendment. I wish to point out to the hon. the Minister and to hon. members of the PFP the fundamental difference between the PFP’s amendment and ours, because I think it is important in view of the choice which is before the House at the moment. I should, firstly, like to comment on what the hon. the Minister had to say and I shall then come back to the hon. member for Houghton.

The first thing is that, like the hon. member for Parktown, we in these benches say that we have heard what the hon. the Minister had to say about his intentions regarding the commuter and regarding the migrant worker, but we cannot, as the hon. member for Parktown has indicated, vote here on the strategy which the hon. the Minister is going to employ. We welcome the fact that he is going to conduct an inquiry; he probably has done so already. He has indicated to us that he is appreciative of the problems which we have, particularly in Natal. But there are, of course, other areas in South Africa which are affected by this as well. We should like to make a further appeal to the hon. the Minister to at least accept the amendment which has been proposed by my party, because the definition as it stands at the moment is not going to be an improvement on the situation. In fact, it is going to create barriers and difficulties for the hon. the Minister which he does not have at the moment. We believe the incorrect definition which we had is going to make it all the more difficult for the hon. the Minister to implement what he visualizes implementing.

Then I should also like to point out to hon. members of the PFP why it will not be possible for us in these benches to support their amendment. It hinges around a fundamental factor which was mentioned by the hon. member for Parktown, namely that the hon. member for Houghton’s amendment goes too far and creates file difficulty that the real foreign worker—the one from Mozambique, Malawi or Zimbabwe—is now being offered the opportunity also to become a member of a trade union in this country. I do not believe that that is the correct principle to follow. If the hon. member had confined herself to the situation within the boundaries of South Africa relating to the contract or migrant worker, we may have had some cause to support her amendment, but because she has negatived virtually the total clause, I am afraid it is not possible for us to support her amendment. I should like the hon. member to note that in terms of the amendment which I am moving, we say that the real foreign contract worker, the one who comes from outside the total concept of South Africa, namely the one from Mozambique, Angola or wherever it is, is to be catered for in terms of the legislation and will not be excluded from eligibility for membership of the trade unions. If the hon. member looks at our amendment she will see that we do include Transkei and Bophuthatswana. However, we do recognize the fact, as all industrialized countries do—and I think the hon. member for Parktown will agree—that people who really are foreigners do not have the right to trade-union membership in their host country.

But they do.

Because of that fundamental difference I beg to differ from the hon. member for Houghton that if there is a minority of countries which do permit affiliated membership, I do not believe that that is correct practice. On that basis we shall not be able to support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Chairman, I was hoping to be able to avoid quoting chunks of the Wiehahn Commission report, but I see that I am going to have to, because the hon. member for Durban North is evidently under the mistaken impression that foreign workers, Black workers, who come to South Africa may not join a trade union at present. There is nothing at all to stop Black workers who come from other countries from joining trade unions. It is true those unions are not registered, but they do have the right to join trade unions and this point is made very clear. Surely, if they are allowed to join an unregistered trade union which is uncontrolled by industrial legislation it is far better that they should be able to join registered trade unions which fall within the discipline of the Industrial Conciliation Act. This is so obvious. It is pointed out very clearly on page 27 of the report of the Wiehahn Commission—

Who is now “beswaddering” South Africa abroad? I am so sick and tired of hearing hon. members in this House telling me whenever I advance any argument that I want to blacken South Africa’s name abroad. If this reasoning of the Wiehahn Commission is not accepted by this House, then we are going against our declared policy of removing discrimination and are in fact introducing more discriminatory measures.

I now want to deal with the hon. the Minister’s argument in this respect. The hon. the Minister wanted to know what would happen if you had a foreign worker belonging to a trade union becoming involved in a picket-line. According to the hon. the Minister that could cause an international incident. I wonder what makes the hon. the Minister think there will not be an international incident if a man who belongs to an unregistered trade union becomes involved in some violent incident, for instance with the police, his employer or anyone else. It makes no difference whether a man is a member of a registered or an unregistered trade union, and to my mind that is an absurd way to argue. The hon. the Minister has made some very strange statements in the course of this debate. For example, he said that this clause was non-discriminatory because it did not have any reference to colour. At the conclusion of the Second Reading debate yesterday he said that it applied to everybody, irrespective of race or colour. That is real sophistry, because who does he think live on trust land except Black people? Who but Black people live in these independent countries that are designated by definition in clause 1 of the Bill? He knows perfectly well that this applies to Black people, and he really should not think that he can pull the wool over anybody’s eyes by saying that just because there is no mention of race or colour in the actual definitions clause, people will accept that this is a colour-blind clause. That is a really ridiculous argument.

I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that he has not answered the question of how the unions, presently containing commuters, will be affected. By the way, a commuter is someone who comes in regularly …

Daily.

Well, there are many commuters who come in weekly. Many commuters live in hostels in an area near to their homelands and therefore go home for weekends. It is obviously very expensive to travel daily, and I hope that sometime someone will explain to me where all the petrol is to come from for the buses that have to drive thousands of commuters 40 km a day in and out of places near Pretoria and elsewhere. But I shall leave that for the moment.

Do you want them to live in Houghton?

Yes. If they can afford it and want to buy a house there, there should be nothing to prevent them from doing so.

Let us take a look at the position of the daily commuter. These daily commuters are people who regularly travel in and out of the country, and are in that sense as stable as the man who lives in Soweto and certainly as stable as the man who lives in Kwa Mashu and elsewhere in the Republic. How does a trade union of which 60% to 70% of its members are commuters, get rid of them in order to become a registered union? The members will have to vote and take a resolution on this. Does the hon. member really think that members of that trade union are going to vote themselves out of their own union? That is ridiculous. What is going to happen to the assets of that trade union, because it must be remembered that some have considerable assets. Why should the commuter member of a presently unregistered trade union vote himself out of his claim on the assets of those unions? The hon. the Minister is building up for himself far more problems than he would do if he left this definition exactly as we proposed it should be, i.e. that any employee should be entitled to become a member of a trade union.

The hon. member for Durban North is wrong when he says that a foreigner cannot belong to a trade union overseas. Yesterday we were arguing that what happened overseas did not apply here. Nevertheless, the hon. member used this example, but it is in fact not true. In West Germany, Switzerland and elsewhere those people do belong to trade unions. The unions in fact demand that they become members, because the unions are not prepared to have the “pendelaars”, the migrant workers, coming in and undermining the standards which they have achieved by virtue of their negotiations with their employers. Therefore the hon. member’s argument is quite wrong.

I believe the hon. the Minister is building up the most enormous amount of trouble for himself with this exclusion of more than half of those who should be eligible for trade union registration. Of course, I know why. All these arguments about softly, softly, are a mere façade. What is true is that the hon. the Minister is terrified of what the reaction of the right-wing White trade unionists will be. That is the real truth of the matter. That is what I call HNP-itis, which is a very nasty disease indeed. I think it is probably chronic and it may well be incurable.

Terminal!

It is certainly fatal.

I do not believe it is terminal in the short-term, but it is certainly going to be fatal in the long-term for the growth rate of South Africa’s economy. There is no doubt about that. Let the hon. the Minister put those people to one side. They are out of keeping with modern industrial development in South Africa. They may have had a place in the time of the poor White problem, when there was pressure of demand for jobs that were in short supply and when there was an overwhelming number of Black people after the same jobs. We have passed that stage, however. Today White people are trained, industrialized and skilled workers. I believe the hon. the Minister should have sufficient confidence in the efficiency of the White workers of South Africa to let them stand on their own feet without any of this artificial protection, which is really what they are demanding.

I believe the hon. the Minister should ignore people such as Arrie Paulus. I wonder, incidentally, what would have happened if Arne Paulus had been a Black man conducting a wild-cat strike on the mines. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would have been quite as conciliatory in his dealings with him as in fact he has been.

Mr. Chairman, until a few minutes ago I was still prepared to argue with the hon. member for Houghton. But then she came to light all sorts of insinuations. I am now telling her that I am not going to have any further argument with her. I do not accept her amendment, either.

Mr. Chairman, after that totally ungracious attitude on the part of the hon. the Minister it would appear that very little purpose can be served in our pursuing the debate on this very important aspect. The hon. the Minister has reacted like a small boy, and now sits there and sulks. [Interjections.] He has a responsibility towards this House to deal with the points that have been raised. The hon. member for Houghton has raised a very fundamental point, which, in a normal Parliament, from a normal hon. Minister, from a normal Government, would demand some sort of answer. However, the hon. the Minister, because his vanity is hurt, simply sits down and refuses to answer to the debate. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Musgrave entitled to insinuate that the hon. the Minister is not normal? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I said the hon. the Minister was sulking. I also said that the hon. the Minister should respond in a normal manner. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, if it will ease the matter—it seems to be suggested that I said the hon. the Minister was not normal—I will withdraw it, because I did not intend that at all. [Interjections.]

However, be it as it may, it is perfectly clear that on this very vital matter, which goes to the very root of this legislation, the hon. the Minister is determined to run away from the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission. I believe that appears from his answers. Therefore, there is no point at this stage in pursuing the matter any further.

I now move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (i) those recognized by law as sufficient to justify summary dismissal; or
2. (ii) those related to the capability of an employee to perform work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to perform; or
3. (iii) the reason of redundancy.

The amendment relates to another aspect of this clause. It relates to the question of the definition of an “unfair labour practice”. During the Second Reading of this measure hon. members dealt with the inadequacy of this definition as it is contained in the Bill now under consideration. The Bill gives the following definition—

This is a very strange definition. “An unfair labour practice” is an unfair labour practice. That is what the legislation tells us. I think what the intention is, is clearly to leave the option open to the court to determine what is an unfair labour practice. That I will concede. In our view the court certainly should have an interpretative role in this matter. However, we do not believe that it should be the function of the court to lay down policy. I think this is the situation we are placing the court in when we leave a definition of this kind in the Bill. The amendment which I have moved seeks to give some sort of direction, some sort of definition and some sort of guidelines as to what should be regarded as unfair labour practices. I have taken these guidelines firstly from the provisions already present in the existing Act. Section 66 of the Act contains provisions which relate to victimization and the power which the hon. the Minister has in regard to, for example, any employer who, whether or not any agreement, award or determination is binding up on him, dismisses any employee, etc. I have taken that from Section 66 of the existing Industrial Conciliation Act in so far as it relates to the question of victimization. This is, certainly, obviously part of a definition of what would be unfair labour practice.

A second guideline which is included in the amendment is drawn from existing legislative guidelines as far as unfair dismissal is concerned. We exclude dismissal based on the grounds recognized by law as sufficient to justify summary dismissal.

The other aspects of the amendment which stands in my name, viz. subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), are both drawn from section 35 of the Seifsa Industrial Council Agreement in South Africa and Section 24 of the Trade Unions and Labour Act of the United Kingdom. I think these are intended to be of assistance and help to produce some sort of guidelines which could enable the courts to determine what is an unfair labour practice. I believe it would be far more appropriate if in this legislation we set the guidelines, rather than place the courts in the position where they virtually have to make laws in considering and determining what are unfair labour practices.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave has now tried to give a definition of an unfair labour practice, a definition of which the wording, as he says, is more or less indicated in existing legislation and to a certain extent also in the Wiehahn report. Sir, the hon. member is himself a lawyer, but the three exceptions which he makes provision for in his amendment make this definition such a wide one that any person who wants to evade the question of unfair labour practices, will be able to do so with the greatest of ease. Any person who sees such an opening in the legislation, could make use of those three exceptions without any problem whatsoever.

In the first place the hon. member said an exception applied in the case where a person could lawfully terminate another person’s employment. Does the hon. member realize how many court cases there have been on the question of whether the termination of employment was lawful? We could, for example, just mention the question of unreasonable absence. There have been cases and still more cases on the question of whether a person could be discharged if he was absent from work to an unreasonable extent. The hon. member said if one could lawfully terminate a person’s employment, this would not amount to an unfair labour practice. However to stipulate in certain cases what an unreasonable absence from work is, what insubordination is, and what lawful grounds for termination of service are, would create any number of openings for an unscrupulous employer to resort to an unfair practice. One could go on like that.

The second exception the hon. member made, was when a person was not competent to perform the work for which the employer had appointed him. Who determines whether he is competent or incompetent? Does the employer determine that, is it a subjective or an objective test, or could the employer, merely because he no longer liked that person, decide that he was no longer fit to perform the type of work he had specifically assigned to him? What an opening does that not create for irregularities! It is wide enough for a wagon to pass through.

Finally, the hon. member inserted the aspect of redundancy. If an employer decides to discharge a person owing to the fact that his services have become redundant or, as it is known in municipal institutions, “the exigencies of the service demand that one should get rid of a certain employee”, that creates an opening wide enough for a wagon to pass through. I think the effort the hon. member is making here is in fact an indication of why it is impossible to lay down a general definition of an unfair practice. Consequently, since the industrial court is actually going to form an opinion in accordance with principles of law and equity, it has the opportunity, in the course of time, of creating specific precedents on what an unfair practice is. The hon. member spoke of “guidelines”. If he were to argue that we should provide guidelines but that, for the rest, we should leave it to the discretion of the industrial court, I could understand it, but the hon. member is not giving a guideline here: He is suggesting a definition in which even an inexperienced lawyer could see an opening, and thereby he is making a complete farce of the whole idea of an unfair practice. As far as I am concerned, I cannot accept that definition, regardless of whether he calls it a definition or a guideline.

Mr. Chairman, I rise, not on the question of the definition of an unfair labour practice, because I would rather leave that to hon. members who are better qualified than I am to deal with that, but to return for a moment to the general debate on the definition. I think it is regrettable that the hon. the Minister thinks that the way to handle a debate in this House is to refuse to reply to it. It does not help the House and it certainly does not help his reputation. He did not give any reply to the debate on the instruction earlier today, perhaps because he saw no need to do so. He did say that he had intended replying to some of the things the hon. member for Houghton said, but that he did not do so on the grounds that he was irritated when she twisted his tail about the HNP. I will, therefore, refrain from twisting the hon. the Minister’s tail about the HNP, but I am going to talk about some of the same subjects and I am going to do so in the sincere hope that, when I have finished, the hon. the Minister will think it is worth talking to me.

I think I should, in passing, deal with the hon. member for Pretoria East once more—I am sorry to keep picking on him. He, however, suggested that there was a difference in the point of view I put forward and that of the hon. member for Houghton. This was, of course, not the case. I said, before the hon. member for Houghton spoke, that I recognized that there was a problem about the Mozambican and other foreign migrants, but that, having studied the Wiehahn Commission’s report, I thought that, on balance, one ought to come down, as the report did, on the side of allowing them into the trade union movement. And that is what I do think. I will, however, say that, if the hon. the Minister says to me that he has a problem in connection with people who are definitely foreign, then he is adopting the attitude of the hon. member for Durban North, who says that he would like all South African-based migrants and all South African-based commuters to be able to be eligible for trade union rights, but that he does not want the foreigners to be eligible. I do not agree with that, but I regard it as a point of view that is infinitely preferable to the point of view contained in the Bill. Therefore, if the hon. member for Houghton’s amendment is rejected, I shall certainly vote very comfortably for the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North, because it will bring about a very considerable improvement. It is very much nearer to what the commission recommended, it is very much nearer to the practice in other parts of the world and it is very much nearer to what one has oneself always thought, outside as well as inside politics, was the right form of organization for trade unions.

I think that the hon. the Minister has not given us a full explanation. He did very adequately explain that he has difficulties. He has asked us for patience and, believe me, we are more than willing to be patient in respect of the problems of the hon. the Minister. It is, however, not actually the hon. the Minister’s general administrative problems that are before this House now, but this Bill. In this Bill we have to be given a reason why we should work for—and I say it again just in passing, by way of illustration—the proposition that a man from Lamontville is fit to be in a trade union and a man from Kwa Mashu is not. There is no argument between us as to whether that is what this legislation provides for. The argument between us is that the hon. the Minister says that, despite what the legislation says, he wants us to vote for the Bill and that he will then fix it up. He has not yet explained to us why we should be expected to do that. That, as far as I understand it, is the central problem that this side of the House has.

The hon. member for Pretoria East must look for some far more troubled waters to fish in than those he will find surrounding myself and the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton and I came to this House 26 years ago and we have never, for a second, been in different parties or had any problems with each other, so it is a bit late for the hon. member to come now and to start suggesting that there are problems.

Oh, “love is a many-splendoured thing”.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to refer to one other matter that was raised by the hon. member for Musgrave. I can understand it very well, since I think it is a problem for all of us to know how to define a new situation or concept such as “unfair labour practice”. The hon. member should also realize, however, that we are venturing into a new field. Throughout the world, I think, it has been the experience that it is very difficult to give a proper definition of such a difficult concept. Consequently I think it would be wise to say that there will in fact indeed be an industrial court to deal with this new type of situation, and then to leave it to that specialist organization to work out a definition for itself. For us here, with the wide possible spectrum of matters, to give a final and exact definition of “unfair labour practice”, is, in my opinion, impossible. It is for that, and for no other reason, that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. I do not think this is a matter for him or for me to solve. I think we should issue an instruction. We should state the concept and the intention with it, and then leave it to the industrial court to determine the definition in the course of time. I think that is the right approach.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the House the practical problem we shall have when you put the question and we vote on the amendments. The hon. member for Houghton has moved an amendment which is similar to that of the hon. member for Durban North but which goes considerably further. Our amendment provides for the deletion of certain words and for their substitution by certain other words. It appears from the rules of the House, however, that you will put the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton, which we were not intending to support, having intended rather to support our own amendment If I have understood the hon. the Minister correctly, the vote will go against the hon. member for Houghton, in which case our amendment will drop. So we shall support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton, having no other choice, in order to be able to vote for our own amendment. I want to make it quite clear, however, that we have an amendment of our own which we regard as being better than that of the hon. member for Houghton, but the only way we have of supporting our own amendment is by voting for that Of the hon. member for Houghton.

On amendments moved by Mrs. H. Suzman and Mr. R. B. Miller,

Mr. Chairman, as we have said on more than one occasion we have no fault to find with the principle of the appointment of a National Manpower Commission, which is what this clause is about, and such observations as we have to make are therefore concerned only with our desire to introduce certain constructive amendments with a view to making the clause work better. I shall do that in a moment. I trust that the hon. the Minister is once more prepared to reply to the matters which we raise. It was becoming a little difficult during the discussion on the last clause to conduct a two-way debate. On that assumption I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 65, to omit “may” and to substitute “shall”;
2. (2) on page 8, in lines 32 to 36, to omit paragraph (b) and to substitute:
   1. (b) Every such report shall be laid upon the Table of the Senate and of the House of Assembly within 14 days after the receipt by the Minister of such report if Parliament is then in session of, if Parliament is not then in session, within 14 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session of Parliament.
3. (3) on page 8, after line 41, to insert:
   1. (5) The expenditure incidental to the performance by the commission of its functions under this Act shall be defrayed from money appropriated by Parliament for that purpose under the vote of the Minister of Labour.

The first amendment, as hon. members will realize, has to do with the appointment of the members of the National Manpower Commission. The clause, as printed, states—

Of course, one is at once aware that changing the “may” to “shall” has only a relative effect in that the Minister can still decide not to deem them qualified, and then even with the mandatory word “shall” be not compelled to consult them. However, because of the general belief which we hold, which the Wiehahn Commission certainly holds and which I believe the hon. the Minister himself holds, that the question of industrial relations is in the last resort a matter for management and employee to be dealt with at factory and shop-floor level, the more the hon. the Minister consults before he appoints the members of this commission, the better. I therefore hope that he will be able to accept that small amendment, which commits him to consult instead of simply leaving it open to him to consult if he feels so inclined.

My next amendment is on page 8, in lines 32 to 36. It will not have escaped the attention of hon. members that we have deleted from the original text the reference to a report “which in the opinion of the Minister may be made known without detriment to the public interest”. Clearly this is not because we want anything to be published which is not in the public interest, but we do think it is going a bit far when we get to the annual reports of statutory bodies to be told that these should only be published if they do not contain anything which is contrary to the public interest. The fact is that there is a responsibility on that body to draft its report in such a way that it can stand publication. If there are matters that come to the attention of the National Manpower Commission which are such that it is dangerous to let them be published, then it is the duty of the National Manpower Commission to go to the Minister in suitable privacy and to tell him about those matters and to deal with them in some other way than publishing them in their annual report. This report will be of the greatest importance and value to employers and employees alike, to the public in general, to academics and to other people, and it will be a great pity if we have a situation in which from time to time and from one year to another the report simply does not apply because the Minister thinks there is something in it that is contrary to the public interest. If the report is properly drafted, that will not be the case, and we therefore move that the report should be dealt with like the hundreds of reports that are submitted every year, i.e. it shall be made public within a reasonable time after being delivered to the Minister.

My third amendment seeks to insert a new provision at the end of the clause to provide that the expenses—I would think they could be considerable—of the National Manpower Commission should be defrayed from money appropriated by Parliament for that purpose under the Vote of the Minister of Labour. The Bill, as it stands, is silent on the question of how these expenses are to be recovered. Perhaps the hon. the Minister assumes that this is the way in which it is going to be done, but if so, I think that he would do well to meet us by allowing this provision to be inserted. I trust that it was not the intention to place some sort of levy on trade unions and/ or on employers in order to fund the expenses of the National Manpower Commission. That, I submit, would be a sort of discriminatory tax and an improper way of financing. I believe I am correct in saying that the hon. the Minister envisages that the National Manpower Commission will have a staff of some size, will undertake considerable research work, will keep an eye on developments both here and elsewhere, will undertake travels in the world and that these expenditures will be considerable. I therefore think it is proper that we ask for provision to be made for to defray costs.

Mr. Chairman, to follow on what the hon. member for Parktown said, I believe that he shot down his own arguments in the first amendment he moved. In my opinion it is all the same whether the word “may” or “shall” appears in this specific clause, because the Minister still has a discretion. Therefore, whether or not the word “may” or “shall” is used, it is all the same, because it will make no difference to what is stated in this clause. If the hon. member reads on, he will see that it is stated: “… consult such … as he deems qualified to represent the interests concerned”. The words “deems qualified” give the hon. the Minister the discretion. Whether the word “may” or “shall” is used makes no difference in my opinion. The hon. member therefore shot down his own amendment with his own argument.

As regards the second amendment the hon. member for Parktown moved, I agree with him as far as the principle of the matter is concerned. I agree with him that subject to certain conditions the report of the Manpower Commission must be laid on the table. It is the prerogative of this House to demand from the Minister, his department, the commission or whoever that it be laid on the table. I therefore agree with that principle. I believe the hon. member for Parktown is being unfair in the extreme towards the hon. the Minister and the department by moving a time limit of 14 days in his amendment. I believe the hon. member for Parktown is a well-educated man, a prominent industrialist…

Oh no, man.

With all respect, he does have a medical degree. [Interjections.] I believe that we must argue this matter on a sound basis and therefore, in my opinion, it is very unfair to introduce a time limit of 14 days. I want to appeal to the hon. member to consider this amendment in practical terms. It is impossible to perform such a difficult and enormous task within 14 days and to table it. I believe that the department has nothing to hide from this House and therefore I agree in principle that such a report should be tabled. However, I want the hon. member to reconsider the words “14 days”, because I do not believe that we should set a time limit. Any of us can rise and ask the hon. the Minister where that report is. We can insist on him tabling it because the legislation provides that it must be tabled. I believe the hon. member is being unreasonable in wanting to insert a time limit.

As regards the third amendment of the hon. member, surely it is only logical that someone has to pay for the activities of the commission. Therefore, to want to embody this specific provision in legislation of this nature is, in my opinion, ridiculous. This is indeed important legislation, because we are dealing with the Industrial Conciliation Act, one of the most important pieces of legislation on our Statute Book. Surely it is logical that the State has to pay for the activities of a commission and therefore I urge the hon. the Minister not to include this type of nonsense in such an important piece of legislation as this.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the first argument of the hon. member for Parktown about the word “may” or “shall” I want to say that I would have liked to meet him, but at this stage I can only tell him that he is seeking to limit me too much when he says that I “shall” meet the obligation, as he indicated, as far as the appointment of the Manpower Commission is concerned. One could have the situation that the Minister wants to appoint technical people and then looks for the necessary technicians. Then it is no use consulting with people who cannot make a contribution.

What was our practice in the past? In the past it has always been the practice that Ministers consult as widely as possible. This I will do once again. I have always tried to do it in the past, and I shall try to do it in the future as well. My predecessors did it, and my successors will probably do it as well. However, one sometimes reaches the situation where a Minister has to have a certain degree of discretion to be able to go ahead and make an appointment. It is also desirable that the necessity for drawn-out discussions and consultations should fall away. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.

The second amendment of the hon. member for Parktown deals with the submission of a report at a particular time. What is stipulated in the proposal? It is stipulated that the Minister must present a report. In the second place it is stipulated that the report must be submitted as soon as possible.

I now want to explain to the hon. member what happened with regard to the Wiehahn Report. I received this report sometime ago. Then a member of the PFP who is not present today asked me when the report would be published. It was a private conversation and I told him that the report would be published within two or three weeks. About two or three weeks later he approached me again to ask when the report would be published. I explained to him that I was waiting for the printers and the translators to complete their work. This is the type of problem one gets. I do not think hon. members should try and force a Minister in this way to present a report at a specific time. It is simply not always possible to do that. Very often one works under enormous pressure as well.

There is, however, a second aspect in this connection. This concerns the confidentiality of certain information. In this regard I can, for example, refer to the Manpower Commission. The Manpower Commission is going to examine the affairs of certain private bodies, not State bodies. They may be companies. They may be multinational companies. One is always dealing with these things. The same applies in the case of the Wage Act. The existing Wage Act includes a secrecy clause. This is a provision that has been applied throughout the years and which has always been handled properly due to the fact that decisions have to be taken on the private affairs of private clients. For this reason it is essential that this amendment of the hon. member for Parktown be handled carefully. I therefore want to content myself with the motion before us. I should like to accommodate the hon. member in regard to this aspect. I seriously considered trying to accommodate him. I thought about the matter last night and again this morning. Unfortunately I cannot do it, however.

The third amendment of the hon. member for Parktown relates to the expenditure incidental to the proceedings and activities of the commission. Of course the commission’s expenditure must be borne by the State. The State cannot appoint a commission for which other people have to pay. When the State takes the responsibility for the smooth operation of the administration of such a commission, it is the responsibility of Parliament to vote the funds for the commission. I want to reassure the hon. member, therefore, by saying to him that he does not have to worry about the expenditure of the commission. Parliament will provide for that expenditure under the Vote of the Minister concerned. The Minister will have to see to it that the necessary funds are available for the proper functioning of the commission.

Amendments (1) and (2) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (3) negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

Clause 3 consists of paragraphs (a) and (b). As far as paragraph (a) is concerned, which provides that a union may not evade any provisions of the law and in particular, may not affiliate with any political party, we are satisfied. It is very important to keep party politics and trade unionism apart as far as possible. Probably this will not always be possible in every case, but we go along with any reasonable steps to ensure that these two things stay separate. Therefore we have nothing against clause 3(a).

Anyone who has listened to the debate on this Bill thus far will realize, however, that we are quite unable to agree with clause 3(b). Here we are once again dealing with an apartheid provision in the legislation, something the Wiehahn Commission does not support at all. It appears here in a new form to fit in with the fact that the intention is to give Blacks trade union rights.

I can only repeat the argument once again—it is a key argument—that what we are dealing with here is the regulation and settlement of disputes which might arise in the regulation of our economic processes. What counts here, is the ability a person has, the work he is able to do and the contribution he can make, and the colour of his skin has nothing to do with it. Nevertheless we are here trying to build on the foundations of an outdated system of enforced apartheid on a racial basis between workers who, in many cases, work alongside one another, do the same work and—I am glad to be able to say this—work for the same pay to an increasing degree. But we are nevertheless looking for a reason to say that the colour of a worker’s skin should determine the sort of organization to which he must belong. [Interjections.] Like the commission, we, too, cannot understand how, virtually at the end of the twentieth century, one can still cling to such outdated concepts. For that reason we cannot accept the clause as it stands.

Order! I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of those aspects which causes us a certain amount of technical difficulty, as the hon. member for Parktown is also now discovering. However, in principle this clause causes us as much trouble as the first clause with which we dealt with earlier this afternoon. This is a key factor and is fundamental to the interpretation of the question of membership of a trade union. We cannot just accept the principle that we can continue with the present position. There is a whole new structure being developed in terms of this clause—in fact, in terms of the whole Bill— where it is of paramount importance that the people who wish to associate should be allowed to do so. Technological development, cultural development and educational development of all the parties concerned are of the essence. I believe that the sooner we are able to ameliorate or change the items contained in this clause, the quicker we are going to achieve industrial peace in South Africa. If the hon. member for Parktown had not moved his amendment, we should no doubt have moved our own amendment in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I just want to refer to a few statements made by the hon. members for Parktown and Musgrave yesterday, because I think they are very relevant to this particular clause.

The hon. member for Parktown said yesterday in response to my remarks that he also wanted the Government to govern, but then he said in the next sentence that he had wanted the Government to embody all the recommendations of the commission in legislation. In other words, the hon. member does not want the Government to be advised by the commission, he wants the commission to be able to dictate to the Government. I have seldom seen such inconsistency. However, the hon. member seems to have been in an inconsistent mood since yesterday, for when he moved his amendment to my amendment today, he said that he welcomed this measure, but he did not think it went far enough. But because he welcomed it, he moved an amendment, and when his amendment was not accepted, he wanted the whole measure he had welcomed in the first place to be scrapped. That was quite an interesting development.

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

I wish to motive the amendment briefly. I want to begin with the same statement I made yesterday, namely that quite a number of mixed trade unions came into being and existed before 1965, under the old dispensation. Because of the activities of several trade union leaders in particular, such as the new hero of the hon. member for Houghton, Solly Sacks, certain dangerous tendencies, situations and problems began to arise in these particular trade unions. The Government identified these problems and dangers, foresaw that they would become bigger and more dangerous in the future, and decided to introduce a change in that particular respect. It was decided that the structures of mixed trade unions had to be radically changed, subject to certain conditions which I spelt out yesterday. I just want to make it clear again for the sake of the record that in those trade unions, the various race or ethnic groups in the trade union have to belong to separate branches, that they have to hold separate meetings and that the executive, which is the co-ordinating body, has to be a White one.

The hon. member for Parktown thought on that occasion that he could frustrate my plans. I could see from here the gleam in his eye, such as one sees in the eye of a fisherman who has caught the big one. The trouble with the hon. member for Parktown and all the members of his party is that they have never interpreted correctly the realities of a plural community such as we have in South Africa and apparently they never will interpret them correctly.

Interestingly and curiously enough, there are examples of similar structures within trade unions in other countries. There are cases, for example, where trade unions have organized separate branches on religious grounds. In my opinion, this is a much less justifiable principle or criterion than the one we use.

The other problem of the official Opposition is that they misinterpret the Government’s philosophy of separation, always have misinterpreted it and apparently always will misinterpret it. They have never grasped the true underlying concept of separate but parallel development. They object to it and regard it as a product or continuation of apartheid and discriminatory measures that the executive of these trade unions should initially be White. However, this is not apartheid, but merely a logical outcome of the concept of differentiation which in its turn arose from the fact that the expertise and administrative abilities of certain groups of people were on a lower level at that stage than those of others. The Minister also has a discretion in that case to allow Coloured persons to serve on such an executive eventually when this is essential or desirable in the light of circumstances.

There is also a discretion in respect of the development of such trade unions with this particular type of structure. My amendment implies that the hon. the Minister should be afforded greater latitude in exercising his discretion in this particular case. I want to state again that over the past two decades, we have had almost an industrial revolution in South Africa, and at circumstances, times and groupings have changed radically. I can foresee that as a result of these rapidly changing circumstances, especially with the admission of the Black worker to the trade union movement, the situation and circumstances may arise, and certainly will arise in the future, which will make it essential and desirable for the hon. the Minister to have more latitude in exercising his discretion. There may be small numbers of people of various groups in a remote factory, to mention only one example. However, there are many other situations which one can visualize. We can also suppose that there may be a group of Black workers in a particular industry—I mean it would be a minority group—who are so unsophisticated that they do not have the expertise or the administrative ability to operate or administer a trade union properly. For that reason, it may be desirable for an existing trade union which does the expertise to take charge of that organization and administration for the foreseeable future. This would also prevent such unsophisticated workers from falling victim to malicious elements which may abuse them to introduce a militant trade union element into the industry. In that case, I think it would very definitely be in the best interests of South Africa that the hon. the Minister should have the necessary discretion. I believe that the hon. the Minister will exercise his discretionary power with very great circumspection and deliberation. I have no doubt about that.

There are a few things which we should remember and which I should like to mention. If such a trade union wants to take such a group of Black workers under its wing or to organize them, that trade union will have to repeal its constitution, or the trade union as such will have to be dissolved and to apply for re-registration with an open constitution, and the members of that trade union will then have to give their permission for this at a meeting of members. An important principle which is definitely contained in this Bill is the principle of self-determination, and to a large extent that of free association as well. The members of a trade union can decide for themselves whether or not they want to admit members of another race group to their union. It must also be remembered that the proposed legislation provides that any group of workers may decide at any time within the trade union context to establish a separate trade union of their own. There is nothing to prevent them from doing that. As they say in the trade union movement, they can “tender out”.

The Opposition keeps supposing that we on this side of the House often commit errors of reasoning. However, we do not commit errors of reasoning. We do not proceed from the standpoint that all people of colour are potential enemies. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words in reply to some of the remarks made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He alleged that I had said yesterday that while I agreed that the Government should govern the country, and not the commission, I nevertheless insisted that the Government should accept every recommendation of the commission. But I never said such a thing. I am quite sure that if I read the commission’s report carefully, I would find quite a number of recommendations by the commission which I would not want the Government to apply. What I was saying was that the principal recommendations of the commission, which constitute the principle of the legislation and which we are discussing again this afternoon, are recommendations which we regard as sound and which we support in any case, and that we are glad that the commission also supports them and that we want the Government to govern accordingly. In this way we fulfil our task as Opposition.

The hon. member argued his case very well, but as so often happens, he based it on a complete misrepresentation of what I had said. That is all. When he made a second reference to something I had said, he spoke about the amendment to his instruction I had moved this morning. He said that because I wanted him to go even further, I was rejecting the whole caboodle. But that is nonsense, Sir. While I was speaking, I went out of my way to say that we were glad that the hon. member had moved what he had in fact moved, that it was progressive and a step in the right direction. I said that we would have liked him to go even further, but that if my amendment were rejected, I would still gladly vote in favour of the hon. member’s instruction. And we did. Now the hon. member complains about it. If that argument of his means anything, then it means that when he moves something, no one else should even move an amendment to it. I would have thought that there would have been some gratitude for the fact that we did vote for his proposal.

In case there is any doubt about our standpoint in respect of the matter contained in clause 3, I want to do something in all humility which I do not like to do, and I quote from a publication in which I wrote as follows about three years ago, before I came to Parliament and before the Wiehahn Commission was appointed—

I do not believe it could have been clearer. The workers themselves should decide the form of the structure they want. It is true that the Wiehahn Commission also recommends this—and I am grateful for that—but it is in any case my own view and it is what I was advocating.

There is a final matter which I wish to mention briefly. The hon. member complimented me on the gleam he saw in my eyes, as if I had caught a big one. Sir, the hon. member’s seat in this House is very far removed from mine. I was never under that impression.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sasolburg argued this case in great detail, and I agree with his arguments. Where do we stand now? Black trade unions will now be registered. We have complied with the request which has been made in South Africa for so long, i.e. that they should be registered and recognized. We have now reached that point, therefore. Now we are going further to extend the discretion of the Minister by way of instruction. Therefore I do not want to argue the matter any further. It has already been argued here, and all I want to add is that I cannot accept the amendments of the hon. members on the other side and that I do accept the amendment of the hon. member for Sasolburg. I think it is quite clear exactly what we mean by that.

Mr. Chairman, clause 4 has to do with provisional registration. I have four amendments on the Order Paper and I should like to start off by moving the first two, as follows—

1. (1) On page 10, in lines 17 and 18, to omit “and without giving reasons therefor,”;
2. (2) on page 10, in line 24, after “organization” to insert:

The first amendment has the effect that the Registrar must have adequate reason before being allowed to withdraw the registration either of an employers’ organization or a trade union. It is quite a simple amendment. I believe that if either of these organizations have not complied with any of the conditions the Registrar may have imposed in terms of subsection (1) or in terms of any other provision of the Act, it should be a relatively simple matter to detail which provisions have been circumvented. I cannot actually understand why it is necessary to have a provision which says that he need not give reasons at all. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to enlighten us in that regard. Passing this amendment in clause 4 might introduce a certain …

May I just point out that you should read the end of subsection (3) together with that.

I have read the end of subsection (3), and I understand that completely. Nevertheless we believe that reasons should be given as a matter of course. If one is going to withdraw registration of a trade union we believe that that trade union should know why. The legislation actually lays down the grounds for withdrawal of registration and if those grounds have been contravened, we think it only sensible that it would be in order for the Registrar to give his reasons. We cannot see anything against that. It seems reasonable to us that that should happen.

However, with our second amendment we go a little further. It is consequent on the first amendment. We believe the Registrar should give notice of his intention to withdraw such registration and his reasons for the withdrawal.

Neither of these amendments are very complicated, and I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider them. I see he is discussing the matter with his officials at the moment. So I think I had better move on while the hon. the Minister is doing that. I have changed the wording of the third amendment as it was on the Order Paper, and I now move—

The revised amendment merely means that section 78(1 A) should remain in the proposed new 4A(4) as an exception and should not apply in respect of provisional registration. In terms of the proposed new section 4A(4) the Bill requires certain provisions of the Act not to apply in respect of provisional registration. We agree that some of these provisions should not apply, but in regard to certain others we believe there is good reason that they should be so accepted or excluded. The effect of this amendment is actually to ensure that certain sections which the Bill before us seeks to exclude, should in fact be applicable.

I would like to go through each of these exceptions one at a time and give reasons as to why we consider they should or should not remain in the clause.

Starting off with subsections (2) and (3), should these provisions of the Act not be applied in this instance? They deal with procedures and objections to the registration of employers’ organizations and trade unions, and in this respect we agree with the hon. the Minister that these provisions should remain in the clause. In regard to the proviso to subsection (6) of section 4, we believe that this provision should be deleted from this proposed section. The provision deals with the fact that no trade unions may be registered under this section. The relevant words in the proviso to section 4(6) are—

This is one of the rare exceptions where a union can, by ministerial discretion, be open to both White and Coloured. As I have said, the Act in fact provides that there shall be no mixed unions, but minor powers of discretion are given to the Minister by this proviso. Therefore, to exclude this proviso will mean that the hon. the Minister will have no such discretion any longer in the case of provisional registration. It will mean that in no circumstances at all can a mixed union be provisionally registered. I really cannot see why the hon. the Minister should not allow himself the same discretion for provisional registration as he gives himself for the final registration of a union. I think that he will probably agree with me on that.

We believe that section 7 should also be deleted from this proposed section. Section 7 is headed “Variation of scope of registration of trade union or employers organization”. We believe that this section should apply because there appears to be no good reason why it should not. I cannot understand why it is being excluded, and I must ask the hon. the Minister to give his reasons for doing that. We believe that section 16, too, should be deleted. This section deals with “appeals from decision of the registrar”, and again we can see no good reason why appeal should not be allowed and why the appeal procedure should not be adhered to. We feel that these provisions should apply. I realize that this is a provisional registration, but I do think that one has to carry this right through from provisional registration onwards. We would agree with the hon. the Minister that sections 18 and 19 should remain in the amendment Section 18 deals with the formation of industrial councils and section 19 with the registration of industrial councils.

We believe, however, that section 35 should be omitted from the amendment. The provisions contained in section 35 deal with the establishment of a conciliation board. I do not know why the hon. the Minister does not feel that a conciliation board should deal with matters when it comes to provisional registration. There is no reason why it should not, and we think that he can probably leave that provision in.

In regard to section 78(1A) we believe there is no reason at all why it should not stay, and therefore we agree with the hon. the Minister in so far as this section is concerned. We believe that this provision should not apply at the stage of provisional registration. The effect of the amendment is to retain “subsections (2) and (3)” and to delete “the proviso to subsection (6) of section 4” as well as “sections 7, 16”, to retain “18, 19”, to delete “35” and to retain “78(1A)”.

My fourth amendment has to do with the proposed new section 4B, and I now move—

We do not believe that this proposed new section should be accepted by the House at all. It places the onus on trade unions to find out first whether their members have section 10 rights or not. We see this as an extraordinary onus to put on them. It forbids anybody, unless he has section 10 rights or is by special concession of the Minister allowed to do so, to become a trade union member. It forbids anybody who does not have section 10 rights to become a trade union member. It appears to us that the onus rests on the union to check on members’ membership in order to see whether they have section 10 rights.

Firstly, we disagree in principle with the idea that only people who have section 10 rights should be allowed to become members of a trade union. This is a very important and very cardinal aspect of our argument on this clause. Secondly, we do believe it is unreasonable that a union should look into member’s section 10 rights. When one goes into this situation one notices that it is a rather extraordinary one in that we have, working side by side in the same factory or industry, workers who are registered and workers who cannot be registered, some who can be union members and others who cannot be union members. It is going to be very difficult for any union to assess whether anybody has section 10 rights or not. I know the hon. the Minister will not go all the way with us in our attitude to the principle of the clause. However, I would ask him to think of some devise at least so that he will not have to prosecute a trade union that contravenes this particular stipulation. I really cannot see in practice how a trade union will be able to carry out the requirements of this Bill.

I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reactions to this.

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

1. (1) On page 10, in lines 16 to 24, to omit subsection (3) and to substitute:
   1. (3) If the registrar is of opinion that a trade union or employers’ organization contemplated in this section has not complied with any of the conditions imposed in terms of subsection (1) or any provision of this Act applicable to such union or organization, the registrar may, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, at any time after three months’ notice to such union or organization to comply with the conditions referred to, withdraw the registration of such union or organization if it fails so to comply.
2. (2) on page 10, in line 40, to omit all the words after “exceeding” up to and including “exists” in line 42 and to substitute “fifty rand”.

I want to state that we in the NRP believe that the proposed new subsection 4A(3) is completely unfair. If a trade union, after receiving provisional registration, is found to have contravened a particular legal stipulation or regulation, the Registrar may cancel its membership without giving any reason why. We believe that is totally unjustified and unfair. The least that should happen, we believe, is that the Registrar should tell the trade union concerned why its registration is being withdrawn.

Better than that, better than furnishing the minimum information about why registration is withdrawn, we believe it is essential that the trade union concerned should be given the opportunity of rectifying that aspect which is not acceptable to the Registrar. We also believe that before any withdrawal should take place, it is essential that the trade union concerned should be given adequate notice of the fact that its registration is going to be withdrawn.

Therefore, in terms of this particular amendment I have moved indicates, we believe that three months’ notice should be given, and that by implication of the wording of the amending clause, the trade union could or must be provided with reasons if asked to do so. Furthermore, this will give the trade unions concerned the opportunity of rectifying the problem and of complying properly with registration requirements.

There is the second aspect, relating to the fine of R500 if a trade union willingly, inadvertently or accidentally happens to employ somebody that does not fit the definition. I believe it is not only totally unfair, but is also likely to cause extreme hardship to many of the trade unions to which the hon. member for Orange Grove referred to. The onus is now on them to determine whether an employee qualifies for section 10 rights. It is going to be so easy to become a defaulter in terms of this clause that we believe that a fine of R500 is totally excessive. While it is essential to have a penalty to discourage people from taking on members who are obviously not qualified to become members, we should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he seriously considers reducing that amount to R50, as my amendment requires, and not to insist on the R500, which is totally unrealistic and disproportional to the frequency with which this regulation is going to be contravened. I think the hon. the Minister will find in practice that there are many cases of this type of contravention particularly during the first two years. Therefore I believe it is only fair that file amount be reduced to R50.

Mr. Chairman, the circumstances under which a trade union or an employers’ organization may be registered provisionally are that the Registrar tells such organization that it may be registered on certain conditions and when a certain period of time has elapsed. The wording of clause 4 makes it quite clear that the provisional registration can be withdrawn only by reason of failure to comply with the conditions or the provisions of the legislation. Surely that is clear. In other words, it is not necessary to furnish any reasons for the withdrawal of provisional registration, because it can only be done for two reasons. These are, firstly, when the conditions have not been complied with and, secondly, when the provisions of the Act have not been observed.

We want to know why.

Surely it is simple. The applicant tells the Registrar that he would like to register a trade union. The Registrar then informs him of the conditions and the provisions of the Act he has to comply with. Therefore he ought to know what conditions he has not complied with. Then it is for him to go to the Registrar and to tell him that he is having certain problems and that he wants to solve them. If the registration lapses because he has not complied with the conditions, because the specified period has expired or because he has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act, he can try to register again the next day or the day after, as is the case with the registration of a company and a deed. Therefore this should not present any problems.

In the second place, the hon. member for Orange Grove argues that certain sections of the Act should be made applicable to provisional registrations. He mentioned the various provisions. One of them concerns the question of appeal. Surely it is a waste of time to have a right of appeal in respect of a provisional registration, which has been granted subject to certain conditions and for a certain period. Surely this is futile. Then one should rather produce one’s amended registration documents or try to convince the Registrar across the table of one’s problems and to have the matter out with him. After all, to lodge an appeal is a lengthy and expensive process.

The hon. member for Orange Grove conceded that a trade union or employers’ organization which has been provisionally registered cannot establish an industrial council. He says that they should establish a conciliation board. Where is the logic of that? Rather allow that organization to attain maturity first and to be finally registered. Then, after all, it can proceed with its activities like a properly registered organization. Rather allow it to grow up first. The same applies to the other essential provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act which should not be applicable to such a company.

The hon. member’s amendment proposes the deletion of the proposed section 4B in its entirety. This proposed section provides that only an employee may become a member of a trade union. I do not know why the hon. member wishes anyone else to become a member of a trade union. Surely it is obvious that it must be an employee, or does the hon. member want to give outsiders the right to become members of trade unions too? Does he want agitators and people of that kind, who have no trade union rights, to be brought into trade unions by the back door? Surely that is the whole ulterior motive of the hon. member’s amendment.

As far as the question of penalties is concerned, the hon. member for Durban North speaks of accidental or wilful contravention. But he should take note of the fact that R500 is the maximum penalty. Under certain circumstances, the offence may be of a serious nature. In other cases, there may be extenuating circumstances. The position is not that if you commit an offence unwittingly, you will still be fined the full R500. Surely the hon. member does not think that this will be the position. The point is that under certain circumstances, it may be a major offence, and in other cases merely an accident. It will be for the court to decide, and when it is a serious offence, a heavy penalty must be imposed. When it is a minor offence, however, the court will in its discretion impose a lighter penalty. I do not think it would serve any purpose to reduce this penalty. For those reasons I cannot support the amendments moved by the hon. members for Orange Grove and Durban North.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan has reacted in full to the amendments moved by the hon. members for Orange Grove and Parktown, so I shall make no further reference to them.

I now move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 10, in lines 34 and 35, to omit “or have any relationship with”;
2. (2) on page 10, in lines 41 and 42, to omit “or in respect of whom a relationship exists”.

The proposed section 4B(1) reads as follows—

It is not clear why reference is made to the concept of “relationship”. The explanatory memorandum made available to hon. members along with the Bill does not give any indication either of what is intended by this concept. The White Paper on the commission’s report deals on page 14 with the commission’s recommendation about the works and liaison committees and says that the recommendations of the commission mean that works and liaison committees should be involved in a unitary system in the whole labour set-up. While the works and liaison committees are indeed entitled at this stage to admit people who do not qualify as employees in terms of the definition contained in clause 1 of the Bill, retention of the words which I seek to have deleted would make it impossible to bring about liaison between the registered trade unions and these committees. I therefore think that my amendment is a meaningful proposal. The second amendment is merely a consequential one and relates to the penalty provision.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support wholeheartedly the amendment moved by the hon. member for Randburg. I assume that the hon. the Minister will accept it. I shall not say much about this matter. However, there are a few thoughts I want to add to what the hon. member has said. The point has been made strongly on previous occasions that a two-tier structure is most desirable for sound industrial relations in any economy. This two-tier structure takes the form of a works board or whatever it is called, or the level of the individual enterprise, and the trade union employers’ organization relationship on the industrial level, and it appears to be the best, the ideal system for protecting the liberties one would like to protect. It is worth pointing to the example of West Germany in this connection. Of course, I agree with everyone who says that one country’s industrial relations system cannot simply be exported unchanged to another country, but in spite of that, there are lessons we can learn from one another. The West German system was built up from scratch after the Second World War. Of course, they had the advantage of having experience of the systems of other countries, and their system is one of the soundest and most successful in the world. In West Germany the law does not allow closed shop agreements, and in practice only about half the workers in the industries and factories are members of trade unions. Therefore some employees are members of trade unions and some are not As the hon. member rightly said, those workers, members and non-members of trade unions, meet on the works boards and co-operate in a very constructive and healthy way. The way the provision reads at the moment, it is one of the most dangerous provisions in the Bill and one to which we object most strongly. Therefore I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin with the last speaker. I agree with him about the general principle that the double structure which exists at the moment should become a single structure in the future so that there may be room in South Africa for all workers’ associations on the shop-floor. This is in fact the direction in which we are moving, for at the moment it is true that White organizations, too, are being established spontaneously on the shop-floor because there is a need for them. In fact, I am reproached by my own people for giving the Blacks an instrument which they do not have.

We also get those reproaches.

That is the direction in which we are moving.

I shall accept the amendment of the hon. member for Randburg. I just want to add that circumstances may arise where services in respect of pension and funeral benefits, etc., which a trade union provides for its members, can no longer be provided after the retirement of a member. For that reason I want to tell the hon. member that by means of this amendment we are making it possible for those ties to be preserved in the future. As far as that is concerned, therefore, I am quite satisfied.

I want to say that the hon. member for Brakpan advanced a good argument with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove. In view of the lateness of the hour I shall not repeat the arguments advanced here. I shall only say that I accept the amendment by the hon. member for Randburg. I agree with the hon. member for Parktown about the need for the double structure to become a single one.

Of the amendments that have been moved, the amendment of the hon. member for Randburg is the one I accept.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to my third amendment which the hon. the Minister said he felt had been answered adequately by the hon. member for Brakpan. I cannot agree for example, with what was said about subsection (6) which has to do with the proviso in respect of the registration of unions that, should there be a mixed union, the Minister has certain minor powers to allow that registration to go ahead. I do believe that he should have the same powers when it comes to the provisional registration of a union that he already has when it comes to the registration of a union. A situation may exist where in an industry there are so few members of any one race group that it is sensible and intelligent to create one union. At present in terms of the Act the hon. the Minister has the power to allow that mixed union to be registered. We believe that the same thing should apply in the case of provisional registration. We should like to see him retain that power, and purely by the deletion of subsection 4(6) he will allow himself the discretion that he has at the present in relation to provisional registration.

The hon. member for Brakpan also said he regarded it as being rather strange that I should accept that it was not necessary to have the clauses relating to the formation of industrial councils. He found it rather strange that I should then call for the conciliation board machinery to remain. Conciliation boards are only called upon in a time of need and in times of dispute. Certainly, when a new union is in operation and before one gets an industrial council going, the situation might well arise that a conciliation board is needed when a dispute arises. Therefore, at this stage of provisional registration we believe that the conciliation board operation should be allowed to continue.

Finally, on the question of the right of appeal, which was also answered by the hon. member for Brakpan, we hold very strongly that it is necessary to have that right of appeal even at this stage. The hon. member said that it is a time-consuming operation and that it is an expensive operation. All this we agree with. Nevertheless, we believe that there should be a right of appeal. This right of appeal is a very basic thing and it is a very necessary thing. We believe that, by precluding that right of appeal, the hon. the Minister is making a mistake. Consequently we should like to proceed with our amendment.

I must say that I was encouraged by the hon. the Minister’s tone when he replied to the attitude expressed by the hon. member for Parktown and myself on the whole question of the desirability or otherwise of a two-system operation in the same work area. When the hon. the Minister talked in that direction, I was encouraged. Unfortunately the Bill before us does not say that and, again, we have to rely on the hon. the Minister’s good offices when he says this.

Mr. Chairman, the subject which the hon. member mentioned in his concluding remarks is actually a part of my philosophy which he got from me in this House. But let us leave it at that.

I just want to make a remark about the third amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove. However, I do not want us to debate this matter at length. Allow me just to reply briefly to what he said. The reason why the provisions concerned will not be applicable to provisional registration is precisely because we want associations to get their final registration sooner. The fact is that one is concerned here with a situation which one hopes will take a certain course, while one is not always sure that this will in fact be the case. I want to concede that Although it may sound logical now that if one applies a principle in one case, one must apply that principle in another case, as well, I want to say that this in fact refers to cases of provisional registration. I regret that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment, but if we meet here again and I was wrong, I shall admit that I was wrong.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. R. B. Miller negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendments (3) and (4) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. W. C. Malan (Randburg) agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. R. B. Miller negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. W. C. Malan (Randburg) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, here we are back at one of the main principles of the Bill. It is a principle about which we had a great deal to say during the Second Reading, as well as during the discussion earlier this afternoon when we dealt with clause 3. It is therefore unnecessary to take up much of the House’s time. The effect of this Bill is once more to subject the new trade union members too, who will be Black people, to a racial apartheid structure which is to be imposed upon the trade union members from without. It deprives them of the freedom to organize as they wish. From the point of view of the employer and the Government this creates the real danger that competition and friction can arise among the various trade unions which are organized on a racial basis within the same enterprise, and that a great deal of unrest could arise from that. As I have said on various occasions during this debate, the arguments appear in the Report of the Commission, for those who are interested in them. Not only are we retaining something which was already wrong in the past, but we are also extending its effect to other people. Therefore it is impossible for us to support this clause. If the clause is not accepted, I should like to move certain amendments. However, I shall not do so at this stage.

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

I just want to point out very briefly that as far as the ideological approach of the official Opposition is concerned, we are unable to reach an understanding on this point. I am here creating the machinery and possibilities to restructure existing trade unions, and to structure new ones which may arise, in a different way. This has become essential in our present circumstances, and therefore I move this amendment. I can also envisage that if we should again experience an upswing in the economy, as all of us believe, restructuring will also be necessary in regard to the composition of workers within industries. I concluded my speech on a previous occasion today by saying that the Opposition should not be under the impression that we are making the mistake of thinking that all people of colour are potential enemies. An interesting fact which I discovered by means of inquiries, is that there is an enormous fund of goodwill among the various groups in the present mixed trade unions under White control, in spite of the fact that this is seen as a discriminatory system. It is on record in the department that not one of these trade unions has ever caused any real problem over the years as far as labour unrest is concerned. Perhaps we can learn a lesson from that.

I want to repeat what the hon. the Minister said, viz. that he envisages a system in South Africa, resulting from this labour legislation, in terms of which it will be possible to still the fears of various groups of people. It is certainly the intention of the Government to create such a climate and to channel the large fund of goodwill which does exist among people of the various groups into a constructive production. That is what this rich and beautiful country, South Africa, needs in order to create a better dispensation for all its peoples. Development brings about contentment and satisfaction, and consequently peace.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to try to avoid any further misunderstanding between the hon. member for Sasolburg and myself. I want to make it absolutely clear that we regard the amendment he has just moved as an improvement to the clause as it stands. We therefore support his amendment, but we shall none the less vote firmly against the clause for the reasons which I have stated earlier. I do, however, hope that the hon. member has got our standpoint straight this time.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—95: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; Delport, W. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, J. H. Hoon, H. D. K. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe, P. J. van B. Viljoen and A. J. Vlok.

NOES—18: Basson, J. D. du P.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. B. Widman.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

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

The effect of this clause appears to be that the limited rights the hon. the Minister has to allow multiracial unions, is further restricted. We have made it clear all along not merely that we believe along with the commission that there has to be a right of the unions to decide for themselves what their structure will be, but also that we believe that there are important benefits that flow from the integration in any industry of as wide a section as possible of the workers being together in the same organization, and that those benefits are by no means confined to the workers alone, but indeed extend to the employers. They make for stability in bargaining and extend to the industry as a whole and therefore also to the State. It is for this reason that we have moved this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the provisions of clause 6(a), to which the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown refers, only seeks to provide for the registration of Black workers in the present set-up and at the same time, to maintain the status quo. If the amendment which is now being moved is accepted, it will mean that we shall have a dualistic system in respect of Black workers, with regard to existing trade unions, as against new trade unions which have to be established. I therefore think it is clear that such an amendment is not acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the discriminatory provision in the amendment I am unable to accept it.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.